Are Ethiopians the real ancestors of Caucasians?

if people similar to modern Ethiopians did father the Caucasian race THEY would have become Caucasian while the one's that stayed behind ( modern day East Africans ) would have stayed part of the Congoid race ... the ones that LEFT would have fathered the Caucasian race not the onces that stayed behind ... the Congoid's that left Africa went on to create Caucasians and Mongoloids , and the ones that stayed behind fathered the other distant Congoids ... if the world did not have a diverse environment everybody in the world would look like Ethiopians ... if the first humans came from China everyone would look Chinese , Germany the same thing ... in the end Ethiopians and Khosions are the oldest people in the world and are part of the oldest race in the world the Congoid race... modern Ethiopians belong to the Congoid race because they stayed behind and belong to the oldest branch the Cushitc branch <<<<< Sabonis15 is that what your saying if it is i feel you ... your just saying Ethiopians n Khosions fathered all the different race's ( Caucasians and Mongoloids )and where the first Congoid's ...now that make's sence ... but in no way are modern Ethiopians Caucasian because they are the decedents of the Congiod 's that stayed behind ... while the ones that left fathered the Caucasian and Mongoloid race's .

Greggriffin111 wrote:

Wrong... the people who populated the world looked nothing like how modern Ethiopian' s look like....

I'm talking about modern out migration not the original huminoid groups of 3.5 million years ago (lucy). The modern out migration happened in a more recent time frame, around 100000 years ago.
All people including but not limited to modern
ethiopians would share genetic similiarity to ancient humans because they are the genetic root of us all, but thats not what I was talking about, which is the very narrow realm of phenotypic similarity, which on its own is not enough evidence of a link (for example the marsupial mouse and normal mice look very similar but for their radically different reproductive process, and aren't that closely linked other than that they are mammals).
I agree that there is a closer phenotypic similarity between peoeple in other parts of africa and earlier humans, but all people today look more like eachother than they do any of our prehistorical ancestors. The best evidence for the closeless of all humanity is the fact that we can produce viable offspring between any coupling of humans, meaning that their children can also reproduce. There are genetically similar animals that humans crossbread (or even bread themselves), like the mule (horse plus donkey) or species of dolphins which aren't viable (born sterile) and therefore can pass on their genetic code.
Now if you would get off of your high horse and actually read for example what I wrote on here, in which i have now twice stated that evolution doesen't work with 2 groups of humans having one being the parents of others, because contemporary groups of anything cannot also produce a generational relationship. In one of my earlier posts I said that evolution would dictate that modern ethiopians and europeans would share a more recent common ancestor, where the accumulated adaptations of both groups produced similar phenotypes between groups (ex. noses) but adaptive differences (skin colour) appropriate to environments. I also then said that the best thing to consult was a national geographic animation posted by reality check because it of course is a physical representation of the work of experts in the field - which of course none of us are - showing the complex flows of humans according to the best information available.
Now if one of the links you posted shows an accadamic paper, or summary of accademic thought inidicating that the hypothesis posed is incorrect, highlight it. But for you to accuse those of us on the board of perpetuating a legacy of racism, based on a rudimentary hypothesis of closer genetic ancestry based on phenotypes, which is how this thread started, you're barking up the wrong tree. Its not based on some reading of 19th century phrenology, or some other dark history in anthropology, but just based on simple observation.
Save your self righteousness of my views for 1 until you've actually read my posts. I backed up my arguments by providing nuance based on my elementary knowledge of biology. You backed up yours with anger and viciousness. Make an arguement, not a angry scene

Greggriffin111 wrote:

if people similar to modern Ethiopians did father the Caucasian race THEY would have become Caucasian while the one's that stayed behind ( modern day East Africans ) would have stayed part of the Congoid race ... the ones that LEFT would have fathered the Caucasian race not the onces that stayed behind ... the Congoid's that left Africa went on to create Caucasians and Mongoloids , and the ones that stayed behind fathered the other distant Congoids ... if the world did not have a diverse environment everybody in the world would look like Ethiopians ... if the first humans came from China everyone would look Chinese , Germany the same thing ... in the end Ethiopians and Khosions are the oldest people in the world and are part of the oldest race in the world the Congoid race... modern Ethiopians belong to the Congoid race because they stayed behind and belong to the oldest branch the Cushitc branch <<<<< Sabonis15 is that what your saying if it is i feel you ... your just saying Ethiopians n Khosions fathered all the different race's ( Caucasians and Mongoloids )and where the first Congoid's ...now that make's sence ... but in no way are modern Ethiopians Caucasian because they are the decedents of the Congiod 's that stayed behind ... while the ones that left fathered the Caucasian and Mongoloid race's .

Ok I got all ranty and self righteous without completely reading your argument, so now I must appologize. As I said in a earlier post, I made this arguement but using the language of biology (thats where i have an actual academic background in that I took it at a post secondary level). The thing about races is that they aren't clearly defined, but are obviously existent as there are clearly groups we can see. What a race apparently is a shared external phenotypes (and sometimes internal, consider asian or african lactose intolerance compared to europeans, or the development of sickle cell aenemia as a response to malaria) which offer an evolutionary advantage in particular environments.

No problem sabonis15 i totally get what your saying... my bad for attacking you right away but i think i get what your saying now the people that fathered the Caucasian and Mongoloid race probably were from the same " ethnic " group as the ancestors of the modern Ethiopians and other people from the Horn of Africa , the onces that left Africa and went on to populate the rest of the world " became " Caucasian and Mongoloids or fathered the people we call Caucasian and Mongoloid today ... the farther they separated from each other and the more the environment changed from the original homeland the more the difference's appeared in genetics and feature's ... modern Caucasian just took on the main feature's of the proto Ethiopians ( the onces that left Africa ) before them , but gained their own specific difference's mainly in the Caucasus Mts in Eurasia that binded them together as the Caucasian race ever since... while the proto Ethiopians ( the ones that satyed in Africa ) represented the first Congoids ( the Cushitc branch ) that went on to father the rest of the Congoid tree ,the Congoids took on certain feature's to help adapt to the new environment just like how Caucasians and Mongoloids formed their own distinct feature's and genetics to adapt to their new home .(because the world is so diverse in Environments , different Physical feature's appeared in the same race for example Ethiopians n some west Africans or Nordics and southern Indians ) I understand now , no wonder why Caucasians and Congoids group together but are distant to Mongoloids and the Australoid , it's all about the distance between the two groups and the environment that they live in and the adaption 's and mutations that take place that separates's a group ... in the end the reason Caucasian 's have feature's that resemble Ethiopians is because they both have ancestor's that belonged to the same group ... the only difference is is that the Caucasian 's ancestors traveled north and gave birth to a new race , while Ethiopians ancestors stayed behind and father the rest of the Congoid race ... Ethiopians represent the first branch of the Congoid race , but were onces related to the Congoids ( proto - Caucasians and Mongoloids ) that fathered the other races ... i hope that's what you mean sabonis15... that Ethiopians were the first Congoids , but that people related to Ethiopians left Africa and fathered the other race's of the world ... that's why Caucasians share some feature's that are close to Ethiopians , because the environment and space between them were not that different to change every feature ... while East Asians adapted their present feature's because the distance between the homeland the change of the environment ... other Congoids were also able to keep some feature's like high cheek bones from almost all Africans and elongated feature's like the Masai, Tutsi , and Fulani ... thanks Sabonis15

Greggriffin111 wrote:

No problem sabonis15 i totally get what your saying... my bad for attacking you right away but i think i get what your saying now the people that fathered the Caucasian and Mongoloid race probably were from the same " ethnic " group as the ancestors of the modern Ethiopians and other people from the Horn of Africa , the onces that left Africa and went on to populate the rest of the world " became " Caucasian and Mongoloids or fathered the people we call Caucasian and Mongoloid today ... the farther they separated from each other and the more the environment changed from the original homeland the more the difference's appeared in genetics and feature's ... modern Caucasian just took on the main feature's of the proto Ethiopians ( the onces that left Africa ) before them , but gained their own specific difference's mainly in the Caucasus Mts in Eurasia that binded them together as the Caucasian race ever since... while the proto Ethiopians ( the ones that satyed in Africa ) represented the first Congoids ( the Cushitc branch ) that went on to father the rest of the Congoid tree ,the Congoids took on certain feature's to help adapt to the new environment just like how Caucasians and Mongoloids formed their own distinct feature's and genetics to adapt to their new home .(because the world is so diverse in Environments , different Physical feature's appeared in the same race for example Ethiopians n some west Africans or Nordics and southern Indians ) I understand now , no wonder why Caucasians and Congoids group together but are distant to Mongoloids and the Australoid , it's all about the distance between the two groups and the environment that they live in and the adaption 's and mutations that take place that separates's a group ... in the end the reason Caucasian 's have feature's that resemble Ethiopians is because they both have ancestor's that belonged to the same group ... the only difference is is that the Caucasian 's ancestors traveled north and gave birth to a new race , while Ethiopians ancestors stayed behind and father the rest of the Congoid race ... Ethiopians represent the first branch of the Congoid race , but were onces related to the Congoids ( proto - Caucasians and Mongoloids ) that fathered the other races ... i hope that's what you mean sabonis15... that Ethiopians were the first Congoids , but that people related to Ethiopians left Africa and fathered the other race's of the world ... that's why Caucasians share some feature's that are close to Ethiopians , because the environment and space between them were not that different to change every feature ... while East Asians adapted their present feature's because the distance between the homeland the change of the environment ... other Congoids were also able to keep some feature's like high cheek bones from almost all Africans and elongated feature's like the Masai, Tutsi , and Fulani ... thanks Sabonis15

Again i am no expert on human evolution, only the general process, as well as what i've gleaned from various sources over the years. Politics is my field. I do know that people in Asia are somehow farther removed from other human groupings genetically, and the largest gap would be between people in western africa and people from east asia, particularly korea and Japan. Again the national geographic thing is the best piece of information for lay people to see the history of human migration because it does it visually with animation.

great im glad that comment got posted 3 times.

The official language in Ethiopia is Arhamaic; this is the original semetic language, also spoken by Yehshua (Jesus) and the apostles and the original Yisrael (Isreal.) THe original poster is not far from the truth. West Africans are said to be the Hammites mentioned in the Torah and have different features than, say the people of North Africa. While someone from Ethiopia has (on average - remember all of the mixing as referenced in the Torah and throughout history which means people start to look the same) straighter thicker hair, a person from say the Congo has thinner but coarser and curlier hair. A person (*average - see above) from Ethiopia generally has a lower forehead with more of a curvature while someone from the COngo will typically have a higher forehead with a very dramatic slope. As previously mentioned due to culture intergration, genetics plays a big role today, so you may see Ethiopians with a high sloped forehead and thicker hair but it is safe to assume that somewhere there is ancestry that is Hammite in origin; this is equal to a white woman who has two children with someone she percieved as white only to learn that he had a black grandmother and one of the children comes out looking more like grandma and the other looks like mom.

What I really wanted to post, though is this. No matter what race or color you are or percieve yourself to be we must all remember that throughout the ages the only color that really mattered was green. Race was not even an issue until the late twetieth century. Before that it was religion. Both are simply ways to exploit the poor and keep them fighting among themselves so we will continue allowing certain bloodlines to remain at the top of the totem pole and continue thier oppression obsesion. Who cares where you came from as long as you know where you're going?

get it right wrote:

The official language in Ethiopia is Arhamaic; this is the original semetic language, also spoken by Yehshua (Jesus) and the apostles and the original Yisrael (Isreal.) THe original poster is not far from the truth. West Africans are said to be the Hammites mentioned in the Torah and have different features than, say the people of North Africa. While someone from Ethiopia has (on average - remember all of the mixing as referenced in the Torah and throughout history which means people start to look the same) straighter thicker hair, a person from say the Congo has thinner but coarser and curlier hair. A person (*average - see above) from Ethiopia generally has a lower forehead with more of a curvature while someone from the COngo will typically have a higher forehead with a very dramatic slope. As previously mentioned due to culture intergration, genetics plays a big role today, so you may see Ethiopians with a high sloped forehead and thicker hair but it is safe to assume that somewhere there is ancestry that is Hammite in origin; this is equal to a white woman who has two children with someone she percieved as white only to learn that he had a black grandmother and one of the children comes out looking more like grandma and the other looks like mom.
What I really wanted to post, though is this. No matter what race or color you are or percieve yourself to be we must all remember that throughout the ages the only color that really mattered was green. Race was not even an issue until the late twetieth century. Before that it was religion. Both are simply ways to exploit the poor and keep them fighting among themselves so we will continue allowing certain bloodlines to remain at the top of the totem pole and continue thier oppression obsesion. Who cares where you came from as long as you know where you're going?

Amharic is what is spoken in Ethiopia. Arhamaic is not the same thing (think Latin vs. Italian; I'm presuming there is a relatively close relationship but check it out before running with it). As for race being an issue, as far as we know, large division based soley on physical characteristics happened with the modern slave trade (which if you can believe it was not the largest slave trade ever). It developed out of a necessity to justify treating fellow humans as beasts of burden, so whole mythologies developed linking external physical characteristics to behaviour. You're on point about its relationship to making money though, since slavery was about making people wealthy.

hay everyone,
i agree Ethiopia is the origin of humans that the cardiologists says "not me".
I believe being an origin of humans is a wonderful thing coming to think of it,But what i see in Ethiopians today is that they don't work they don't participate in developing their own country and culture all they all know is to show off of something they don't have.
I believe Ethiopian Generation is getting weaker and weaker with this same line i don't blame Ethiopians i blame the stupid governors who are always self centered.
I blame both both the people and the Governor contributed a lot for Ethiopias' backwardness ,symbol of poverty.
Let me ask a Question for those who know the ancient History of Ethiopia,which is "Where was Ethiopia before?and Where is she today?"
Very sad

hay everyone,
i agree Ethiopia is the origin of humans that the Arciologists says "not me".
I believe being an origin of humans is a wonderful thing coming to think of it,But what i see in Ethiopians today is that they don't work they don't participate in developing their own country and culture all they all know is to show off of something they don't have.
I believe Ethiopian Generation is getting weaker and weaker with this same line i don't blame Ethiopians i blame the stupid governors who are always self centered.
I blame both both the people and the Governor contributed a lot for Ethiopias' backwardness ,symbol of poverty.
Let me ask a Question for those who know the ancient History of Ethiopia,which is "Where was Ethiopia before?and Where is she today?"
Very sad

Reality Check wrote:

I find Ethiopians beautiful of course and very Caucasian looking when you look at their features. Ethiopians don't look like blacks from say...Congo!
The question is: Were Ethiopians the original whites?
OR: Ethiopians took the white features from the Arabian peninsula?
Does anyone know if a research was done as to from which parts of Africa the first men left Africa?

Your question is very simplistic ( Being a ethiopian, cannot say " it is stupid). You need to educate yourself and not always wait for others to do so.L3 is haplotypes ( east african) and also the haplogroup from which the haplogroups M and N have arisen covering the mtDNA pool of all non-African lineage.
Simplest explanation for haplogroup L3 geographical distribution is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches flourished. This was followed by the so called “African exit” and the divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survived outside of Africa( this is the key point, thus we are not your ancestors), the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the original population. Later, it diversified into haplogroups M and N ( white), granted that the diversification indeed took place outside of the African continent.
As for phenotypic appearance , remember with population genetics, if a population intermarry among themselves , certain features become dominant.

Reality Check wrote:

I find Ethiopians beautiful of course and very Caucasian looking when you look at their features. Ethiopians don't look like blacks from say...Congo!
The question is: Were Ethiopians the original whites?
OR: Ethiopians took the white features from the Arabian peninsula?
Does anyone know if a research was done as to from which parts of Africa the first men left Africa?

Are you saying Ethiopians are beautiful because they are Caucasian looking?

I don't think Ethiopians have any Caucasian blood.. The fact is that...Ethiopians are more beautiful than Caucasian..

Just because Ethiopians have different facial structure don't make Ethiopian look like whiteys..

Ethiopians are African and Black people. Ethiopia is black...and proud African.

I think the oldest human fossil is found in Ethiopia..Afar area.. So i think Ethiopia is one of the oldest land...

Luv wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying Ethiopians are beautiful because they are Caucasian looking?
I don't think Ethiopians have any Caucasian blood.. The fact is that...Ethiopians are more beautiful than Caucasian..
Just because Ethiopians have different facial structure don't make Ethiopian look like whiteys..
Ethiopians are African and Black people. Ethiopia is black...and proud African.
I think the oldest human fossil is found in Ethiopia..Afar area.. So i think Ethiopia is one of the oldest land...

I agree

samra wrote:

hay everyone,
i agree Ethiopia is the origin of humans that the cardiologists says "not me".
I believe being an origin of humans is a wonderful thing coming to think of it,But what i see in Ethiopians today is that they don't work they don't participate in developing their own country and culture all they all know is to show off of something they don't have.
I believe Ethiopian Generation is getting weaker and weaker with this same line i don't blame Ethiopians i blame the stupid governors who are always self centered.
I blame both both the people and the Governor contributed a lot for Ethiopias' backwardness ,symbol of poverty.
Let me ask a Question for those who know the ancient History of Ethiopia,which is "Where was Ethiopia before?and Where is she today?"
Very sad

i assure you the relationship between ARAMAIC and AMHARIC is more distant than represented by your analogy. it is more like comparing old german to jamaican english. The reason being that Aramaic was not the mother of all semitic langs, but rather there was a proto-semitic language that is still currently being reconstructed using modern methods.
Amharic itself is not a direct descendant of Ge'ez either!!! This bit may startle a lot of Ethiopians because it has always been assumed and even argued that Amharic was just a compromised version of Ge'ez. rather it is now believed to be primarily of cushitic origins but heavily overlain with Ge'ez influence. This is a very controversial conclusion which might eventually lead to a reanalysis of the nature of Aksumite influence in the northern part of Ethiopia.
Obviously, these observations have come quite recently in fact probably within the past 10 years when linguistics as a science has become very complex and utilizes heavy programming and specific techniques.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the origin of the Ethiopian alphabet? It looks like the Armenian or Georgian alphabets from the Caucasus!

it came from meriote kushtic who were closely related to ancient egyptions who their direct descendants are called the "beja" in east sudan and eritrea...if u look at the letters and add legs and wings to some of its letters u will see hylographic letters like in anicient egypt...24 letters from meriote scriptures and 4 letters from sabean semitic ... which makes it 28 letters..its called fidal and it means scriptures...its not orginally ethiopian scriptures its kushtic.they adopted that system of writing 2000 years ago and adopted the name ethiopia 120 years ago.

abr wrote:

<quoted text>
I told you that you confusing the forum by mixing tigrigna and tigre.you are telling me tigre and tigrigna are similar but i can't get you, how you make them similar and in what aspect.i can ohnestly believe this is not from your heart but only for supporting your arguments.let mw tell you one thing, i some times listen eritrean radio but i close it when tigre starts b/se i can't even listen a single word.for example similar launguges are amhric and tigrigna. any one can atleast listen some words. tigre is cushtic launguge,even the people morphology is different to tigrians and they look some how afar.thier way life is different and are grazers or namadic.any way do you know eritrea well, i thought you are born somewhere outside.i believe there is no semetic people in eritrea ecxept some few that goes from tigray as war lords. anyways if you know any other semetic people let alone tigrians in eritrea tell i will accept it with thanks if with proof.you can mention me some rases but they have gone from tigray.for exmple, let me tell you one thing, i have found a story of my grand fathers father as eritrean, that goes eritrea to tgray in a book called "gahdi yiwsta'e" but the reall story was differnt in know it b/se my grand father told me they went to eritrea b/se thier group was deafted by ras seyoum after they deafeat ras sibhat.any ways tell if you have forget those scripted for domestic consuption.

dude, tigre IS a semitic language, and it is the most similar language to tigrinya. of course u dont understand it, cuz its not the same. theyre semitic speakers. they might have a different culture, but they are in the same language family.

tegre in eritrea were known by the name tegre for 5000 years...tigre in ethiopia just stole that name 1500 years ago...tell me how come tegre came from tigre in ethiopia if tegre eritreans are older,their language is older,they have been in eritrea for at least 5000 years...tell me the logic and tell me who stole who's name....another thing i still can't find one person today who can tell me what the word tegre means...in eritrea tigre ppl know what that word means but ethiopian tigre cant get the meaning of that word its just pinch the name and claim everything.

What an insult to Ethiopians - the creator of this topic is a fool and all of you should be ashamed for taking this person seriously. Do you not realize that his/her purpose is to imply that because Ethiopians are "beautiful" they must be descendants of Caucasians - what blatant ignorance and racism.
Really I believe this is what certain Ethiopians would like to believe - I lived in the capital city, Addis Abeba for 7 years and witnessed first hand the superiority complex that certain Ethiopians had towards me as an African - who by the way was more educated and of a higher social and economic class than those who chose to call me black Africa and n**ger.
Its quite laughable and all the Ethiopians here should feel insulted by what the creator of this post is really trying to say.

Beautiful black Rose wrote:

What an insult to Ethiopians - the creator of this topic is a fool and all of you should be ashamed for taking this person seriously. Do you not realize that his/her purpose is to imply that because Ethiopians are "beautiful" they must be descendants of Caucasians - what blatant ignorance and racism.
Really I believe this is what certain Ethiopians would like to believe - I lived in the capital city, Addis Abeba for 7 years and witnessed first hand the superiority complex that certain Ethiopians had towards me as an African - who by the way was more educated and of a higher social and economic class than those who chose to call me black Africa and n**ger.
Its quite laughable and all the Ethiopians here should feel insulted by what the creator of this post is really trying to say.

i agree with you...its that mentality that also makes them invade and claim other people land just because they invaded it 1000 yrs ago..now you understand what the horn has to deal with for all their history but dont worry we will divide these ethiopians aids infected baboons to 10 countries so their ego could be lowered to a slave mentality like they are.

Beautiful black Rose wrote:

What an insult to Ethiopians - the creator of this topic is a fool and all of you should be ashamed for taking this person seriously. Do you not realize that his/her purpose is to imply that because Ethiopians are "beautiful" they must be descendants of Caucasians - what blatant ignorance and racism.
Really I believe this is what certain Ethiopians would like to believe - I lived in the capital city, Addis Abeba for 7 years and witnessed first hand the superiority complex that certain Ethiopians had towards me as an African - who by the way was more educated and of a higher social and economic class than those who chose to call me black Africa and n**ger.
Its quite laughable and all the Ethiopians here should feel insulted by what the creator of this post is really trying to say.

Wrong wrong wrong. Having participated in the discussion at length, and conversed with Reality Check enough to actually get a sense of his point of view, your offense is severly misplaced, but sadly also a common meme amongst posters on the thread.

Recall firstly that Reality Check, being Swiss, speakes English likely second or third, meaning his English is a bit inelegant. If he meant to imply that objectively, white people are more attractive that blacks, a follow up post would confirm that point of view.

What his actual implication was in his original post was that he finds ethiopians both similar looking to whites, based on certain phenotypic characteristics (phenotype is the physical manifestation of genotype, or what you look like because of your genes), and that he finds them attractive as well. That doesn't necessarily mean he finds the rest of African's, or for that matter East Asians, South Asians, South Pacific Islanders, Native North or South Americans or any other human subgroup to be ugly. Maybe he does feel that way, but he certainly did not say it, either in his initial posting, nor in the subsequent discussion.

The subsequent discussion revolved around human evolution, and clarified serveral points about the science of human development in relation to his initial post, namely demonstrating that 2 groups of contemporary humans (modern europeans and modern ethiopians) cannot have a parent - offspring type of relationship at either the micro or macro level.

Don't take offense to something unless you read enough of someones thought to actually demonstrate that said individual is actually trying to offend. His initial post was not explicitly racist in anyway, so make sure that someone is a racist before throwing around the charge.