Observing particular characteristics (Re: Gilgamesh = Hercules? Ishtar = Venus?)

From: Sylvia Knörr (sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam__at_t-online.de)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:29:14 +0100

"P.Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZkvQd.1074$kU3.126@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:cu3isj$m78$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> > "P.Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:pzSLd.4081$cl1.3823@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> >> Well, the problem is, as Smithsonian once stated, that nomadic cultures
> >> seldom leave traces.

> > Yes, this may lead to an overestimation of the sedentary cultures.
However,
> > nomadic people sometimes left graves or even cemeteries, this is our
> > chance to get a trace.

> A trace yes. ONLY a trace. Often a confusing trace since nomads
assimilate
> FAST, sometimes in one generation.

When they assimilate, the issue is - what are we trying to trace back, a
particualar GENETIC people or a particular culture? In case of assimilation
to another people, there is a new blend of genes and cultural "memes".

> >> Western research seems to center on who was Indo European and who was
> >> Semitic - as Bernal and Lefkowitz show (they had a BIG argument in
> >> academia). They never factor in the nomadic Ural or especially Altaic
> >> peoples who come and go and leave almost NO traces. The remains of
> >> people even further back in time, living in Lybia, who fought with the
very
> >> early Egyptians, are known to be Altaic. Obviously, they aren't there
now.
> >> They weren't there during the time that Pelasgians came out of Libya
and got
> >> to Greece, either. Suggestion - they WERE the Pelsagians.
> >>
> >> Here is something:
> >> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/s-t-p.html

> > Very interesting stuff, since it points to a different view of the role
> > which Turko-Tatar people played in Eurasia - and worldwide.

> Well, there is a clue from history if someone would follow it. They tend
to
> DO certain things when they are not wholly unknown and living where no one
> knew. They invade. Then they are gone. Mixed into the people - some -
> others just gone. They have always done this same thing. Avars settled
in
> Austria. As I mentioned elsewhere, Europeans try to turn them into Slavs.
> Others try to push where they settled further east. Fact is, they moved
to
> Austria and stayed there, blended into the people already there. Forensic
> anthropologist Coon found graves. So where are these people? Well, it's
> like going to Kentucky and wondering where all the Native American Indians
> are. Right there. Probably everyone in Kentucky is white plus Indian!
> Mixed.

Itīs only natural - different people meet and intermarry. People from the
east following the Danubian valley and settling in Austria is not a mind
boggling thing. :-)

> >> So there are some traces - they just aren't so well known and no one
ever
> >> considers it. For decades they tried to figure out WHAT the language
of the
> >> PRE-Semite Sumerians was. Now they know it was Urallic related. But
no
> >> one ever thought to question that option - they were too hung up on
either IE
> >> or Semite.
> >>
> >> As for the Germans - I need only look at many Germans to see Altaic
> >> mixture, whether that be from more recent conquests or earlier ones.

> > Really? Thatīs amazing. Although I always try to GUESS the ancestry of
> > people by their looks, I often fail. Not always do the "typical"
> > characteristics dominate in the offspring of a couple of various
ancestry.

> Yes, many Germans have the tilted eye and definitely the cheekbones. They
> have a "cast" to their faces - not all, but many do.

Sure, but there are a lot of options for where these characteristics came
from... :-)

> > Iīve seen some of your pix you posted in other threads, and yes, you
could
> > easily pass as a German. There must be quite a deal of Turko-Tatar genes
> > in our German gene pool. :-)

> Indeed, there are! Here are some other pics - one is black and white so
you
> can't see the red hair (which I get from Russian father of my father.
> www.geocities.com/go_darkness/pictures.html I look like my brother - tho
> his hair is dark brown with reddish highlights. But make all the pictures
> black and white and you'll see what I mean. I went to a Polish club with
a
> Chinese girlfriend (American born) who had died her hair blonde. People
> from Poland thought she was Polish! It makes a BIG difference. When I'm
> tan, people where I am now (Florida) think I'm Hispanic until I open my
> mouth. Some Hispanics refuse to believe I'm not Hispanic. Heh! The
> problem is, Turks in Turkey don't really look like the rest of us at all.

Well, there are different ethnics in Turkey too, and they do not all look
the same. However, some "semitic" traits are prevalent.

> If you had to compare our looks to an animal, you know how people do
that, -
> we kind of look like cats or wolves.

Although this is a subjective comparision, I agree.

When I wear make up (most online pics
> of me have me with make up on eyes) I look way more European for sure.
> Without it - less so. If I dyed my air black? Heh. I'd look typical of
> Tatars.

Somewhat in between European and Asian... :-)

> >> Nomadic people such as the Altaic ones that conquered so many places in
> >> the West in more recent times, usually assimilate with the people in
the
> >> sedentary nations - and they assimilate fast - adopt their language and
ways
> >> fast. Carleton S. Coon (forensic anthropologist) even pointed that out
> >> about Austria. During a certain time, there were Austraian purely
Nordic
> >> looking grave finds and Avar finds which looked a lot like Buryats -
two
> >> grave sites after the Avars migrated into Austria. One generation
later,
> >> there are all intermediate grave sites. So it's there. Whether or not
the
> >> European people want to ADMIT it's there is a whole other issue :)

> > Itīs hard to give up an old paradigma, even if there is a lot of
evidence
> > for a new one. Once a particular model is established, it will cost
quite
> > some time to accept that itīs wrong, especially when it is widely
spread.
> > Even Charles Darwinīs hypothesis about the origins of species are not
> > taken as a fact everywhere today! LOL!

> Yeah, I know. Also, people want to get into the "pure white" thing - and
> I'm not sure what Tatars are regarded as today. In the 1950s I was
> non-white or "other Asian." Today, I'm white. LMAO. It's like Frank
Sweet
> said, if you aren't black, then you are white.

The reason for that might be that most anthropologists were white. People
see what they are looking for and what they expect to see...

> >> I need only LOOK at the people from these places. It's like the thing
in
> >> the USA with blacks - some people can "tell" if a person is even "one
drop"
> >> black by just looking at them. Blacks can tell, too. I can't tell
because
> >> I'm not used to it. But I sure can tell if a person is partly Altaic -
it
> >> shows up clearly enough - and considering it's recessive (not
dominant),
> >> well?

> > Must be some kind of seventh sense. :-)

> No, it's just facial recognition; same thing with the blacks and
> whites-down-south. Cheekbones is a dead giveaway. Eyes another give
away.
> You see white people with something other than round eyes, like almond
eyes
> especially with skin folds - they are mixed. For sure.

Yes, some characteristics like cheekbones may indicate an Altaic ancestry.
Although some other peoples may have been involved - some Native Americans
also have this trait.

> >> As a result of this bs from the past, I seldom trust "scholarship" on
the
> >> issue.

> > Itīs not a bad idea to remain sceptical, especially in history sciences.
> > Every new found can change the whole picture, if you donīt close your
eyes
> > on (even unpleasant) facts it may reveal.

> Well, for most people, the whole subject of race or breed or type is
sticky
> and strewn with mistrust.

I couldnīt agree more - for a German, "race" is a bad word since 1945.
Anthropologists are suspect for being racists generally, and to talk about
race in Germany is like walking a mine field. But hey, this part of science
much too interesting to leave it to leave it to the racists! :-))

For me, it's interesting that we come in so many
> styles - and I'd say it's basically due to sexual selection of types
> (styles) that it happened. At one time, the long face, very round eye -
> even a downsloping eye (like Paul McCartney has), big chin, no cheekbones
at
> all and high bridged straight, skinny nose was the preferred style of face
> for English. Back then, they'd look at Germans and see Huns. LOL. Take
> the Jews - I'd be hard pressed to imagine a blonde blue eyed Israelite way
> way back then - and I think they would have considered such an appearance
> foreign. Today, you can see lots of Jews that look that way. It's more
> like the Ishmaelites have remained more true to their original form, more
or
> less. A really interesting book on this is by Jacobson "Whiteness of
> another Color" I think it's called. Very enlightening. The Anglo Saxons
in
> the USA did not regard Germans or Irish as white people back then! Their
> facial recognition would look at a Czechoslovakian person and not be able
to
> tell that person apart from a Japanese person! There is a lot of
> documentation there, a lot of detail in that book - and it's interesting,
> imo. Blacks in America have a very keen facial recognition for anything
> "one drop" black - and so do some whites. Facial recognition is something
> our brains do - but I can see that some finer points of it are often
> dependent on your own type - hence I recognize a DROP of Altaic.
> considering Altaic traits are recessive (black traits are dominant...) -
> there must be an awful lot in there for it to show up - maybe. Maybe it's
> just persistent.

Sure, sexual selection is very important, but we should keep in mind that in
some cases it was limited, simply because women had no choice about their
partners. So, in some areas of the world (like India or most Arab cultures)
you can see what happenes when the sexual selection for many generations is
a merely MALE selection.

> Here is someone you can find pictures of easily enough. Hitler's female
> relatives, his sister - a picture of her as a kid in school I saw with
other
> students - that girl looks very eastern. He himself doesn't seem to look
> part Altaic at all, tho. But the whole picture of kids with his sister in
> school - ALL of them females, they all look eastern. I'd never have
guessed
> any of them for Germanic. Some of them look more eastern than I look -
and
> I'm 3/4 Altaic.

Itīs true. But I can see some eastern traits in A.Hitler himself, although
itīs just an underlying trait around the eyes.

> There is also this Japanese guy we know down here from seeing him at beach
> (beach regular) - his hair is very light from the sun, even blonde in
parts
> and it's long, like shoulder length in a biker style. I thought HE was
> German or Irish when I met him! I mean, every feature, EVEN his eyes,
could
> have been German or like some Irish I've seen with that look. I was
shocked
> that he was 100% pure Japanese. He looked a bit like my brother (picture
on
> url I just gave above) - now picture my brother with blonde hair. I can't
> use photoshop for *** - but if someone COULD make the hair on his head
> blonde, it would be surprising to see how different that makes a person
> look.

Yes, the color of the hair can do a lot. But then there are some less
obvious characteristics, like the body features or the way to move. Donīt
know if it is genetic or a cultural achievement. Interesting to watch
anyway. :-)

Quantcast