"I wouldn't expect much from Saletan, but he writes the "human nature" column for Slate. How can I get a cushy gig like that???"

Tell educated people what they want to hear. Usually does the trick.

You'll notice that all the critics assume that the black Melanesians in "King Kong" are Africans, even though neutral gene analysis suggests they are among the least closely related people on earth.

By the way, do we really know that everybody was black originally, instead of brown, or yellow-brown like the Bushmen?

By the way, do we really know that everybody was black originally, instead of brown, or yellow-brown like the Bushmen?

[suppression of cynical subtext commentary off]
of course steve, everyone knows blackness is the 'primitive' (ancestral) state. black africans have been around since the genesis of human kind, everyone else is simply an improvement upon black africans, though europeans are the most improved of all, that's why they need to carry the white man's burden of perpetual racism because only they are morally accountable toward the gods of PC.
[suppression of cynical subtext commentary on]

in all seriousness, the everyone-was-once-black hypothesis is now spun as an affirmation of the unity of our species. but it was once an assumption grounded in the idea that blackness was the primitive ancestral condition which other races, whites (and to a lesser extent east asians), ascended on up from on the great chain of being. the simplistic background assumptions (including other indicators like hypodescent) remain, the values simply differ....

Steve,

Depends what you mean by everybody? Are you referring to the Out-of-Africa population, or ones that came before that.

From what I gather, most Africans weren't "Black" even a few thousand years ago, but only after the Bantu expansions did most become black or at least dark brown.

From what I gather, most Africans weren't "Black" even a few thousand years ago, but only after the Bantu expansions did most become black or at least dark brown.

well, it seems that the evidence does point to the reality that the ancestral post-fur condition for humans is some form of dark brown. that being said, there is a problem in that the media elite tends to easily slip between black-as-a-trait and black-as-a-race. this is made all the more confusing by the race-doesn't-exist-black-skin-is-just-a-feature gibberish.

Likewise it would seem that populations of South East Asia were considerably darker than they are today, only a few thousand years ago - but with the demic diffusion of the Chinese agriculturalists, they have become lighter.

paul, i think the term chinese confuses. the thai speaking population of thailand is obviously related to (and somewhat descended from) the dai speakiing ethnic minority of southern china. if there was a demic diffusion, there was likely one that preceded the rise of the han. the reality is that southern china (south of the yangzi) was only properly sinicized after 300, and only full by around 1500. so speaking of a chinese influx to southeast asia (excluding the overseas chinese, who do have a long term residence) is not accurate.

Yes, you're right, in that the Han Chinese, pushed the indigenous Southern "Chinese", into South East Asia, ahead of their advance - I was merely using a geographical shortcut, which probably confuses!

OT question: what ocean is skull island [king kong] supposed to be in?

Speaking of King Kong, why did the natives make the gate so big if they wanted to keep him on the other side?

rikurzhen, chimpansea?

the everyone-was-once-black hypothesis is now spun as an affirmation of the unity of our species.

Press Release

Museum of the African Diaspora
Overview

SAN FRANCISCO, November 13, 2005: The Museum of the African Diaspora (MoAD) is dedicated to celebrating the universal connection of all people through our association with Africa…the cradle of humankind.

Whether we live in India, Fiji, Germany, France, Spain, Mexico or the United States, everyone is part of the African Diaspora, literally the scattering of people from their homeland – as Africa is the original birthplace of us all.

MoAD will examine our ancient connection to Africa, as well as explore the more recent dispersal of millions from Africa, through the Middle Passage. Art will be used as the catalyst for exploration and discussion of new ideas to help us better understand and appreciate our diversity and the interconnectedness of all humanity. Through programs focused on art, history and culture, MoAD will help to change the way we view the modern world and our global family.

MoAD has been in development for ten years and is located at the corner of Mission and Third streets in San Francisco. Opening to the public on December 3, 2005, it is located within the first three floors of the new five-star St. Regis Hotel and Towers, near the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the Moscone Convention Center, the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, the Martin Luther King Memorial, and the California Historical Society. MoAD will be centered in one of America’s busiest cultural crossroads, where millions of people visit each year. "

http://www.moadsf.org/

By the way, do we really know that everybody was black originally, instead of brown, or yellow-brown like the Bushmen?

This would seem to suggest that the original humans, however defined, were not black:

"The intense selective pressure that drove the version to become universal in Europeans may have included sexual selection. [comment: may have? would have to have, right?]

In Africa people are much darker than they need to be for UV protection, so to me that screams sexual selection," Dr. Shriver said. Black skin, in other words, may have been favored by men and women in sexual partners, just as pale skin may have been preferred in sexual partners among Europeans and Asians.

That's how I interpret it.

agnostic -

The notion that William Saletan tells "educated people what they want to hear" is easily the stupidest thing I've read today.

Cripes. The man's whole career is based on telling privileged liberals what they don't want to hear: that they're losing the culture wars, that they might actually have to critically re-evaluate their position and take their opponents seriously.

Yes, he made a dumb comment in a lightweight column. If you'd seek to do better, though, you may want to read a little before making uninformed comments of your own.

I realize that the same skin color map appears in many physical anthropology textbooks (including Cavalli-Sforza's). I should point out, however, that this map was originally concocted by the Italian anthropologist Renato Biasutti (Le razze ei popoli della terra) back in 1940. At that time, only a few spectrophotometric studies of skin color had been made (almost all of them were done in North America) and the earlier studies using color tops or color panels were also few in number. Most of the map is simply guesswork and hearsay. This is especially so for North and South America. There is no serious evidence that Amerindian populations differ in skin color.

best site
http://www.flowers-shop.org/

good site
http://www.pokkers.org/

nice site
http://www.pregnancy.net.in/