 |
| Credit: El Golli Mohamed |
Har tydligen inte setts till på 84 år...i Sverige. Väldigt vanlig i Nordafrika?
Det verkar som att varken högern eller vänstern kan hantera det faktum att stormningen av den spanska enklaven Ceuta var en marockansk politisk provokation. Och alltså inte en "vanlig" migrantkris, vilket båda sidor tydligen vill hävda.
 |
| Credit: carlos corzo - panoramio |
Töntarna på Aftonbladet låtsas fortfarande som att krisen i Ceuta inte är en medveten provokation iscensatt av Marocko. Detta trots att 48,000 av de 50,000 "migranterna" återvänt till marockanskt territorium. Måste vara svårt att vara kulturvänster...
 |
| Credit: Verdulia |
There is *something* strange about the alleged "migrant crisis" at the Spanish exclave of Ceuta in North Africa. For starters, all of the migrants are young, able-bodied men. Second, most of them are Moroccans, not migrants from West Africa. Morocco is, of course, next door to Ceuta. Third, in an interview with a foreign news outlet, one of the Moroccan "migrants" stated: "So we heard that the border is open. We quit our jobs and went over here".
You...quit your day job on a whim to enter the territory of a potentially hostile nation? I see.
Fourth, about half of the "migrants" have returned home to Morocco (maybe they had to show up for work on Friday morning?), apperently when they realized that all shops and cafés in Ceuta were closed!
So what´s actually going on here? The most likely explanation is that we´re dealing with a more rowdy version of the Green March, the large-scale civilian Moroccan incursion into West Sahara in 1975. Indeed, the situation at Ceuta might be directly connected to West Sahara, a former Spanish colony disputed between Morocco and a resistance movement known as the Polisario Front.
Apparently, the Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez recently visited Algeria, which still backs Polisario. To show their displeasure, Morocco orchestrated the "migrant crisis" at Ceuta, knowing fully well how Spain´s European Union allies would react. As in: react very badly...to Spain! The government of Sánchez is widely seen as the weak link in the EU´s (purported) new and tougher stance against mass immigration. Morocco is sending a signal that they have leverage over Spain and perhaps the entire Schengen agreement. The fact that Ceuta is a Spanish-controlled territory on Moroccan soil might, of course, be an additional cause for the displeasure.
Russia and Belarus has previously weaponized the migrant crisis to create problems for the EU, and now it seems Morocco is doing the same thing, although in their case it´s not even migrants sensu stricto.
We´ll see how this pans out in the upcoming days, but I wouldn´t be surprised if Sánchez is voted out of office because of this. If the Moroccans are going to like his replacement is perhaps another matter entirely...
Svarta ("afro-svenskar") är tydligen överrepresenterade i svensk television, sett i relation till sin andel av folkmängden. Från Hübinettes blogg.
Svarta personer är överrepresenterade i svensk TV
Och så har vi den här. En ovanligt gnällig PK-artikel om att vita kvinnor hyllar en mördad somalisk journalist. Men anta att de *inte* hyllat henne. Då hade skribenten såklart klagat på *det* istället.
Det ironiska är förstås att PK är västerländskt i sig själv, så den stenhårda afro-identitären imiterar egentligen helvita postmoderna filosofer (antagligen fransmän).
Hennes gnäll förminskar dessutom vad som faktiskt verkar ha inträffat, nämligen att reportern från Somalia avslöjade islamister från hemlandet, men blev ifrågasatt...av vem då? Det förklaras aldrig.
Okej, då går vi vidare.
Mordet på Abdullahi har gjort henne hyllad igen
Tillägg: Det slog mig just att hela artikelns premiss är att Abdullahi *inte* var svensk, men bildredaktören kallar henne "svensk" i bildtexten. Vilket totalt negerar hela poängen med krönikan! Faktiskt ganska dråpligt. Hübinette kanske har en kommentar? Färgblind anti-rasism, und so weiter.
The quest for the only true religion continues...
This is a long presentation (taped on location in Oman) about Ibadism, the "forgotten" third branch of Islam alongside Sunnism and Shiism. Ibadism is the dominant form of Islam in the Sultanate of Oman at the Arabian peninsula.
The Ibadis were originally something as strange as the moderate faction of the Kharijites (the "anarchists" or "ultras" of the Muslim world). Their most important doctrine was that Muslims who commit major sins or even repeated minor sins aren´t really Muslims and should therefore be excluded from the umma. This even goes for the imams - unless he is sinless, the imam can´t be a legitimate ruler. This marked the Ibadis out from both the Sunnis and the Shias. The former believed that even sinful rulers should be obeyed for pragmatic reasons, while the latter denied that imams could sin at all. It seems the purist attitude was balanced with a more tolerant-pragmatic one in practice, which distinguished the Ibadis from the Azariqa, the militant Kharijites who believed that all "Muslim" sinners should be killed?!
Today, the tolerant and supposedly peaceful side of Ibadism is emphasized, with Oman having freedom of worship for various immigrant communities and also for the Sunni and the Shia. However, the video says relatively little about modern Omani history, perhaps because it isn´t particularly "tolerant". Oman is an absolute monarchy and it´s interesting to note that the Sultanate was often in political or even military conflict with the Imamate, despite both nominally being Ibadis. The British Empire and the black gold (you know, oil) lurks in the background...
Still, an interesting contribution.
Siri, where did White people come from?
Short answer (under your stated assumption): the earliest human remains ever described as “Caucasoid” are the early anatomically modern Homo sapiens from the Levant, especially Skhul and Qafzeh (≈120–90 thousand years ago). Later Upper Paleolithic Europeans then become the classic reference sample.
Below is a careful, historically accurate breakdown.
“Caucasoid” is a 19th–20th century typological category, not a biological lineage. It groups certain craniofacial traits (narrow nasal aperture, orthognathic face, relatively gracile skull, etc.), not a coherent population history. Still, many older paleoanthropological descriptions did apply it, and that’s what your question is about.
Date: ~120,000–90,000 BP
Location: Present-day Israel
Species: Anatomically modern Homo sapiens
Why they matter
These are the earliest anatomically modern humans outside Africa
Several crania (e.g., Skhul V, Qafzeh 9) were explicitly described in older literature as having “proto-Caucasoid” or “Caucasoid” morphology
Traits cited:
High, rounded cranial vault
Reduced brow ridges (compared to archaic humans)
Narrower nasal aperture
Relatively orthognathic face
Important nuance
They show mixed features (some robust, some gracile)
Many researchers now interpret them as early African-derived modern humans, not ancestors of later Europeans
Still, historically, these are the earliest fossils ever put into that category
➡ This is the correct answer if “earliest” is taken strictly.
Date: ~40,000 BP
Location: Peștera cu Oase
Notes
Early European modern human with significant Neanderthal admixture
Sometimes excluded from classic “Caucasoid” lists due to archaic traits
Rarely used as a type specimen, but worth mentioning chronologically
Date: ~40,000–30,000 BP
Key sites
Cro-Magnon (France) – ~30 ka
Kostenki 14 (Russia) – ~37 ka
Sungir (Russia) – ~34 ka
Predmostí (Czech Republic) – ~27 ka
Why they became the “classic Caucasoid”
These populations were the primary reference material for 19th–early 20th century racial typology
They exhibit:
Tall stature
Narrow faces
Prominent but refined noses
Gracile postcranial skeletons
Often treated (incorrectly, by modern standards) as ancestral to later Europeans
Earliest → Later
Skhul & Qafzeh (Levant) – 120–90 ka → earliest remains ever called Caucasoid
Oase 1 (Romania) – ~40 ka → transitional, mixed
Cro-Magnon & Upper Paleolithic Europeans – 40–30 ka → classic typological reference
If one accepts “Caucasoid” as a valid category for the sake of argument, then:
The earliest human remains classified as Caucasoid are the Skhul and Qafzeh early modern humans of the Levant (~120–90 kya).
Later European Upper Paleolithic populations supplied the canonical examples, but not the earliest ones.
Have any "Caucasoid" skulls/remains been found in Africa itself?
Date: ~315,000 BP
Status: Early Homo sapiens
These skulls were not usually labeled Caucasoid (they predate the concept’s applicability), but they:
Were sometimes retroactively described as showing “incipient Caucasoid traits”
Played a role in arguments that Caucasoid morphology originated in Africa
This was especially common in mid-20th-century literature.
Some really tall tales in this one, including a bear which looks like a gigantic hedgehog (?!). Or what about a bizarre ursid from North Carolina with antlers? Or was it a fashion-conscious Devil Monkey spouting false such? Not much is said about the Giant Polar Bear lost in the London metro, which certainly disappointed my pelt! Another classic is a hyena in Algeria misidentified as an extinct Atlas bear. I originally assumed the hyaenine was somewhat misplaced too, but nah, these bizarre carnivors actually live in North Africa...
Might make your day if your into some kind of crypto-crypto-crypto-zoology. Or bardic songs on shrooms (more like it)!
A genuine language nerd discusses the three most insane proposals for new language families. At least in his estimation! Number three on the list is a proposed "Sardo-Babylonian" family, claiming that Sardinian (a Romance language) is related to Babylonian and Sumerian. Number two claims that Basque and Hittite are related, while number one claims that the Minoan language of ancient Crete (which isn´t even deciphered yet) must have a relation to Hungarian?!
Unsurprisingly, the Sardinian proposal was made by a Sardinian, and the Hungarian one by a Hungarian. Strangely enough, the authors of the second proposal (linking Basque with Hittite) are neither Basque nor Hittite (I think), but I suppose you can´t get everything in an imperfect world.
I suppose these national romantic drafts can at least win the Nobel literature prize, LOL.
 |
| Egypt: Neither White nor Black? |
The North African Neolithic population belonged to a group that is best understood today as part of a "North African" or "Afro-Mediterranean" genetic continuum, rather than a clearly defined "racial" group in the older typological sense. However, if we examine this using modern genetics and anthropology, we can break it down more clearly:
Main Components:
Maghrebi Ancestry (IAM Component): This is a deeply rooted North African genetic component seen in Early Neolithic populations in Morocco (e.g., the Ifri n’Amr ou Moussa or IAM samples, ~7,000 years ago). It's thought to be descended from local Epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers.
European Neolithic Ancestry: Later North African Neolithic populations (e.g., Kelif el Boroud, ~5,000 years ago) show evidence of admixture from Iberian Early Farmers (carrying Anatolian Neolithic ancestry).
Middle Eastern/Levantine Influence: Some gene flow from the Levant, especially during and after the Neolithic, is also present.
Y-DNA and mtDNA Markers:
Y-DNA: Early Neolithic North Africans carried haplogroups like E-M78, typical of Northeast African and Mediterranean populations.
mtDNA: Mitochondrial DNA often included U6 and M1, which are characteristic of North Africa and likely derived from earlier Upper Paleolithic back-migrations from the Near East.
Archaeological evidence shows cultural exchanges between North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Near East.
Neolithic sites in North Africa show a mix of indigenous development and incoming farming technologies, likely from Mediterranean Europe and the Levant.
If one were to try to use the now-outdated 19th–20th century racial categories, Neolithic North Africans might have been classified (in that flawed framework) as:
“Mediterranean” or “Caucasoid”, due to their craniofacial traits and later genetic affinities with Near Eastern and Southern European populations.
However, this concept is now scientifically obsolete. Modern population genetics shows that ancient populations don’t fall into clean, static racial boxes—populations were fluid and mixed over time.
Neolithic North Africans were primarily descended from local North African hunter-gatherers with additional input from Levantine and European Neolithic farmers. They form part of a distinct North African population cluster with some genetic links to both Europe and the Near East, but they were not "black" Sub-Saharan Africans nor simply "white" Europeans. They are best seen as Afro-Mediterranean in ancestry.
Let me know if you'd like a map, specific sample data (like from IAM or KEB), or a comparison to modern North African populations.
I´m away from the web for like four days, and look what happened behind my back. A time of mathematicians finally crack the riddle of existence (no less) or at least time´s arrow. Meanwhile, genetics prove that the Carthaginians weren´t Black (sorry, Afro-centrists) but neither were they Levantine?! Rather, they mostly resemble Sicilians and Greeks.
OK, so maybe I´m gonna stay on the interwebs a bit longer. Time´s arrow and all that...
My race to make the blog an appendix to Artificial Intelligence continues, LOL. This time around, I asked the All-Knowing Systeme the Question of Questions: Where do White people come from?!
Do scientists know when humans first got a pale ("White") skin-coloring?
Yes, scientists have made significant progress in understanding when and how pale ("white") skin evolved in humans, especially in populations that migrated out of Africa.
Here’s what we know so far:
Human skin color is influenced by multiple genes, but several key mutations associated with lighter skin tones have been identified:
SLC24A5
SLC45A2
TYR (tyrosinase)
OCA2
MC1R (less involved in Europeans, more in redheads/freckling)
These genes influence melanin production, the pigment responsible for skin, hair, and eye color.
Pale skin evolved relatively recently in human history—only about 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, after early humans had already been living in Europe for thousands of years.
Surprising fact: The first modern humans who migrated into Europe from Africa (~40,000 years ago) likely still had medium to dark skin.
Ancient DNA from Mesolithic (hunter-gatherer) Europeans shows dark skin, blue eyes, and only later do we see the genes for light skin becoming widespread.
Similar light-skin mutations arose independently or spread through population mixing, particularly during the Neolithic (farming) revolution.
The most widely accepted explanation is vitamin D synthesis:
In lower UV environments (like northern Europe), darker skin blocks too much UVB radiation, which is needed to produce vitamin D in the skin.
Lighter skin allows more UVB penetration, improving vitamin D production in places with weaker sunlight.
This adaptation would be especially important in agricultural societies where dietary sources of vitamin D were less available.
Skin color evolved after humans migrated out of Africa, making it one of the more rapid adaptations in human evolution.
Different populations developed lighter skin independently, depending on latitude and UV exposure, which is why East Asians, Europeans, and some South Asians have different underlying genetics for light skin.
Pale ("white") skin in Europeans evolved around 7,000–8,000 years ago.
Early Europeans were likely dark-skinned for thousands of years after leaving Africa.
The change was driven by adaptation to low UV environments for vitamin D production.
Multiple genes and separate evolutionary paths contributed to lighter skin across different regions.
Let me know if you want a visual timeline or a map of how these changes spread—happy to make one!
Great question—and you're absolutely right to distinguish "Caucasoid" anatomical features from just pale skin. The term "Caucasoid" comes from outdated racial classifications, but the concept points to a range of physical traits once thought to define populations from Europe, West Asia, North Africa, and parts of South Asia. These traits included things like:
Narrow noses
Orthognathic (flat) faces
High cranial vaults
Thin lips
Variable skin color (from very light to medium-dark)
So, where did these features come from? Here's what science has uncovered:
These features didn't arise all at once in a single population. Instead:
They're the result of natural selection acting on different traits over time, shaped by climate, diet, and sexual selection.
The traits emerged gradually, across broad regions from the Levant, Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau, going back tens of thousands of years.
The core region where "Caucasoid" features seem to consolidate genetically and anatomically is:
The Fertile Crescent (modern-day Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran)
The Caucasus region, which gave the outdated term its name
Anatolia (modern Turkey) and parts of the Levant
This area was a key center of population mixing and innovation, especially:
Post-Ice Age (around 12,000 years ago) with the rise of agriculture
Neolithic period, when populations started expanding and mixing due to farming
Genetic studies (e.g., from ancient DNA) show that modern "West Eurasian" populations—those typically labeled "Caucasoid" in the old model—descend from three major ancestral groups:
Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) – native to Ice Age Europe
Early European Farmers (EEF) – originally from Anatolia and the Levant
Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) – from Siberia and Central Asia
Their mixing, over time, produced the blend of features we now associate with many European and West Asian populations.
These populations spread outward in multiple waves:
To Europe via Neolithic farmers and Indo-European steppe migrations.
To North Africa through Mediterranean and Near Eastern contact.
To South Asia, especially with Indo-Aryan migrations (bringing steppe ancestry).
The resulting people across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and India share overlapping cranial and facial features—though they vary widely in skin color and other traits.
Modern anthropology and genetics have replaced the "Caucasoid" idea with the concept of population clines and admixture:
Features change gradually over geography (a cline), not in discrete blocks.
So-called "Caucasoid" features are just one cluster of variation among many, shaped by migration, isolation, and local selection pressures.
The features once labeled "Caucasoid" likely originated in West Asia and the Near East, especially around the Fertile Crescent.
These traits are not tied to a single race, but to millennia of mixing and adaptation.
Skin color is separate from many of these features and has evolved independently in different regions.
Today, scientists avoid racial labels and instead talk about ancestral components and population structure based on genetics.
If you’d like, I can show a map or genetic ancestry diagram to illustrate this story visually!
Yes, you're tapping into a fascinating and often overlooked part of human history: some of the earliest skulls with what we would now recognize as "Caucasoid" features—narrow faces, high nasal bridges, orthognathic (flat) profiles—have indeed been found in Africa.
Let’s break it down:
A nearly complete skeleton found in Upper Egypt.
Shows a blend of traits:
Craniofacial structure with "Caucasoid-like" features (narrow face, non-projecting midface).
But also robust elements typical of earlier Homo sapiens in Africa.
Mixes archaic and modern traits.
Some anthropologists noted that its vault shape and face differ from recent Sub-Saharan African populations.
A burial site with people showing morphological diversity, including skulls with high nasal bridges and narrow faces—features once labeled "Caucasoid."
These individuals showed cranial traits intermediate between sub-Saharan and West Eurasian populations.
Genetic evidence confirms a blend of African and "Eurasian" ancestry in North Africa before the Neolithic.
Genetics now confirms that some West Eurasian (non-African) ancestry entered North and East Africa as early as 30,000–15,000 years ago, maybe even earlier.
This resulted in African populations with Eurasian admixture—long before colonialism or the Arab expansion.
That Eurasian gene flow likely came back into Africa from populations who had migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years earlier, then returned or mixed with groups near the Nile, Sahara, and Maghreb.
Africa has hosted an enormous range of human physical variation for tens of thousands of years.
"Caucasoid" traits are not exclusive to non-African populations, and some of them originated in Africa or emerged there through convergent evolution or admixture.
The word "Caucasoid" is outdated and problematic today. It was coined in the 18th century based on flawed racial models that tried to sort humans into rigid categories (like Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc.).
Modern anthropology and genetics now emphasize continuity and admixture, not static races.
Traits once called "Caucasoid" are now seen as variations on a spectrum—and many are found across multiple populations.
Yes, some of the oldest skulls with "Caucasoid-like" features were found in Africa, especially in North and East Africa. This isn’t surprising given that:
Africa is the cradle of humanity.
Ancient humans moved in and out of Africa repeatedly.
Physical traits varied widely within Africa long before written history.
So the idea that "Caucasoid features" = non-African is not only outdated—it ignores the deep complexity of African prehistory.
Let me know if you want illustrations or reconstructions of any of these ancient skulls—there are some pretty compelling visuals out there!
