The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Progressives Love Science, But Don’t Know Any–the Case of the “Dark-Skinned” Prehistoric Briton
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
cheddar-626x372

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s a science story from the Old Country.

Britain’s main Progressive and anti-white newspaper over there, The Guardian, reported with much glee on February 7th that the remote ancestors of the British people had dark skin. Take that, white supremacists!

This finding comes from recent advances in our understanding of DNA. By scrutinizing a person’s DNA closely enough, we can now tell fine details of his appearance, and even do a fair-probability reconstruction of his face. These techniques have been applied to Cheddar Man, a complete human skeleton unearthed in 1903 in Southwest England.

Cheddar Man lived about nine thousand years ago, which makes his people one of the earliest to return to Britain after the ice sheets melted at the end of the last glaciation. Around ten percent of modern English people are known to be descended from his group, quite possibly including your humble correspondent.

Scientists have just finished compiling a complete genome for Cheddar Man. It tells us he had blue eyes, dark skin and dark curly hair, and was lactose intolerant.

This will make great propaganda for the anti-white crowd, but it’s nothing surprising to those of us who’d read Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending’s 2009 book The 10,000 Year Explosion.

In Chapter Three of that book, Greg and Henry (who is alas no longer with us) argue that the switch from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture led to vitamin D deficiency, since fresh meat has more vitamin D than cereals. Ultraviolet rays in sunlight, acting on human skin, generate vitamin D; more when the skin is lighter. Sure, too much ultraviolet will give you skin cancer; but in high latitudes like Britain’s, too much sunlight is not a problem.

So after the switch to agriculture, which in Britain took place six thousand years ago, long after Cheddar Man was chasing reindeer round the tundra, light skin would have had health benefits. Natural selection took care of the rest. From Cochran and Harpending:

Several of the major mutations causing light skin color appear to have originated after the birth of agriculture.

That’s from a book published nine years ago; so this news about Cheddar Man is not sensational.

The Progressives are jumping all over it anyway. The Race and Gender columnist for the Toronto Star — yes, that is apparently an actual job, with a desk and a salary — this columnist, a person named Shree Paradkar, [right, Email her]could barely contain himself, herself, or itself. The news is, says he, she, or it, quote “worthy of chuckles and cackles,” end quote. The headline on this column is How Cheddar Man shatters accepted views of immigration. Uh … okay.

One of the hardest things about debating race denialists is their fixation on skin color. “It’s an insignificant thing!” they say, as if they’ve just discovered the Law of Gravity. “Inconsequential!” Which is kind of true. It’s a marker of race, but one of many, and not essential in any classification. There are albino Africans with dead-white skin.

Race is deep ancestry. You’re more closely related genetically to some groups than to others. There are some handy external markers like skin color and hair texture, but they don’t do anything. What does stuff is the entire genome. By analyzing the entire genome you can predict a person’s self-reported race with north of 99 percent accuracy — way better than you’d get from just looking at them.

ORDER IT NOW

And to speak of immigration in the context of nine thousand years ago is absurd. Immigration concerns nation-states and their laws, neither of which existed in 7000 b.c. You might as well speculate about a criminal prosecution for the guy who killed Cheddar Man by knocking a hole in his skull.

Progressives know nothing. They are ignorant and stupid. They know nothing about science and can talk in no terms other than those of early twenty-first century social obsessions. Progressives are idiots.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: Ancient DNA 
Hide 116 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Even if we assume that Cheddar man was dark skinned, this doesn’t “prove” that early Britons were dark skinned any more than finding a book in English in Japan “proves” that Japanese people are English speakers.

    Cheddar man could have been a traveller, slave or an outlier like an albino is today. Red Ice does a great takedown of it.

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @ogunsiron
  2. Progressives know nothing. They are ignorant and stupid. They know nothing about science and can talk in no terms other than those of early twenty-first century social obsessions. Progressives are idiots.

    Yes, yes, we know … some of us have been to college. I hope this is not something you just now figured out, Mr. Derbyshire. ;-}

    Nice short post there, and you’ve got me headed to the library web site next to see if I can check out The 10,000 Year Explosion. I kind of like that type of anthropology stuff now. It makes me want to go to museums and stuff. Oh, I listened to your ~ 10 minutes of opera included on your VDare blog-post regarding “the cultural appropriation”. It just didn’t click with me, and not because the lady was Korean or couldn’t sing well. Though I could see the effect on Cher and Nicholas Cage in Moonstruck, opera just never has clicked with me. To each his own, and maybe I will have to rent some kind of clothes to go to the Met next time we’re in NYC.

    I never saw the need for those conductors, either. Can’t those musicians keep time on their own?

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @Twodees Partain
  3. There are some fantastic memes going around with this. How does one post images here?

  4. Jason Liu says:

    From the article:

    Anti-Black racism is so widespread and global in scope, that I wish scientists would hurry up and create a bust out of the fossils of the 750,000-year old Peking Man, for instance, and in keeping with the Out of Africa theory, definitively establish Blackness as the root ancestry of Chinese people.

    Such knowledge might have given the Hubei Provincial Museum in Wuhan pause before it displayed a photography exhibit that juxtaposed wild African animals with Black African people.

    I wish they were able create a bust that would depict an original “Indian Man,” one who existed before the Aryans and Dravidians did 5,000 years ago, as black-skinned — darker the better. Such knowledge might inject a modicum of humility before privileged Indians wreak racist violence on African students and caste-related violence on Dalits.

    This is why liberal democracy is an attack on all of humanity, not just whites. It’s why I oppose egalitarianism in countries I’ve never been to, even if they hate Chinese people. Leftism is the bigger enemy.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Realist 2018
  5. dearieme says:

    That bastion of careful, disinterested science reporting, the Beeb, managed at least a couple of qualifications. “They found the Stone Age Briton had dark hair – with a small probability that it was curlier than average – blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone.”

    Presumably someone who knows more about DNA than I do might express another few qualifications.

    Anyway, now that The Left loves ancient DNA, thank God it will stop pretending that the Ancient Egyptians were negroes.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  6. Randal says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    I think the point is that early Britons were most likely dark skinned because prior to the shift to agriculture all humans (bar a few albinos) were probably dark-skinned. Certainly it seems uncontroversial that at some point in the past all humans were dark skinned and lighter skin is a later adaptation. But if dark skinned people were the ancestors of light skinned Brits today, those same dark skinned people certainly weren’t the ancestors of any Africans or Asians today. They either evolved lighter skin themselves or interbred with other groups which had already done so.

    What it says nothing about is immigration or even racial issues today, involving races which have had thousands of years of evolving separately, in different directions in response to different environments, since Cheddar Man strode the earth.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  7. Randal says:

    OT but highly amusing imo:

    Professor cancels hate speech course after students object to use of racial slur

    Rosen asked the class: “Which is more provocative: a white man walks up to a black man and punches him in the nose, or a white man walks up to a black man and calls him [the racial slur]?”

    Rosen refused a demand from several students to apologise and argued with at least one student. Two students later filed a complaint with school officials.

    Let me count the ways in which this is hilarious:

    1 It’s comically pathetic that students should be so incapable of dealing with a mere word (which I suppose we must presume was “nigger”, since the Guardian was too pathetically politically correct even to print the word in a story in which the word was a vital component) that they would walk out of a lecture they (or someone on their behalf) has paid for;

    2 As a society we are so pathetically politically correct that mainstream publications like the Guardian (and they are certainly not the only ones to be so pathetic – probably most mainstream media outlets are these days) are too scared even to print it in a story in which it is a vital component;

    3 As a result of the aforementioned patheticness, we are to be denied a leftist political correctness indoctrination course in “cultural freedoms and hate speech” – a net gain for society at the expense of the politically correct left;

    4 It’s hilarious to read all the university authorities prancing around like a bunch of ineffectual effeminates trying to defend their professor while making it clear that they themselves of course adhere to proper politically correct horror at the use of such a “difficult” word. Not a chance of any of them just saying it like it is: these students need to be slapped (either figuratively or perhaps in the original sense of the term when that was how you were expected to make hysterics get a grip on themselves) and told to pull themselves together, grow up, and shape up or ship out;

    5 It’s a course taught by a jewish professor, caught out by the very same politically correct censorship that jews have been so eager to impose on society themselves in respect of their own issues – “holocaust denial” and “anti-Semitism”. Hoist by his own identity lobby group’s petard. It would have been equally amusing if it were a black or muslim professor, or one who chooses to engage in homosexual activity, since those lobby groups are just as bad, if not always as effective.

    I’m sure there are more, but that’ll do for now.

    As a society, it’s another illustration of why it is stupid to encourage people to obsess about “offensive” terms rather than just being grownups and adopting the time honoured human approach taught to children to deal with such stuff – “sticks and stones etc” and a bit of self discipline.

    As for whether these students were indeed the hysterics their actions make them appear to be, or their motivation was more sinister – abusing claimed “offence” cynically to try to gain status and exercise power, there’s really no way to know without knowing them individually. Both are widespread in the societies of the modern US sphere. It’s still funny anyway, of course.

  8. MEH 0910 says:
    @dearieme

    Presumably someone who knows more about DNA than I do might express another few qualifications.

    Razib Khan : The genome of “Cheddar Man” is about to be published

    • Replies: @dearieme
  9. Old fogey says:
    @Randal

    It’s rather amazing that no one ever taught these college-age students that sticks and stones may break their bones but names will never hurt them. More proof of the decline of Western civilization.

    • Replies: @Randal
    , @Kratoklastes
  10. VICB3 says:

    Cruise around the web and look at the picture of the Cheddar Man bust on various websites. It’s worth noting that on some sites – BBC for example – he appears far lighter complexioned than on others. You’re left with the conclusion that, like the famous O.J. Simpson photo on a magazine cover, this photo was darkened up a bit to reinforce, in this case, the whole Black Briton settler narrative. In normal lighting, the skin tone, face and eyes reminds you of the famous Afghan Girl on the NatGeo cover, and she’s hardly the African Black type the pundits want you to associate with the bust.

    Additionally, by the Researchers’ own admissions, the DNA sample was incomplete, and they had to “coax” the sample to get “a result.” Read here “a pleasing result” if you wish, while asking at the same time if these same results are reproducible by independent labs, or instead the results of political correctness, fraud and whimsy. There’s a precedent for that as well in English Anthropology. One need only read up on the Piltdown Man to realize that pride, fame and money are powerful inducements to produce a per-determined result, and with the “Established Science” to be revealed as a fraud only grudgingly decades later

    Finally, consider that Britain had different waves of settlers coming in, variously pushing out and/or mixing with the previous occupants. In this case, might the Cheddar Man be a Pict? Time and again, they are described as being “short” and “dark,” and supposedly they were pushed to the fringes of Britain where they disappeared.

    (Elsewhere it was noted that Conan from the R.E. Howard books is described as being dark-skinned with black hair and blue eyes. In other words, a typical Cimmerian. OK, I can work with that.)

    All the above highlight a few counterpoints to the hoopla about both the research and the bust. Hopefully, they add to the discussion.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

  11. Sean says:

    But the major mutations causing light skin color originated long before agriculture reached the people.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-how-europeans-quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/

    Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.

    Long before any agriculture, Swedish hunter gatherers had them all.
    The Cheddar man eyes are thought to be actually sort of light grey, not a standard blue. He had extremely light coloured eyes. People , usually women, wear light coloured contact lens because an unusually bright colour is attractive. They also colour their hair. And today young white women with bleached hair often have very deep all over tans.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3557782/How-men-spread-globe-DNA-analysis-reveals-populations-began-explode-55-000-years-ago.html
    Half of all Western European men are descendants of a Bronze Age ‘king’ who lived 4,000 years ago… a tiny number of elite males were controlling reproduction and dominating the population

    The first population in which everyone had white skin (SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and HERC2/OCA2 lightening mutations) suddenly appeared in North Europe after the Yamnaya /Indo Europeans/ Corded people conquered it. White skin must have been necessary for survival, and the obvious way it could work is by eliciting care and provisioning of a female by a high status Yamnaya male in a very hierarchical and patriarchal society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0

  12. Around ten percent of modern English people are known to be descended from his group,

    Is Derbyshire’s understanding here correct? I had thought the 10% means today’s white Britons derive about 10% of their genes/ancestry (on average) from those hunter-gatherers (with the majority of their ancestry being traced back to later arrivals, that is the neolithic farmers from the Near East and the Indo-Europeans who came from the steppe), so that this hunter-gatherer ancestry would be present in almost all white Britons, not just 10% of them.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  13. Randal says:
    @Old fogey

    rather amazing that no one ever taught these college-age students that sticks and stones may break their bones but names will never hurt them

    It’s worse than that – people these days are indoctrinated in the direct opposite response. Sticks and stones teaches us to respond to distress or offence caused by others’ words by repressing and dismissing any distress in ourselves and suppressing any natural, basically childish urges towards a violent or emotional response, and instead responding rationally. In other words the healthy, civilised and constructive response.

    People today are actively indoctrinated in the idea that self control is actively bad, and that childish emotional feelings and urges, far from being suppressed, should positively be indulged and obsessed over, even rewarded, in ourselves and in others. Of course, in the case of violent responses especially that only applies to special victim classes such as blacks exposed to (horrors!) “racist” language, jews to “anti-Semitic”, homos to “homophobic”, lefties to “fascist” etc. The rest of us are supposed to indulge our emotional responses only where it doesn’t threaten lefty liberalism.

    The results in society are evident.

    More proof of the decline of Western civilization.

    Definitely.

  14. Tiny Duck says:

    Moot point

    All of your descendants will not look like you and will be People of Color

    white characteristics (diverse eyes, diverse hair, pale skin, etc….) are mutations and have no place in a just and equal world

    • Replies: @fish
  15. Progressives are just liberals who had to change their name because Rush Limbaugh. They don’t lack native intelligence. They just refuse to use it. Liberals have only recently abandoned the Enlightenment placing themselves at the cutting edge of modernity. They are like zombies except that zombies neither think nor feel while liberals are full of anger and fear. Take care that you are not bitten Derb.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  16. dearieme says:
    @MEH 0910

    Thanks. He opines “A deeper analysis of the pigmentation architecture of WHG might lead us to conclude that they were an olive or light brown-skinned people. This is my suspicion because modern Arctic peoples are neither pale white nor dark brown, but of various shades of olive.”

    WHG = Western Hunter Gatherer, a mob of whom Cheddar Man is assumed to be a member.

  17. dearieme says:
    @VICB3

    “might the Cheddar Man be a Pict? Time and again, they are described as being “short” and “dark,” and supposedly they were pushed to the fringes of Britain where they disappeared.”

    And yet their last redoubt, the eastern side of Northern Scotland, enters history with a population noted for being tall, with hair that was often light brown or red.

    Little dark buggers are common in parts of the West Highlands and Islands and are often assumed to be descended from the original “Scots” i.e. Irish pirates. You also find LDBs in Wales.

  18. I wondered whether John would pick up on this ludicrous story. Glad he did and if I may use a cricket metaphor, dispatched it over the mid-wicket boundary for six.

  19. @WorkingClass

    Progressives are just liberals who had to change their name because Rush Limbaugh.

    Balderdash. They were active a century ago, seizing our liquor, taxing our income, and sterilizing (forcibly) those less glib than they.

    There’s nothing liberal about a progressive. One is about tolerance, the other, intolerance.

  20. Svigor says:

    Haha. Leftists love “science” the same way they love blacks; from afar.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  21. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If original Britons were black but if they were invaded and taken over by light-skinned people from other parts of Europe, isn’t that an argument AGAINST immigration?

    Arrival of OTHER Europeans wiped out black Britons.

    Btw, are Hindus considered black in Briton? Cheddar man looks more Hindu than African. And his curly hair isn’t nappy. Jews have curly hair. Arabs have curly hair. They are not black and their hair isn’t nappy.

    • Replies: @Anon
  22. Svigor says:

    Britain’s main Progressive and anti-white newspaper over there, The Guardian, reported with much glee on February 7th that the remote ancestors of the British people had dark skin. Take that, white supremacists!

    (Stipulating it’s true for the purposes of argument)

    …and then evolved in to White people, then did all the great stuff (see history for details).

    Leftists are dumb. Never understood this “Whites evolved from eukaryotes/blacks/whatever ergo *something*” thing from them.

    Should the missing link be spiking the ball in the end zone somewhere, because YT evolved from him? Because blacks did? Should eukaryotes?

    We share a bunch of our DNA with bananas FFS.

    The news is, says he, she, or it, quote “worthy of chuckles and cackles,” end quote.

    If you’re a lowbrow WOG, I guess it is.

    One of the hardest things about debating race denialists is their fixation on skin color. “It’s an insignificant thing!” they say, as if they’ve just discovered the Law of Gravity. “Inconsequential!” Which is kind of true. It’s a marker of race, but one of many, and not essential in any classification. There are albino Africans with dead-white skin.

    You’re giving short shrift to leftist stupidity, here. Let’s review:

    Leftists: race is nothing but skin color.
    Rightists: we disagree. There’s a lot more to race than skin color.
    Leftists: (ignoring the rightist response). Skin color is insignificant. Ergo, race is insignificant! We win, we win, we win!
    Rightists: my God, you’re an idiot.

  23. Svigor says:

    Even “skin color is insignificant” is stupid. Anyone who knows his Social Identity Theory and the like knows how stupid it is. People will start sorting over the color of the armbands they’re told to wear during social experiments. Of course, that’s precisely the point of leftists’ race obscurantism; like their attempts to erase religion so they can wear its skin like a suit, they want to move race and ancestry out of the way so they can blues/greens (Constantinople) us into whatever phony arbitrary tribes they wish.

    It’s all just leftist indoctrination, designed to make us good cattle for the oligarchs.

  24. Svigor says:

    You’re giving short shrift to leftist stupidity, here. Let’s review:

    Leftists: race is nothing but skin color.
    Rightists: we disagree. There’s a lot more to race than skin color.
    Leftists: (ignoring the rightist response). Skin color is insignificant. Ergo, race is insignificant! We win, we win, we win!
    Rightists: my God, you’re an idiot.

    Hell, I’m giving short shrift to leftist stupidity. Typical leftist Tweet in response to thoughtful ethnopatriotism: “Why are you people such idiots? Why do you insist on making such a big deal about skin color?”

    It’s not just that they conflate race and skin color; it’s that they constantly attribute that stupidity to rightists.

  25. Iberiano says:

    If you read the article by Shree Paradkar, and you have lived around S. American (White) Hispanic or Persian immigrants in the US, you understand how to translate it correctly: He/She enjoyed being “white” in a nation where being white was valued (see her first sentence, which is actually revealing), but upon moving to a nation of “real” whites (even higher value/IQ whites), one learns to identify with the “people of color”, and change strategies to enjoy affirmative action, the cultural benefits of being a victim/POC, all while maintaining the original “uppity” attitude you had when you were in your native country.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/30/i-was-white-until-i-came-to-canada-paradkar.html

    No one enrages “white” Indians, Persians, Hispanics (and sometimes Arabs) more than Whites from European ancestry. They move to European or Euro-American lands and all the sudden, they aren’t that special, and their “people” whose accomplishments in India or Chile or ancient Persia may mean something, be interesting, or historically significant–all the sudden PALE in comparison to Anglo-Celtic-Germanic accomplishments and culture. It bothers them SO MUCH !

  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    If change to agriculture led to whiter skin, why wasn’t it the case with Hindus? Hindus got to doing agriculture for 1000s of yrs. But their skin remained dark.

    But then, why did many Ancient Egyptians and Libyans develop lighter skin?

    Also, does it make sense to base today’s national policy on what may have been 10,000 yrs ago?

    Japanese are mostly descendants of Mongoloid people who invaded the Ainus. So, what does that mean? Japan should now allow limitless immigration from China and maybe the rest of the world?

    The fact is any part of the world had been invaded ceaselessly until an order finally emerged that could defend the domain from further invasions and disruptions(that are always bound to be traumatic). And that’s how civilizations developed. Invasions and pillages ceased and a stable order was given space to develop from ground up. If a land is constantly invaded and taken over by others, there won’t be any stability, and then, nothing can develop. If barbarian invasions of Rome had never ceased, there never would have been the rise of new city states and Italy.

    Granted, invasions can sometimes introduce new ideas that may spark progress and advancement — like Western invasions of Africa, Arabia, and Asia led to great changes — , but a nation doesn’t have control over its own destiny unless it can control and defend its borders. This goes for both poor/weak nations and rich/advanced nations. If poor/weak ‘nations’ cannot defend themselves, they will be colonized by imperialists.. like what happened to Algeria and Vietnam. Powerful seek to gain dominance over the weak. But rich/advanced nations are also vulnerable to invasion because humans are organisms. Organisms want to move to where the grass is green. Just like sheep wanna go where the grass is(and wolves want to go where the game is), people want to go where the gibs are. So, all those Africans want to invade the West for free gibs.

    Humans as organisms are naturally invasive.
    This is why weak/poor nations must find ways to defend themselves from powerful would-be colonizers. Algerians and Viets found the way through guerrilla warfare and terror.
    And it’s also why rich/advanced nations must find ways to defend themselves from poor masses who want to come for free gibs.

    The Guardian article is so dumb. Its white writers are totally deluded. They speak of principle, idealism, archaeology, and abstract concepts. They theorize that the ‘first black Briton’ somehow morally justifies free travel via globalism. (Never mind that immigration is a modern concept. For most of history, it was invasions and conquests. Just ask the Neanderthals who got pushed out by Cromagnons. Just ask the Medieval Britons who had to deal with Viking raids.)
    Also, there is one reason and one reason alone as to why all those darkies are coming to the West. Free gibs. After all, if UK were dirt poor and had even more evidence of ancient black Britons, would black Africans and Pakistanis want to come to UK? Of course not.
    Blacks are not coming to UK because of archaeological discoveries or historical interpretations. They are just coming for free gibs. The migrants are motivated by the most basic animal/organismic instincts, but white progs think mass migration is about moral adherence to some highfalutin abstract principle borne out by archaeological evidence, historical interpretation, and Enlightenment values. It’s like someone breaking and entering your house just to get free stuff but you trying to understand and even justify the intruder’s behavior on the basis of abstract theories about property rights and social contract.
    Even if there is solid evidence that ancient Briton was ruled by Kangz, no one would want to come to the Britain IF it were dirt poor like Somalia or Afghanistan. The darkies come for one reason, which is ‘gibs me dat’.

    Non-whites act on their stomachs and genitals, but white progs think with their flaky heads divorced from any connection to what is really happening on the ground. John Boorman was a prophet-visionary with ZARDOZ. He saw how the West would end.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @songbird
  27. Tiny Duck, you’re so smart. Let’s talk.

  28. KenH says:

    Cheddar cheese man looks like he was a helluva nice guy with that smile that he’s sporting. He looks more like an Australian aborigine than he does a negroid kang, though. So if they waited to break this story during black history month to give blacks something to be proud of and and to sow guilt and confusion amongst the Brits it might fool cognitively challenged negroes, dupes and SJW’s of all stripes, but not most thinking individuals.

    And no one can claim with a high degree of certainty that most white Britons are descended from this blue eyed aborigine without conducting a DNA test on a large sample of the white population. China dug up hundreds of red and blond haired mummies in the early 1990′s believed to be 2000 to 3000 years old, but that doesn’t mean today’s Chinese evolved out of ancient Indo Europeans and that as a result they should open China up to mass European migration and settlement.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/a-meeting-of-civilisations-the-mystery-of-chinas-celtic-mummies-5330366.html

    I think it’s most likely that Cheddar man and his people lost the struggle for survival to the various waves of Aryan invaders who are the ancestors to today’s white Brits. It’s possible there was a very small amount of interbreeding which might explain any Cheddar man DNA markers in a small number of white Brits.

    Just like how today’s white Britons have lost their will to survive as a distinct people and are losing the struggle for survival to the waves of Africans, Indians and Pakistani Muslims invading the island today, regrettably.

  29. KenH says:
    @Anon

    And it’s also why rich/advanced nations must find ways to defend themselves from poor masses who want to come for free gibs.

    Totally agree except rich/advanced nations that are historically white are afflicted with apex parasites called the Jewish people who use their power and wealth to prevent white nations from employing countermeasures against third world’s desire to invade and feast on the fruits of our labor.

  30. Pale skin actually predated the transition to farming. Hunter-gatherers in Sweden (Motala site – 8000 BP) and Russia (Samara site – 7000 BP) had a fully modern European phenotype: pale skin and a range of hair and eye colors (red hair, blond hair, blue eyes, brown eyes). This phenotype didn’t appear simultaneously in all of Europe. It seems to have begun in an area centered on the north and east, being initially more prevalent in women than in men. Even today, the incidence of red hair is substantially higher in women than in men. This is covered in a study recently published by myself, Karel Kleiner, and Jaroslav Flegr.

    Frost, P., K. Kleisner, and J. Flegr. (2017). Health status by gender, hair color, and eye color: Red-haired women are the most divergent, PLoS ONE, 12(12)

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190238

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
  31. songbird says:
    @Anon

    Southern India has very high UV levels. It’s thought that the ancestors of Indians had lighter skin but natural selection caused some to develop darker skin to cope with the high UV.

  32. Cheddar Man was probably a day tripper from nearby Wales who came to trade cheese. Even today there are a lot of people in South Wales with blue eyes and dark hair.

    Cheddar Man II

  33. gcochran says:
    @German_reader

    Not that much. back in the day, Europe was occupied by hunter-gatherers, of which Cheddar Man is an example. That group seems to have moved in not too long before, after the glaciers pulled back. Then a wave of agriculturalists from Turkey moved in and occupied almost of of Europe – they mixed some with those earlier hunter-gatherers. Maybe a not a lot in any one place, but it added up as they expanded. That expansion was in two waves – one along northern coasts of the Mediterranean ( Aegean, Sicily, Sardinia, south of France, etc) and another up the Danube. Those early farmers were fairly light-skinned – they had the most influential light-skin allele (SLC24A5) but not some others now common in Europe. The existing population closest to them is highland Sardinians. At the peak of their expansion, five or six thousand years ago, nearly everyone in Europe was genetically similar to modern Sardinians, including the inhabitants of Ireland and England. And then the Indo-Europeans showed up. In northern Europe, the Indo-Europeans mostly replaced the previous Sardinian-like populations: in Southern Europe it was more conquest than replacement.

    A group of Indo-Europeans (Bell-Beakers) replaced the Sardinian–like pops in England and Ireland, those groups probably coming from western Germany. At least 93% replacement . Later the biggest wave was the Anglo-Saxons, which account for about 30% of English ancestry. Plus smaller additions – Normans, Norse, the occasional Huguenot.

    African? Nope. It should be interesting to see who’s pushing this false meme. And then put them in the stocks, for lying, you see, is a sin.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @MEFOBILLS
  34. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Ohs Tinys…..we knows whey yo preferences lie….bent ovah jus waiting foa Lendsnert. It bein why’s nobody’s payn tenshun to youn!

    Lendsern “teh whirleds bestus luver” Pibtz

  35. Cortes says:

    The Vitamin D point seems very valid to me. No doubt someone is working on statistics on the prescription on the NHS of Vitamin D supplements by race and religious groups. I know a couple of people whose family background is eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea who take high dosage Vitamin D supplements all year. And rickets is making a comeback among poor Muslims.

    This is underplayed in media report like

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/rickets-makes-a-comeback-in-britain/news-story/7c9d82c568bcb80e9684bc128d783976

    because who wants to rock the multicultural boat by pointing to the health hazards in dressing up girls like postboxes.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Alden
  36. MBlanc46 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There’s a PDF available on-line, gratis. I believe it’s at Greg Cochran’s website.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  37. MBlanc46 says:
    @Randal

    The prof should have prefaced his lesson with a brief lecture on the use/mention distinction.

    • Replies: @Randal
  38. Sean says:
    @Cortes

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/what-caused-rickets-epidemic/ (chemicals in food) .

    There is genetic rickets so I expect consanguineous marriages are partly responsible, but the main reason immigrants are suffering from nutritional rickets is their food

    Wills et al. (1972) have suggested that the high phytic acid content in the unleavened dough used in chapatis may have aetiological significance.

    Binds calcium. Relative to what brown facial skin would make from sun in 20 minutes, meat, has hardly any vitamin D. Meat does go a long way to prevent rickets, though by a (unknown) non vitamin D mechanism.

    • Replies: @Cortes
  39. Sean says:
    @gcochran

    Those early farmers were fairly light-skinned – they had the most influential light-skin allele (SLC24A5) but not some others now common in Europe. The existing population closest to them is highland Sardinians. At the peak of their expansion, five or six thousand years ago, nearly everyone in Europe was genetically similar to modern Sardinians, including the inhabitants of Ireland and England. And then the Indo-Europeans showed up. In northern Europe, the Indo-Europeans mostly replaced the previous Sardinian-like populations: in Southern Europe it was more conquest than replacement.

    So why is the lightest skin in the north of Europe instead of the south, eh?

  40. Cheddar Man seems to be afflicted with torticollis or wry neck. I recommend rest and analgesics. Gesics may be administered orally if preferred.

  41. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Jason Liu

    This. The historically literate person reads “democracy” as “plutocracy hiding behind populist witch hunts.”
    (paraphrase of quoted text) “I wish scientific discoveries bore out my ideological worldview.”
    This problem can be avoided by reversing the order.

  42. @MBlanc46

    Thanks, MBlanc, I will look for it.

  43. ogunsiron says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    But who’s most likely to leave remains ? A lone foreigner or an ordinary local of the time ?
    The problem with the Cheddarman issue is not the dark skin. It’s the way this finding is being predictably being weaved into the dominant anti-white narrative. That his skin was significantly darker than that of contemporary northern Europeans is pretty much certain. Those of us who’ve been following ancient dna know this. But we certainly *do not know* that his skin was as dark as has been reconstructed.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  44. ogunsiron says:

    The 10% ”western hunter gatherer” ancestry found in contemporary Brits does not necessarily come from Cheddarman’s tribe. I think razib and other have indicated that the “10%” currently observed may have come from continental european ‘western gatherer” ancestors, via the Bell Beaker people and later invaders to Britain. I think we just don’t know if the Cheddarman population ended up dying out or not.

    • Replies: @Sean
  45. Calogero says:

    I thought we knew since the time of Darwin that whites(and everybody else) evolved from blacks a long, long time ago. This isn’t news. White British people exist, and have the right to continue to exist in their own country. This “discovery” does nothing to change that.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  46. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The Toronto Star is to Canada what the Guardian is to Britain. An extremely leftist cultural Marxist anti-white ‘newspaper’.

    As for Paradkar she was never ‘white”. And who asked her to come to Canada anyway?

    • Replies: @Realist 2018
  47. anon • Disclaimer says:

    How is any of this a justification or rationalization for immigration?

  48. anon • Disclaimer says:

    All of this is retarded and shows how dysfunctional the west has become. Let us suppose somebody “proves” the Japanese 10,000 years ago looked black.

    How does this make it a “good” idea for Japan to let in millions of black sub-Saharan Africans into their country?

  49. ” Progressives love science but don’t know any” : Dittos, many times over.

    The media/academic/societal lie claiming that “Progressives”, Leftists, “Democrats” are more educated/intelligent than their opponents, being one of the most perfidious untruths foisted off on society over the last sixty years.

    Leftists are without exception “Dummköpfe” , phoney pseudo edumacated BSers, myself, I have never, in fifty years of world travel, encountered a truely insightful leftist, one who actually understood the issues at hand, and non-leftists, permeated with their goody-two-shoes sensitivity simply refuse to approach this area, so as not to “offend” anyone.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

  50. @Peter Frost

    I’ve long thought that sexual selection must’ve played a major part in the rapid spread of lighter skin. I don’t know if this idea is somewhat taboo in contemporary anthropology, but wouldn’t it help explain why the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture may not be the crux of the matter?

    • Replies: @Alden
  51. @Randal

    Do you know what is the current view on the skin colour of Neanderthals? At least some groups of them had lighter skin/hair. They were archetypal hunter-gatherers.

    • Replies: @Randal
  52. Randal says:
    @Henry's Cat

    Several people knowledgeable on the topic have made the point about much older light-skinned populations. In fairness, my comment was in reference to the argument made in the piece above.

  53. Randal says:
    @MBlanc46

    Do you think the students were too stupid to get that for themselves, then, rather than it being a case of them trying to inflate their own self worth and exercise power? (I’m genuinely unsure which it was in this case.)

  54. Sean says:
    @ogunsiron

    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/02/06/the-genome-of-cheddar-man-is-about-to-be-published/

    The hunter-gatherers of Mesolithic Western Europe were genetically homogenous. They seem to derive from a small founder population. And, on the pigmentation loci which make modern Europeans very distinctive vis-a-vis other populations, SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and HERC2-OCA2, they were quite different from anything we’ve encountered before. First, these peoples seem to have had a frequency for the genetic variants strongly implicated in blue eyes in modern Europeans close to what you find in the Baltic region. The overwhelming majority carried the derived variant, perhaps even in regions such as Spain, which today are mostly brown-eyed because of the frequency of the ancestral variant. Second, these European hunter-gatherers tended to lack the genetic variants at SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 correlated with lighter skin, which today in European is found at frequencies of ~100% and 95% to 80% respectively.

    As far I can see, the hunter gatherer 10% in modern Brits should only have resulted in 10% of the modern Brit population with light eyes, but 4 or five times that percentage of Brits have the various colours called “blue” eyes.

    Getting back to the post on the science of white skin colour, where it is from and when it arrived, the hunter gatherers of Britain only had the blue eyes allele and neither of the two light skin alleles, so 10% West European hunter gatherer ancestry in modern Brits seems irrelevant to the question of white skin.

    Neither farmer or steppe people had both “the most influential light-skin allele (SLC24A5) ” and the other one (SLC45A2). Could someone please explain to me how in Britain and Ireland the “at least 93% replacement” of farmers bearing SLC24A5 by steppe people bearing SLC45A2 resulted in a population fixed (100%) for SLC24A5 and 95% SLC24A?. Put it another way the farmers were olive skinned white and they were almost entirely killed of by much swarthier steppe people, so how did the population get to be a fully white one.

    Razib doesn’t think it is worth mentioning that Mesolithic hunter gatherers of southern Sweden, though North rather than West European and not the ancestors of modern Europeans, had the light eyes HERC2-OCA2 allele and SLC24A5 and SLC45A2) 7,700 years ago. By my way of thinking the reason a group had the light eyes HERC2-OCA2 allele and SLC24A5 and SLC45A2) in the Mesolithic is similar to the reason why a separate population acquired the same suite of alleles in the Bronze Age.

    • Replies: @RebelWriter
  55. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    Yeah, like they love Darwin but get queasy when confronted with the logical implications of his theory, at which point they have to twist themselves into pretzels.

  56. Sunbeam says:

    Were Neanderthals or Denisovans dark skinned? Do we know from what fragments of DNA we’ve managed to find?

  57. @ogunsiron

    King Ramses had red hair, and his DNA matches a sizable part of Britons. Ramses had “dark” skin compared to today’s Britons, but “light” skin compared to modern Egyptians. Cheddar Man had blue eyes.
    Neither red hair nor blue eyes have been found in Knee-grows or Asians. What is not mentioned is that Cheddar Man’s halpogroup K is distributed in Eastern Europe as well as the horn of Africa and South Africa.
    Perhaps Mr. Derbyshire has an explanation why, when I was traveling in Devon in the early 70s, I heard the Cornish referred to as Phoenicians.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  58. Alden says:
    @Cortes

    Osteoporosis is very common in Arab women who are never exposed to the sun due to the shrouds and confinement indoors. But just 80 miles away in Sunny Sicily and the rest of the European side of the Med, osteoporosis is rare.

    All it really takes is just a bit of sun several times a week, but the Arab women never get it.

  59. Alden says:
    @Henry's Cat

    Wouldn’t agriculture darken skin from working in the sun all day? Plus there would be more sun because the forests were cleared for fields.

    But if that’s the case, why should Africans who lived in jungles be black and dark brown while Asians and S Americans who lived in jungles be light tan?

    The Romans noted that both the celts and specially the Germans were pale because they lived in dense forests and never saw the sun.

    So many theories.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @dearieme
  60. Soulipsis says:

    I’m reading so many references to “The Left” in these comments. Is there such a monolithic body? Surely that’s a fallacious entity, as would be “The Right”. And then we have “Progressives”, who are “stupid”. And if that weren’t sufficient to make the point, it is repeated in the next sentence.

    ???? Is this the kind of commentary that provides an alternative to someone’s stupidity?

    And in the discussion of race, I’m reading that there is much more to the issue than mere skin color. The implication I heard there was, many more problematical features of racial difference.

    But however many differences there are between people of different races, I think emphasizing those differences can only result in endless turmoil, whereas emphasizing our commonalities as humans — albeit of different races — might provide an opportunity for fruitful relationship.

    For instance, the needs for love, respect, safety, nourishment, education, healthcare, satisfying work, and equal sharing of necessary work that may not satisfy — all these things are of primary importance to any human being regardless of race.

    This choice of emphasis requires effort, and I think an interest in that effort is what is most essentially missing from this dialog.

    BTW, I only read the first 20+ comments, if there were any more thoughtful and worthwhile posts below that, please pardon my failure to note.

    • Replies: @KenH
  61. @VICB3

    @VICB3

    In normal lighting, the skin tone, face and eyes reminds you of the famous Afghan Girl on the NatGeo cover, and she’s hardly the African Black type the pundits want you to associate with the bust.

    I have looked at Cheddar Man’s picture on many different sites, and on none of them do they look remotely close to the NatGeo Afghan Girl cover photo. The later is was to light skinned compared to Cheddar Man. Even the ‘lightest’ looking Cheddar Man photos are still far to dark to be comparable to the Afghan Girl.

    • Replies: @VICB3
  62. KenH says:
    @Soulipsis

    For instance, the needs for love, respect, safety, nourishment, education, healthcare, satisfying work, and equal sharing of necessary work that may not satisfy — all these things are of primary importance to any human being regardless of race.

    That’s beautiful and I almost cried reading these words, but if you’re paying attention you’ll notice that non-whites living in white nations want these things essentially for free at the white man’s expense. Obamacare’s primary objective is to transfer health care resources from middle class whites to the black and brown underclass and this was admitted by (((Cass Sunstein))), one of Obamacare’s three primary framers.

    That’s why support for Ocare is highest among blacks and Latinos and why black politicos especially go berserk at any mention of repealing it.

    Your post isn’t any more original, thoughtful or elucidating than the comments that you dismissed.

  63. @Curmudgeon

    I forgot to mention that the failure to mention the Eastern European – Horn of Africa connection is that the latest discoveries show humans went INTO, not out of, Africa.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

  64. @Sean

    I feel like I’m harping on this, as I’ve posted it so much on this and other sites in relation to Cheddar Man, and the Indo European invasion. The Indo European invasion was primarily male. The impact of the invasion on mitochondrial DNA was almost non-existent.
    Some of the earlier analyses of British genetics stated quite plainly that, based on the evidence they obtained, there had been NO invasions from anywhere that had a substantial impact on British DNA. These studies, however, relied entirely on mitochondrial DNA. It wasn’t until they began studying the Y DNA of modern Britons that they noticed the more than substantial impact of invasions, that of near complete replacement by the Indo European invaders.
    So the Y DNA of Britain is primarily of Indo European origin, but the mitochondrial DNA is almost entirely traceable to WHG and ANE lines. What other conclusion can be drawn save that of a male dominated invasion, which is certainly reasonable. The few female IE lines were likely from the partners of high ranking men, while the warriors who made up the bulk of the invaders were single men.
    I was already aware of this having been focused on the aboriginal Britons after my Y DNA test confirmed that I am descended from the earliest WHG’s to settle in the Isles. My haplogroup is I2a Isles.
    As to whether or not Cheddar Man had blue eyes is every bit as much of a guess as what shade his skin was. We don’t know. I took some of the various tests offered on GEDMatch, including the one for eye color. I have the alleles for blue eyes, but my eyes are hazel.

    • Replies: @Sean
  65. Sunbeam says:

    Just kind of musing.

    1) We know that early societies who adopted farming saw a drop in the average person’s general health and even height, compared to neighboring hunter gatherers and even their own non-farming ancestors.

    2) There are these cases, this Cheddar Man guy, and the other guy a few years ago (he came from Spain or France) etc, having dark skin and light eyes.

    I’d read somewhere that if you had a good diet, you really didn’t need to have light skin for Vitamin D production, even in Europe.

    So is it possible white skin arose as an advantage in surviving in an early agricultural society? One where you pretty much eat carbs mostly, and drink beer to make the whole crappy deal easier to take? One where meat is almost unkown for our proto serfs/slaves? Your diet isn’t giving you what you actually need to survive and be healthy, so light skin is an advantage for the boost in Vitamin D?

    • Replies: @Sean
  66. soulipsis says:
    @KenH

    People are understandably afraid to lose what little they have. But the ACA is really bullshit. It keeps the corporate insurers on the gravy train. Obusha accepted input from the healthcare lobby to keep Medicare or some other public option out of it well after he continued to tell the public that he was trying to get that for us.

    There is a certain amount of equality that it gives. It had to give SOMETHING. This is the racially organized “wealth transfer” you speak of. But that’s really just what insurance does by definition: it spreads the risk.

    But the real wealth transfer is the same as before the legislation: from us to the corporatocracy.

    This is as it would be under Clinton, Bush, Reagan, any of them. The fucking Dems and Repugs are a good cop/bad cop kabuki show, don’t you know?

    Also, your reply begs the question of race. You imply that the people of color are poor because they’re people of color, not because they’ve been discriminated against for centuries, and have experienced the downward spiral of physical, intellectual, linguistic and emotional degradation as a result.

    They’re not poor because they’re colored, they’re poor because they’re poor, and because chronic self-interest, unequal wealth and power lead to brain damage and permanent failure of empathy on the part of the top however many percent. 2%? 5%? 0.01%?.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  67. KenH says:
    @Alden

    And Indians who’ve inhabited the rain forests of S. America for thousands of years didn’t evolve light skin in response to lack of sunlight since they still have the skin tone of Cheddar cheese man.

  68. dearieme says:
    @Alden

    The Romans seemed to have an obsession about barbarians living in forests. It became a literary trope. They even claimed that the Caledonians lived in forests whereas the scientific evidence says they didn’t.

  69. KenH says:
    @soulipsis

    But the real wealth transfer is the same as before the legislation: from us to the corporatocracy.

    And from whites to non-whites in practice. The white worker (and all private sector employees of any race) got a little less health care in the form of higher deductibles and lesser coverage, the white retiree got less in the form of Medicare cuts which forced doctors to drop Medicare patients while the indigent minority got a little more through increased Medicaid spending.

    You disingenuously claim that race doesn’t matter here but Obama, Sunstein and others said that it did and Obamacare was crafted with their benefit in mind. It should also be noted that early versions of Barrycare did not include bailouts of the insurance companies and this imperiled industry support for the legislation. But they climbed on board after Obama included enough corporate welfare which would effectively underwrite their losses.

    My reply doesn’t imply that non-whites are poor because they are non-white. That’s just your progressive worldview putting words into my mouth. There are more poor white people in absolute numbers than poor non-whites, but hypocritically, the left tells us that non-whites are in no way responsible for their plight while at the same time accusing the poor whites of being inbred, white trash losers who, with no money, privilege or power are somehow guilty of white privilege and oppressing your beloved people of color.

    However and generally speaking, IQ, ambition, a willingness to work and a family structure conducive to academic achievement aren’t distributed equally between racial groups and this provides the most plausible explanation for why some non-white racial groups, principally blacks and Lations lag behind whites in America. All you need to do is look at the nations they came from.

    Discrimination has been discredited especially when you consider that blacks in America are the most successful black population anywhere on the planet and poor blacks live far better than their African cousins thanks to welfare programs funded largely by the white industries and white taxpayers. Or how Orientals arrive here dirt poor and at a language disadvantage but attain academic excellence which then translates into wealth.

  70. @soulipsis

    They’re not poor because they’re colored, they’re poor because they’re poor, and because chronic self-interest, unequal wealth and power lead to brain damage and permanent failure of empathy on the part of the top however many percent. 2%? 5%? 0.01%?.

    Yeah, that’s what it is, failure of empathy. That explains everything.

    Meanwhile, where I grew up we were happy BECAUSE we were poor:

  71. Sean says:
    @RebelWriter

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/first-mover-advantage/
    Increasingly, it looks as if the hunter-gatherers who lived in Europe at the end of the ice age have been largely replaced. Judging from all those U5 mtdna results from ancient skeletons, I’d say that the hunters don’t account for more than 10% of the ancestry of modern Europeans

    At the peak of their expansion, five or six thousand years ago, nearly everyone in Europe was genetically similar to modern Sardinians, including the inhabitants of Ireland and England. And then the Indo-Europeans showed up. In northern Europe, the Indo-Europeans mostly replaced the previous Sardinian-like populations: in Southern Europe it was more conquest than replacement.

    A group of Indo-Europeans (Bell-Beakers) replaced the Sardinian–like pops in England and Ireland, those groups probably coming from western Germany. At least 93% replacement .

    I think G Cochran is more or less right , and the mtDNA suggest the HG women largely died out in Britain (maybe almost completely as Razib says). You have light eyes, which can from a hunter gatherer, but why are light eyes so much commoner in north Europe that hunter gatherer ancestry is, when light eyes had to come from hunter gatherers?

    http://www.norwegianamerican.com/news/ancient-dna-identifies-ethnic-norwegian-roots/

    You can see there is a pattern the whitest skin is found where there is the greatest amount of Yamnaya ancestry, but the Yamnaya had only the SLC45A2 skin lightening allele . The early neolithic farmers had only “the most influential light-skin allele (SLC24A5) ” and they were mainly killed off in northern Europe. So why is “the most influential light-skin allele (SLC24A5) ” at 100% in northern Europe and SLC45A2 at 95% in northern Europe?

    • Replies: @Alfred Buono
  72. Sean says:
    @Sunbeam

    That explains why ebony skinned Africans die of vitamin D deficiency when they live in Sweden.

  73. Sunbeam says:

    “That explains why ebony skinned Africans die of vitamin D deficiency when they live in Sweden.”

    Is that still happening? Just saying that eating foods high in Vitamin D, or taking a supplement should be all that someone with the blackest skin in the world would need.

    Of course if he were trying to subsist on Oatmeal, Beer, Cabbage, and Onions, with meat once a month, if that, then …

    Oh and mustn’t forget the milk, butter, and cheese. But anyway. Maybe that is more the “Scottish” diet than Scandinavian, but aside from more fish maybe I wouldn’t have expected it to differ much in antique Norway.

    • Replies: @Sean
  74. MEFOBILLS says:
    @gcochran

    Then a wave of agriculturalists from Turkey moved in and occupied almost of of Europe –

    My understanding is they were from Pontic Steppe region, which isn’t necessarily Turkic peoples.

    Of course, the steppes have had many tribes trammeling the region, including neanderthals who descended from Caspian mountains to mix into steppe populations.

  75. Thomm says:

    There are much stronger possible rebuttals of this than what Derb has written.

    Derb’s entire screed can effectively be used by Persians and Pakistanis to claim that they are 100% the same race as Europeans due to both being Caucasians albeit of different skin colors.

  76. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Let us assume that somebody “proved” that the Japanese 50,000 years ago were “black”.

    Why would that mean that letting in millions of sub-Saharan African blacks to Japan would be either right, required or wise?

  77. Sean says:
    @Sunbeam

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/what-caused-rickets-epidemic/

    Apart from some rare genetic disorders, rickets is a nutritional disease caused by consuming foods or additives that bind calcium. No one in a western country gets rickets now unless they are eating a very strange diet . Meat and milk (even vitamin D fortified milk) contain hardly any Vitamin D compared to the amount that you would get from exposing your facial skin to the sun. White people do synthesize vitamin D faster but the total amount they make in the sun is limited by a mechanism buy which the synthesis stop when the skin heats up, that is why it is impossible to overdose on vitamin D by sunbathing, because after about 20 minutes in the sun you sop making vitamin D.

    Sub Saharan Africans born and raised in Sweden and Finland not only don’t get rickets, their bones are much more dense than white peoples. (Bone is a endocrine organ).

    It is a very bad idea to be taking vitamin D supplements, whoever you are.

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/african-americans-and-vitamin-d/

    What effects can we expect from long-term use of vitamin D at high doses? Keep in mind that we are really talking about a hormone, not a vitamin. This hormone interacts with the chromosomes and will gradually shorten their telomeres if concentrations are either too low or too high. Tuohimaa (2009) argues that optimal levels may lie in the range of 40-60 nmol/L. This is well below the current recommended minimum of 75 nmol/L. Furthermore, compliance with this optimal range may matter even more for populations of tropical origin, like African Americans, since their bodies have not adapted to the wide seasonal variation of non-tropical humans.

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/vitamin-d-and-skin-color-part-ii/
    Undoubtedly, lighter skin allows more UV-B into the skin. As Robins (1991, pp. 60-61) notes, black African skin transmits three to five times less UV than does European skin. But is this a serious constraint on vitamin D production? Apparently not. Blood metabolites of vitamin D show similar increases in Asian, Caucasoid, and Negroid subjects when their skin is either artificially irradiated with UV-B or exposed to natural sunlight from March to October in Birmingham, England (Brazerol et al., 1988; Ellis et al., 1977; Lo et al., 1986; Stamp, 1975; also see discussion in Robins, 1991, pp. 204-205).

    The vitamin D hypothesis also implies that European skin turned white almost at the dawn of human history. Cereal agriculture did not reach northern Europe until some 5,000 years ago and, presumably, the whitening of northern European skin would not have been complete until well into the historical period. Is this a realistic assumption, given the depictions of white-skinned Europeans in early Egyptian art?

    And there were people with all the alleles necessary for white skin 8000 years ago, as the Motala, Sweden find proves.

  78. Sunbeam says:

    I asked in this thread or another.

    But does dna give us any clues as to Neanderthal (and Denisovan) skin tone? If some feature of northern europe led to white skin, wouldn’t these peoples have had similar use for it?

    And if so, is it possible the alleles you refer to are in some way due to them?

  79. @Jason Liu

    Hilarious excerpt from the article. I predict the Chinese will laugh then completely ignore the stupidity, while the Indians will have a riot, kill a bunch of dalits and burn their homes to the ground.

  80. @anon

    The Toronto Star is to Canada what the Guardian is to Britain. An extremely leftist cultural Marxist anti-white ‘newspaper’.

    That pretty much describes all mainstream media in the west. Liberalism is their name, hypocrisy is their game.

    As for Paradkar she was never ‘white”. And who asked her to come to Canada anyway?

    Thank that girly man you elected to office, the one who likes to wear his sister’s skinny jeans, Trudeau.

    • Replies: @anon
  81. Modern “social science” discoveries — first draw the conclusions, then find the “facts” to support them.

  82. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Realist 2018

    Too true (except that yours truly never voted for that ASS**** or his son).

    I take a bit of guilty pleasure in one thing. Francophones are now wailing hysterically about their ever shrinking % of the population and their province Quebec, being over-run with third worlders, especially Muslims. The irony of course is that they so loyally supported Trudeau and the Liberal party, the architects of the very policies they now so denounce. They SHOULD have supported an immigration restrictionist party to preserve their share of the population. They did the exact opposite though. Reap what you sow, I guess.

    • Replies: @polskijoe
  83. @Achmed E. Newman

    “I never saw the need for those conductors, either. Can’t those musicians keep time on their own?”

    No. See….those musicians are mostly progressives.

  84. @Randal

    ” It’s comically pathetic that students should be so incapable of dealing with a mere word (which I suppose we must presume was “nigger””

    I have it on good authority that the word was “jigroid”. That word must be resisted at all hazards. Carry on.

  85. @Sean

    “The first population in which everyone had white skin (SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and HERC2/OCA2 lightening mutations) suddenly appeared in North Europe after the Yamnaya /Indo Europeans/ Corded people conquered it. White skin must have been necessary for survival, and the obvious way it could work is by eliciting care and provisioning of a female by a high status Yamnaya male in a very hierarchical and patriarchal society.”

    That is so patently ridiculous that only a PHD could have dreamed it up.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Sean
  86. @VICB3

    Looking at the bust, it’s also obvious that the artist gave the Cheddar Man negroid features. The artist managed to resist the temptation to ad a big, bushy afro hairdo, for which he is to be commended.

  87. @Calogero

    ” White British people exist, and have the right to continue to exist in their own country. This “discovery” does nothing to change that.”

    That is the pertinent part of your comment. The first part about the fraud Darwin (with his silly, unproven theory of evolution) and the nonsensical idea that humanity originated on the African continent and nowhere else isn’t necessary and allows these “scientists” and their supporters to discredit your main point.

  88. @KenH

    Ken, you brute. here you have just beat the piss out of little soulpiss and all he did was to try to bring a little love into your life.

  89. polskijoe says:
    @anon

    Its the fault of the Quiet Revolution (aka similar to Cultural Revolution in USA 1960s).
    The Quebec people are doomed like much of Canada.

    They used to be very religious and family.
    Now they are the least religious, most Grand Orient mentality.

  90. VICB3 says:
    @greysquirrell

    Doubled checked for myself. Respectfully, go and take a second look.

    -Open the BBC article on the Cheddar Man in a window:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42939192

    (Astutely, you’ll notice that the face in the photo is quite a bit lighter than most of the images you’ve seen. It is in room light, and probably taken in a full-spectrum light-box in the K5100-K6000 range.)

    -Now open Google – Google is not a verb – in a second and separate window and enter the term “Afghan Girl,” and then click on” images.”

    -Move the Google Window so that window overlaps the BBC window and the images are next to the Cheddar Man image.

    -Now scroll down on the Afghan Girl images and compare the skin tones to those of the Cheddar Man bust.

    You’ll see that the skin tone in some images are lighter, some are darker, and – to the point here – quite a few are virtually the same. And *all* of the Girl’s images are more or less within the same skin tone range. Ditto for the skin tones of some of the other Afghan images in the assortment.

    In short, the image is hardly “Black.” It’s more like the skin tone of somebody from South Asia. And, to repeat, the bust is sure as hell not as dark as in most of the photos out there.)

    Oh, and the eyes. Don’t forget the eyes. They do bore right into your soul. (What kind of ancestry produces that eye color, I wonder?)

    As for the Cheddar Man’s nose, that could easily be off a Neanderthal. (Do the thing with Google again this time using the term “Neanderthal.”) With those blueish-gray eyes, maybe the guy was a hybrid on some level.

    Hope this helps.

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

  91. Sean says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Or a Nobel prizewinner

    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119772

    A Nobel laureate’s provocative speech on sunshine and sex — complete with slides of bikini-clad women — left some at the University of California, Berkeley, aghast.

    James Watson, who co-discovered DNA, dumbfounded many at a guest lecture when he advanced his theory about a link between skin color and sex drive. “That’s why you have Latin lovers,” he said, according to people who were there last month. “You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II
    Research in the early 1960s showed that in rats, administration of α-MSH caused sexual arousal, and work on this continued in many labs up through the 1980s, when scientists at University of Arizona began attempting to develop α-MSH and analogs as potential sunless tanning agents, and synthesized and tested several analogs, including melanotan-I and melanotan II.[6][9] Very early in the process one of the scientists, who was conducting experiments on himself with an early tool compound, melanotan II, injected himself with twice the dose he intended and got an eight-hour erection

    .https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xygkpj/melanotan-ii-gives-us-what-we-always-wanted-dark-tans-and-powerful-erection
    Melanotan II Gives Us What We Always Wanted: Dark Tans and Powerful Erections
    Motherboard-19 Dec 2016
    During the 2000s, the Melanotan II peptide and the metabolite derived fro
    m it, the erectile dysfunction-focused Bremelanotide (also known as PT-141), were patented .

    http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/red-haied-women-are-special.html
    It’s known that red-haired women, but not red-haired men, are more sensitive to pain [...] According to a survey of over seven thousand participants, red-haired women do worse than other women in ten health categories and better in only three, being especially prone to colorectal, cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. [...] This study has also confirmed that red hair is naturally more frequent in women than in men.

    Redheads have the palest skin of all. How Orgasm Could Dull Pain (in women).

  92. Sean says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Three genetic studies in 2015 gave support to the Kurgan theory of Gimbutas regarding the Indo-European Urheimat.

    There is ample evidence, as well, of Kurgan chieftains’ having been buried not only with their horses but also with their wives, suggesting the practice of suttee, the immolation of women as burial companions to their men. Kurgan graves have likewise yielded the bones of children and of numerous others, possibly servants …

  93. @Sean

    What you don’t realize is that Yamnaya have nothing to do with Western Europeans and did not contribute Y-DNA to modern Wsstern Europeans. It was the Corded and Bell Beaker men who contributed the Y-DNA of modern northern Europeans and Britons, and the Corded and Bell Beaker men were blond/red haired, light skinned and blue eyed.

    You keep rambling about Motala, but they were admixed with EHG, who were branched off from ANE. It is ANE-EHG hunter gatherers from Eurasia who first developed light skin/blond hair/blue eyes. They are the ones who brought them Europe.

    The reason Northern Europe and Britain are light today is because the lighter Indo European invaders killed the dark natives and bred them to become light.

    • Replies: @Sean
  94. @Sean

    Nice cuck fantasy but it didn’t happen. There was no Yamnaya invasion of Northern Europe and Yamnaya did not contribute Y-DNA to Western Europeans. The full suite of depigmentation already happened in Siberia among the ANE 16,000 years ago:

    https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Afontova_Gora#Afontova_Gora_3

    Motala were admixed with ANE-EHG which is why they displayed light coloration.

    The Y-DNA of Northwestern Europeans comes from Corded Ware males not Yamnaya males. The Corded Ware invaders were light skinned, blue eyed, blond haired. Yamnaya only contributed Y-DNA to southeastern Europeans and in very small amounts. Their pigmentation was aberrant among proto-Indo Europeans although that won-t stop severely misinformed people like you from spamming the internet with your rubbish.

    • Replies: @Peter Frost
  95. Ultraviolet rays in sunlight, acting on human skin, generate vitamin D; more when the skin is lighter. Sure, too much ultraviolet will give you skin cancer; but in high latitudes like Britain’s, too much sunlight is not a problem.

    I don’t think so
    Too much sunlight even in poles might be a problem anyway.

    If is really true that light skin at least among western eurasians was a recent mutation so seems sexual selection appear to be more possible than natural [your candidate explanation], which tend to be very slow specially without big events. And very light skin don’t appear to be super advantageous if lighter skin as east asians is already enough to provide optimum advantage in high latitude places.

    And if this reconstituted ”pre-’historic”’ european’s already had blue eyes so the genes to depigmentation already there in their genetic pool.

    or not.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Sean
  96. @Santoculto

    Interestingly for both europeans and east asians, those with the lightest depigmentation live in island or archipelago: brit(((c)))oins and japaneses…

  97. Sean says:
    @Alfred Buono

    The Motala people were indisputably hunter gatherers, and had both the big white skin alleles (SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 ) plus HERC2/OCA2, for blue eyes and blonde hair 7700 years ago.

    There is no evidence that the full suite of alleles for what we call “white”was in any population outside Europe or before then.

  98. Sean says:
    @Santoculto

    What is the sexy look for women? I would say if one judges by how young women choose to alter their natural bodies, the sexy look is light eyes and hair plus bronzed skin. So white skin is not due to sexual selection, because white skin is not sexy. Haven’t you noticed the amount of tanning that young sexually active women do to look alluring? That started when women became less worried about being thought totally chaste.

    Babies have light skin, babies need it to elicit care and provisioning. So totally white skin would become common under certain conditions: when some humans required it to elicit care and provisioning. The Motala people white skin indicated they were the remnant of evolution is such an era. The next era when skin became white was the IndoEuropean conquest.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  99. Peter Frost says: • Website
    @Alfred Buono

    “Motala were admixed with ANE-EHG which is why they displayed light coloration.”

    It would be more exact to say that the Mesolithic individuals from Motala (Sweden) and Karelia and Samara (Russia) belonged to the same population of Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. The EHGs were descended, at least in part, from Ancient North Eurasians.

    “The full suite of depigmentation already happened in Siberia among the ANE 16,000 years ago”

    Well, perhaps. The blond hair allele has been retrieved from a Paleolithic human who lived at Afontova Gora in Siberia some 16,000 years ago. As for skin color and eye color, I couldn’t find anything in the paper in question. The following is the relevant paragraph:

    The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans7,8 is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that the earliest known individual with the derived allele (supported by two reads) is the ANE individual Afontova Gora 3,6 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here).

    https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature25778-s2.pdf

    Mathieson, I., S.A. Roodenberg, C. Posth, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, N. Rohland, S.Mallick, et al. 2018. The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe, Nature, February 21 online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature25778

    This is a new finding, and I was unaware of it until you brought it to my attention (Thanks!). Clearly, the modern European phenotype (white skin, diverse hair and eye colors) preceded the advent of farming.

  100. @Sean

    What is the sexy look for women? I would say if one judges by how young women choose to alter their natural bodies, the sexy look is light eyes and hair plus bronzed skin. So white skin is not due to sexual selection, because white skin is not sexy. Haven’t you noticed the amount of tanning that young sexually active women do to look alluring? That started when women became less worried about being thought totally chaste.

    So why in all human populations women have lighter skin than men and are more desirable than women with darker skin**

    For women, lighter skin get the idea of fragility, need of protection, and also purity, tenderness of temperament. Most part of european history lighter skin has been exalted and desired than darker skin… Just (((right now))) that have a bronze skin became, not for everyone, a standard of beauty. Also lighter skin tend to highlight erogen body zones. Even in this case the bronze-mania is not exactly to become super-darker.

    For conservative society and specially for men, lighter skin in women tend to be more desired than darker, it’s comparable and a complement for height, muscle density and facial features.

    Lighter skin is ”sexy” or cute as little and snub nose.

    Maybe when we call ”sexual selection” we are indeed talking about CULTURAL selection and it’s tend to be more relative to their specific space and time.

    Babies have light skin, babies need it to elicit care and provisioning. So totally white skin would become common under certain conditions: when some humans required it to elicit care and provisioning. The Motala people white skin indicated they were the remnant of evolution is such an era. The next era when skin became white was the IndoEuropean conquest.

    I don’t understand this.

    Remember, depigmentation at east asian level already is or has been enough to adapt to high latitudes. Other reason to explain why european caucasians became so white must be required, my view, of course.

  101. Sean says:

    So why in all human populations women have lighter skin than men and are more desirable than women with darker skin**

    Modern Western girls, especially the sexually active ones, spend a fortune on tanning and fake tan.

    Which type of dog is more likely to be starved and beaten, a golden Labrador or a black one?

    Where cruelty to animals is the norm, Golden Labradors would become more common.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  102. Modern Western girls, especially the sexually active ones, spend a fortune on tanning and fake tan. [and not all]

    Your example seems… not so good to clarify what you mean…

    And you are comparing a ”female-liberalized” societies with a likely-not-so-pre-historical ones where/when men no have many social barrier to make their choices.

    • Replies: @Sean
  103. @Sean

    Also don’t forget in that time light skin was a novelty, in that time biological ”things” were so attractive as ”physically-human-made” ones, so i even can compare light skin with a new and luxuous car today.

  104. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Word association studies indicate that light female skin is associated with words like “peace,” “calm,” “purity,” “innocence,” “softness,” etc. This pattern seems to be universal and is not limited to Christian societies (which use whiteness as a symbol of peace):

    Contemporary Japanese men interviewed in the United States and Japan all agreed in valuing the “whiteness” of skin as a component of beauty in the Japanese woman. Whiteness is very often associated in their minds with womanhood (“Whiteness is a symbol of women, distinguishing them from men”), with chastity and purity (“Whiteness suggests purity and moral virtue”), and motherhood (“One’s mother-image is white”). (Wagatsuma 1967: 417-418)

    Wagatsuma, H. 1967. The social perception of skin color in Japan, Daedalus 96:407-443.

    Lighter skin is one of several childlike features (smooth, pliable skin, high-pitched voice, small nose and chin, etc.) that the adult female body has adopted, perhaps as a means to calm male aggressiveness, induce feelings of care, and strengthen the pair bond (Lorenz 1971, 154-164). Women may have therefore evolved fairer skin not so much to arouse sexual interest as to modify this arousal.

    This hypothesis is supported by a two-part study where men were first shown pictures of women and asked to rate their attractiveness. Fairer-skinned women were not rated more attractive than darker-skinned ones. In the second part, the men’s eye movements were tracked, and it was found that fairer-skinned women were viewed for a longer time than darker-skinned ones. This longer duration may indicate a trajectory of sexual interest with a slower rise and fall (Garza et al. 2016).

    Garza, R., R.R. Heredia, and A.B. Cieslicka. 2016. “Male and female perception of physical attractiveness. An eye movement study.” Evolutionary Psychology 14 (1): 1-16. doi:10.1177/1474704916631614.

    • Agree: Sean
  105. Sean says:
    @Santoculto

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dog_syndrome

    Modern women can afford to tan and have sex because they are not going to starve as a single mother. Motala kills the vitamin D in food idea, and any other vitamin D idea is difficult to square with the fact that in summer there is more UV B hits the surface of the Earth at high latitudes of Europe than at the equator. The maps you may have seen (Jablonsky and Chaplin) are of UVB averaged over a year, but Vitamin D can be stored in fat so their presentation is deceptive. Also, white skin switches off synthesis of vitamin D after 20 minutes of summer sun.

    I am pointing out that the best placed to enjoy reproductive success in the early Bronze age were the lightest skinned people.The Indo Europeans were not only patriarchal, they were a very a very hierarchical society. Two thirds of modern European men descend from three Bronze Age men. Half of all Western European men are descendants of a single Bronze Age man. Now obviously this is a case of inherited high status being passed down mainly through the male line (a la Genghis Khan’s descendants). I don’t see how white skin could be helping reproductive success for Indo European men.

    Indo European women are different. Even if you have hundreds of wives and thousands of children, as with a Sultan (or Chinese Emperor) and his harem, you still have to choose which wife will be the favorite wife, the one whose son will inherit his father’s status and with it massive reproductive success .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrem_Sultan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Gloag

    Lighter skin aided women in hitching their wagon to the ongoing reproductive success star of high status Indo European men. Eventually, the whole population had become fully white.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  106. Sean says:

    Hurrem Sultan had red hair. So did Helen Gloag. Obviously, both had about the whitest skin of any of the countless women in the harem.

  107. @Sean

    Modern women can afford to tan and have sex because they are not going to starve as a single mother. Motala kills the vitamin D in food idea, and any other vitamin D idea is difficult to square with the fact that in summer there is more UV B hits the surface of the Earth at high latitudes of Europe than at the equator. The maps you may have seen (Jablonsky and Chaplin) are of UVB averaged over a year, but Vitamin D can be stored in fat so their presentation is deceptive. Also, white skin switches off synthesis of vitamin D after 20 minutes of summer sun.

    I know this. Pay attention to my argument:

    ”Lighter skin at ‘east asian levels’ seems enough in higher latitudes”

    More than that and seems no have huge advantage, i can be wrong, i’m as always speculating with my own buttons…

    Blue/light eyes also don’t appear to be so great itself, just or specially because its inherent beauty-ness.

    I am pointing out that the best placed to enjoy reproductive success in the early Bronze age were the lightest skinned people.The Indo Europeans were not only patriarchal, they were a very a very hierarchical society. Two thirds of modern European men descend from three Bronze Age men. Half of all Western European men are descendants of a single Bronze Age man. Now obviously this is a case of inherited high status being passed down mainly through the male line (a la Genghis Khan’s descendants). I don’t see how white skin could be helping reproductive success for Indo European men.

    Seems, lighter skin was being selected firstly or more-intensely in women so this mutation was being shared with men secondarily…

    Desired traits has been linked with high status and combined with a very natural [contextual] eugenic ecossystem…

    The same way in virtually all european societies, lighter complexion is linked with better cognitive outcomes = a product of this association between social status and novel desired physical phenotypes… [product of sexual selection combined with natural selection]

    ”Whitish skin” ‘don’t help’ for reproductive success in functionally direct way but as a flashy ornament seems specially in women.

    As well big penis don’t help for reproductive success of black men, it’s just a association, many sexually desired traits are more as a ornament than decisively functional traits.

    My own opinions.

  108. Sean says:

    Any skin colour at any latitude has no advantage or disadvantage at all in relation to vitamin D.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chinese_harem_system

    Yes, certain qualities, selected in the King’s choice for number one wife (whose sons would inherit their father’s status) came to be concentrated in those of the highest social status.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  109. @Sean

    I am tempted to agree with you on this because I believe it is as a “primary logic”, it seems to be very true, but it is not necessarily and not strictly causal. Another example of “primary logic” is: “Blacks are on average much less intelligent because of slavery or colonialism.”

    But [it seems] because we have never had much lighter-skinned human beings [on Northern European levels] TOTALLY exposed to the tropical and equatorial sun, with no way of escaping direct confrontation with sunlight in equatorial and intertropical latitudes, at least I do not know what would have happened to this hypothetical population. Maybe they would be adapted anyway by selecting lighter-skinned people who have better resistance to intense sunlight … if that’s really possible.

    But you said white skin is better/ faster to synthesize vitamin D than dark skin. I’ve read that the difference is even significant: less than 15 minutes for very light skins exposed to the sun, up to half an hour for very dark skins.

    At all you mean ”in not decisive way”.

    But the question here is not

    ”color skin is or not advantageous” because this association between latitude and color skin is already there. I even believe that, to select for ornamentary traits, which are not necessarily advantageous not totally bad at all, it must required ”higher intelligence”.

    My point about ”east asian levels” is…. if this level already is good enough why ”whitening” even more*

  110. Sean says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chinese_harem_system

    I suppose the Chinese Imperial and other harems and primogeniture resulted in similar process of selection of lighter skinned women for the ultimate elite. Early Bronze age Europe was just more intense, and the hierarchical system got in on the ground floor of a massive expansion, as David Anthony has suggested.

    Genes can spead very fast. Tthe spread of Indo-Europeans fits very well with the spread of lactose tolerance, which was very very fast, but later than people have thought, and obviously that was because the calcium in milk was needed by the Indo Europeans once they settled down to cereal agriculture, which results in nutritional rickets.

    • Replies: @Sean
  111. Sean says:
    @Sean

    And that explains lactase persistence in Africa and the Middle East too. Nutritional rickets (the only kind that exists) is common in Africa. Milk has no vitamin D in it, and meat has, relatively speaking, very little by the way.

  112. Vytigudas says:

    For knowlegde to continue this discussion: 1. Alexander Tollmann, about Impact against 9550 years ago, 2. H. Eiberg (Copenhagen U) et more on 6 january 2008 : blue-eyes and white shin are a mutation in Caucasus mountains about 9-10.000 yaer against.
    In Britain about 9550 years ago Impact and world-deluve had made a full extermination of all mens, many animals.
    The name Britain is from Lithuanian verb ‘bristi’ – go by foot to other coast, ‘bridainis’ – can be a men, the makes this action, and country : Bri(s)daina > Bri(s)tainė > Britaine.
    To the Bridaina had coming the same genetic mens as in the Vasconia, one the first people from Caucasus (non-blue-eyes, but brown-eyes, with white shin, some called red-hears R1b), and in the time until 500-800 years after Christus they speach in Lithuanian dialects and today English, Irish, Gaelish, Walsh languages is an eye-witness. Many names is pure Lithuanians : Arkle, Wittington > Fitz-, Rugeley, , Smalacombe, Smarden, LLoyd, Carrickfergus, Pabaigh, Kernove > Cornwall, .., yes, yes, and London in the first time. The best source for this thema is work ‘Britannia’ (1605 year) of William Camden.

    • Replies: @Sean
  113. Sean says:
    @Vytigudas

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/slc24a5-reply-to-greg-cochran/

    SLC24A5 is one of three genes involved in the whitening of European skin, the other two being SLC45A2 and TYRP1. This whitening occurred over a relatively short time and long after the entry of modern humans into Europe some 40,000 years ago. Sandra Beleza’s team estimates that all three genes “went white” between 11,000 and 19,000 years ago (Beleza et al, 2013). Victor Canfield’s team, working only with SLC24A5, estimates between 7,600 and 19,200 years ago (Canfield et al., 2014)

    The white skin genes are old, and a population on the northernmost inhabitable (not under glaciers) European plain had most likely went white during the Ice Age (sexual selection of women through high mortality of men hunting the world most mobile animals* on foot). The white skin light hair and eyes Motala people in what is now Sweden during the Mesolithic were a remnant. They probably got to Sweden by following the reindeer* herds north as the climate warmed and the steppe tundra retreated. Many of the early Neolithic farmers were quite dark, or swarthy at best, and the Yamnaya were too. Actual white skin was at very low frequency until the early Bronze age because the situation for it

    Sexual selection occurs when too many of one sex have to compete for too few of the other .

    The Indo Europeans were a patriarchal, hierarchical society. Two thirds of modern European men descend from three Bronze Age male and half of all Western European men are descended from one Bronze Age male. Obviously he was a king of some sort. Indo-European inheritance was primogeniture, everything went to the oldest son. Now that would put the oldest son in a position where the women would be competing for him, not just to have sex (that would be simple) but to make him their official wife and make their firstborn son the next king would be what every girl would aspire to. The king and queen’s son would inherit that status, and have the same privilege of taking his pick, and so on.

    What type of women would be chosen as Queen?

    [In] a two-part study where men were first shown pictures of women and asked to rate their attractiveness. Fairer-skinned women were not rated more attractive than darker-skinned ones. In the second part, the men’s eye movements were tracked, and it was found that fairer-skinned women were viewed for a longer time than darker-skinned ones. This longer duration may indicate a trajectory of sexual interest with a slower rise and fall (Garza et al. 2016).

    Garza, R., R.R. Heredia, and A.B. Cieslicka. 2016. “Male and female perception of physical attractiveness. An eye movement study.” Evolutionary Psychology 14 (1): 1-16. doi:10.1177/1474704916631614

    Though their sons, these women’s unusually fair skin would become more common with every generation of the elite lines.

    The findings of Gregory Clark regarding the British being descendants of the wealthy show how the process in attenuated form could have continued. Charlotte Bronte stories where young ladies happen to fall in love with the sought-after heir to a fortune/landed wealth, show how selection for lighter skin could have an impact on its spread, and continue as long as the wealthy had more reproductive success. Studies have found such selection up to modern times.

  114. ChrisD says:

    Good blog post Derbyshire but a few things to straighten out:

    Cheddar Man was not dark skinned. He would have been lighter skinned, like most of the other Haplogroup U5 peoples – (eg the original Ancient Egyptians before their genetics were despoiled by migrating subsaharans).

    “Science” is simply a catch all term for “I am banging on the table to make my argument stick”. Science is no more certain than philosophy and when someone says “research indicates x” one must immediately ask: “does research appear by itself? Who is the agent in this sentence? What motivations does/do the researcher(s) possess?” etc. The Cheddar Man had an original researcher who concluded he was simply white skinned. New researchers say he was a dark skinned. Tomayto – tomahto as they say.

    Finally, the “out of Africa” genetic recension is total garbage and has been debunked multiple times now. Humans emerged in diverse environments around similar times, and those in Europe developed differently from those in Mesopotamia for example.

  115. @Old fogey

    Your problem is that you are reading from the original text (the one that was used when I was a child) – i.e.,

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones
    But names will never hurt me
    When I’m dead and in my grave
    You’ll be sorry for what you say”

    The Mrs Jessups of the world – Methodist spinsters – joined forces with ‘schoolteacher types’ (obese women whose personal lives are in absolute disarray) and re-wrote those lyrics in about 1978: they became

    Sticks and stones may break my bones
    But names will shatter my barely-adequate psychic defences; henceforth any child who calls another child names will be diagnosed with a mental illness and prescribed a psychotropic
    Ditto for any boy who makes fart noises in class – they give me a headache

    You thought things had to rhyme, too – go on, admit it!

    In the same vein, I am reliably informed that the lyrics to “Little Jack Horner” changed as follows:

    “Little Jack Horner sat in a corner
    Eating a Christmas pie.
    He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum
    And he was taken off his parents because it was a choking hazard”

    (When I was young a comic version was

    Little Jack Horner sat in a corner
    Eating a Christmas pie.
    He put in his thumb and pulled out a tractor
    And said “Jesus – I coulda choked on that!”

    )

    How would American classes cope with some proper Strayan doggerel – like “The Bastard From the Bush” I wonder – or some of Juvenal or Catullus’ racier stuff?

    My personal fave is Carmen 98 – On Amelius – which ends with

    quem siqua attingit, non illam posse putemus
    aegroti culum lingere carnificis?

    The English translation is here -> not for the faint-hearted. http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e97.htm

    The full text of “The Bastard From the Bush” is here -> again, snowflakes will get the vapours, and may swoon onto the nearest chaise longue... http://www.australianculture.org/the-bastard-from-the-bush/

    Now that’s poetry!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS