Page 11 | Where do 'White People' come from? MN Historians, Researchers, Anthropologists, please come in.

CantStayAsleep · 2021-03-08T05:14:33+00:00

Forgive me, this may be a simple question. It's 4am, can't sleep and a million things have already raced through my mind. I need an answer to this and Google is flooding me with tons of information/articles that aren't getting down to the bottom line. Atleast I can't find the bottom line myself. So over to you MNers. Help me when you're up and can be arsed. Thanks [smile] If Black people = African descent (as many forms state and a lot of people have said), I take this to mean Black people have African ancestry, regardless if it's dating 1 generation or 400 generations ago. So what is white descent? Where have White people descended from?

CaveMum · 09/03/2021 22:43

This podcast might have been linked to already, but it’s worth listening to. It’s an episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage from 2017 titled “The Human Story: how we got here and why we survived.”

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b08dnkgy

GreeboIsMySpiritAnimal · 10/03/2021 07:43

I have nothing useful to add to this discussion (except to recommend a BBC documentary called Neanderthals which was on a couple of years ago which was very interesting) but just to say thank you to all the contributors - this is really fascinating.

Kendodd · 10/03/2021 07:53

I was thinking about the meeting and mating of humans and Neanderthals and wondering if were imposing a modern idea and practise of hostility towards outsiders into them. Maybe when they met, they were perfectly friendly towards each other and sex happened a lot? Perhaps we only have 2% Neanderthal DNA because it rarely resulted in offspring as we weren't as biologically comparable?

Maybe were imagining hostility between tribes because that's what we have now and perhaps this hostility is just a result of capitalism and the desire to guard what we own (and own more). Lots of people's in the world still can't conceive of land ownership and if it's not yours a stranger can't arrive to take it away? I could write loads more thoughts on this but have to take kids to school.

Kendodd · 10/03/2021 07:55

Typo comparable= compatible

LittlestBoho · 10/03/2021 08:49

@Kendodd

I was thinking about the meeting and mating of humans and Neanderthals and wondering if were imposing a modern idea and practise of hostility towards outsiders into them. Maybe when they met, they were perfectly friendly towards each other and sex happened a lot? Perhaps we only have 2% Neanderthal DNA because it rarely resulted in offspring as we weren't as biologically comparable?

Maybe were imagining hostility between tribes because that's what we have now and perhaps this hostility is just a result of capitalism and the desire to guard what we own (and own more). Lots of people's in the world still can't conceive of land ownership and if it's not yours a stranger can't arrive to take it away? I could write loads more thoughts on this but have to take kids to school.

Have you read Sapiens? In that, the author writes about how there are lots of species of every type of animal in the world: many types of birds, canines, felines etc., with many of them occupying the same territory. Wolves live alongside coyotes, lions live with leopards and cheetahs. Not always peacefully, but they coexist. The fossil record shows that as soon as Homo Sapiens moved into an area, the existing human population (neanderthal, denisovan) completely disappeared. It looks pretty damning.

JohnMcCainsDeathStare · 10/03/2021 09:16

One of the reasons Native Americans are often stuck in poverty is that their concept of land ownership is completely different to that in American capitalism and there are no banks or people willing to investigate that different measures of worth are still valid.

Native Americans tend to view land as a community asset where it is owned in common - no single person is the owner. However, there is more interest these days in eco-economics and ancient economic systems such as the gift economy or the Mondragon system traditionally used in Basque areas.

Kendodd · 10/03/2021 09:31

Have you read Sapiens?
I haven't, I should though.

Californiabakes · 10/03/2021 10:49

@Kendodd

I was thinking about the meeting and mating of humans and Neanderthals and wondering if were imposing a modern idea and practise of hostility towards outsiders into them. Maybe when they met, they were perfectly friendly towards each other and sex happened a lot? Perhaps we only have 2% Neanderthal DNA because it rarely resulted in offspring as we weren't as biologically comparable?

Maybe were imagining hostility between tribes because that's what we have now and perhaps this hostility is just a result of capitalism and the desire to guard what we own (and own more). Lots of people's in the world still can't conceive of land ownership and if it's not yours a stranger can't arrive to take it away? I could write loads more thoughts on this but have to take kids to school.

There's no evidence of hostility between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Sex definitely happened as we can see it in our genes and the DNA of fossils. Neanderthals were around in Europe/Eurasia long before Homo Sapiens and the period of crossover is relatively short. Interbreeding could only happen where they were living in the same area at the same time.

It's quite hard to get your head round the chronology of Human origins and prehistory. Something like 99% of Human existence has occurred during the Palaeolithic period (that is pre farming). We know from DNA that Neanderthals were living in small populations that could be quite inbred.

The Neolithic (farming) has definitely resulted in the the concept of ownership of land etc. Interestingly, and this was mentioned earlier in the thread, although farming did have a positive impact on population size (if bigger is better) it did result in negative consequences on health and lifestyle. Studies on modern day hunter gatherers show that the time required for subsistence is much lower than for farmers.

Kendodd · 10/03/2021 11:10

Why did farming allow population to increase though if hunter gathering was more time efficient and better for health?

Californiabakes · 10/03/2021 11:27

Hunter gathering requires quite a big range to collect resources and hunt. The area of land required to support one person from farming is lower than for hunter gathering.

DGRossetti · 10/03/2021 11:41

Hunter gathering is what you do when you can't/won't mould your environment around you. You just go chasing the food. So overall - having to uproot and migrate at possibly the least advantageous times of year might have placed too great a strain on the ability of a community to maintain a stable population.

If you reverse the telescope, stay put, and shape the land to your needs, then the lower overall efficiency might be compensated for by less need for surges to move on ?

(That's me kite-flying, no idea if that's anyone elses idea).

Also farming reduces the danger that your dinner will kill you. Anyone who knows the difference between an auroch and a cow will know what I am talking about. In general domestication shrank our livestock as well as removing aggression.

MrsTerryPratchett · 10/03/2021 14:37

Hunter gathering is what you do when you can't/won't mould your environment around you. You just go chasing the food. So overall - having to uproot and migrate at possibly the least advantageous times of year might have placed too great a strain on the ability of a community to maintain a stable population.

It depends where you are. One of the most diverse areas, linguistically, in the world is the Pacific NW of the America and the SW of Canada. Salmon and berries. Both of which can be preserved and are very very good for you. Plus loads of other food. Hunter gathering but very 'easy'. Therefore art, trading, language and culture were all what life was really about. No migration but no farming so the patriarchal bullshit wasn't a thing.

As opposed to plains people who hunted migratory animals (and BEARS) who could get killed, had to uproot etc. Really different cultures. More famously fond of 'war' as well. I mean if your food includes BEARS you probably know how to fight.

Spudlet · 10/03/2021 15:30

Also farming reduces the danger that your dinner will kill you. Anyone who knows the difference between an auroch and a cow will know what I am talking about. In general domestication shrank our livestock as well as removing aggression.

There’s a reason that the first domesticated livestock were sheep, and that reason was 7 feet tall, equipped with horns and notably cranky...

DGRossetti · 10/03/2021 15:34

Dogs and humans are a fascinating source of speculation - seems human use of dogs may have been pulling sledges rather than hunting and herding.

MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes · 10/03/2021 17:38

Native Americans tend to view land as a community asset where it is owned in common - no single person is the owner. However, there is more interest these days in eco-economics and ancient economic systems such as the gift economy or the Mondragon system traditionally used in Basque areas.

That’s interesting in view of the destruction of the Commons in England too.

Farming allows a guaranteed - well, more guaranteed - larger supply of food from an area dedicated to it. It also required very local fixed settlements and allowed storage (and the development of wealth). It led directly to structured, specialised economies (and hierarchies) all of which created wealth. Wealth here simply means increased production of the means of survival, and therefore of greater survival. Once the die was set it could not be reversed without huge loss of life.

MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes · 10/03/2021 17:44

(And that’s why, essentially, we all have a natural acquisitive urge).

MrsTerryPratchett · 10/03/2021 18:02

@MayYouLiveInInterestingTimes

(And that’s why, essentially, we all have a natural acquisitive urge).

We also have inbuilt reciprocal altruism. Which is what balances our competitive, acquisitive urges. It's an interesting balance.

'Natural' justifications always forget this.

BTW vampire bats are a lovely, if repulsive, example of reciprocal altruism.

DGRossetti · 10/03/2021 18:57

We also have inbuilt reciprocal altruism.

The last show I saw Robert Newman (one time Baddiel partner) doing a show, he mentioned an organism which can break into individuals or work together to ensure the survival of the species. For the life of me I can't remember it's full name (and it's not immediately apparent on his website). Fascinating creature. Wish I could remember more.

SonicStars · 10/03/2021 20:27

Maybe he was talking about siphonophores?

I don't believe in altruism. Wish I did.

MrsTerryPratchett · 10/03/2021 20:36

@SonicStars

Maybe he was talking about siphonophores?

I don't believe in altruism. Wish I did.

Importantly it's reciprocal altruism not true altruism. And it's defined and measurable.

DGRossetti · 10/03/2021 20:56

@SonicStars

Maybe he was talking about siphonophores?

I don't believe in altruism. Wish I did.

DW remembers "disco" in the scientific name but googling doesn't help.

CaveMum · 10/03/2021 21:12

Please tell me I’m not the only person who saw the word “siphonophore” and thought “Ooh I’ve seen those on Octonauts!” #mumofa3yrold

LizzieAnt · 10/03/2021 21:50

You're definitely not the only one

SarahAndQuack · 10/03/2021 22:57

Something like 99% of Human existence has occurred during the Palaeolithic period (that is pre farming).

This blows my mind. I love it.

DGRossetti · 11/03/2021 10:17

@SarahAndQuack

Something like 99% of Human existence has occurred during the Palaeolithic period (that is pre farming).

This blows my mind. I love it.

As many as 75 tools in just a single square metre of ground along the slopes of Massak Settafet, near Fezzan, Libya. And there are estimates there could be between 500,000 and five million tools created by early humans for every square kilometre of Africa.