By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:

 I made two claims.

- You cannot tell someone's country of origin from a single picture. You have not come close to contradicting this claim.

- You claim that skin tone can be used to determine the "region" some was from made a decision to define "indigenous people" using arbitrary assumptions. This is obvious since "indigenous" means "originated from an area", and we all know that humans as a species originated in Africa and migrated out afterwards. It should go without saying, but you can't both migrate to an area and be indigenous to it.


Those quotes you cherry picked are referring two different claims.

If you really want to push the narrative on the indigenous them we can go way back and change even more and say all human generated from the ocean so don't twist the point, and even considering humanity originated from Africa, the Caucasian have some mix with Neanderthal and also the physical traits differentiated from the thousand of years some population settled in different places.

I'm not pushing any narrative other than his source arbitrarily chose what the "indigenous peoples" of say "Europe" were when that went through what? hundreds if not thousands of changes over the past 20,000 years? At the end of the day those who created the report took some snapshot of history and declared these people in these areas at this time are going to be considered the "indigenous peoples of that area". If the researchers instead decided on a snapshot 2000 years earlier, the chart might look dramatically different. 

Of course I'm not saying that we should go back to the origin of the species and say some such nonsense like "we are all indigenous to Africa". That's fucking ridiculous.