Maybe RealHistoryWW was right?

As I mentioned once in a previous post, years ago I chanced upon a fascinating website. It’s called (unfortunately Google has now blocked it). Fortunately I’d read near enough all of it before the block. Its basic premises are:

  • The Out-of-Africa theory is true (all humans are descended from Africans),
  • Therefore all humans in all parts of the world were originally ‘black’. Asia (including Europe), Australia/ Oceania, Americas, Arctic, Antarctic, everywhere,
  • At some relatively recent point, probably due to untold generations of inbreeding, they started having severely melanin-deficient offspring (i.e. albinos),
  • For some unknown reason/s, those albinos emigrated en masse to north or central Asia. They stayed there for thousands of generations, becoming their own distinct race (the ‘white’ race) then migrated in successive waves to other parts of the world, where they sought to assimilate with or eliminate the native ‘black’ peoples. Prehistoric race wars in a nutshell,
  • That’s why there are so many ‘grey’ people nowadays (my term, not the author’s) and why ‘whites’ are the numerical majority in Europe.

Though the site was laden with unabashed bias, these basic premises were supported by the surprisingly extensive evidence. The author also gave many links showing ‘white’ academics are at times willing to let this info go public. Below are some I found from a quick Google search:

According to geneticists & academics, ‘white’ skin came to Europe no more than 10,000 years ago. The links above reckon 8-8,500. Not only that, it happened in 3 to 4 separate waves via mass migration from other parts of Asia. Blue/ light eyes came via a separate mutation roughly 6,000 years ago. Before then Europeans were dark-skinned, BUT it’s interesting what they try to define as dark skin:

Notice it’s just a drawing, not even a reconstructed model

According to the site, these are more like the original: first europeans

About the dark skin/blue eyes combo, it still happens today around the world:

dark skin blue eyes 1 dark skin blue eyes 2 dark skin blue eyes 3 dark skin blue eyes 7 dark skin blue eyes 4 dark skin blue eyes 5 dark skin blue eyes 6 dark skin blue eyes 8 dark skin blue eyes 10

Would be a good excuse to add Amara la Negra. However… I am going… to… resist…

Fuck it, no I’m not.

The ‘whites’-are-albino-Asian-descendants story makes sense, certainly more than others I’ve heard (e.g. they evolved from ‘blacks’ due to natural selection/ sunless climates, they were created by an ancient ‘black’ geneticist, they’re from another planet, etc). Unless I discover evidence of something else, I regard that theory as true.

From any internet forum you’ll see ‘whites’ who’ve heard it find it deeply offensive and refute it en masse. My guess is because it suggests they’re not special after all. In their minds albinos are genetically diseased, freaks, etc. and to even suggest they could be “like them” seems to disgust them. They go out of their way to define albinos in such a way that they couldn’t possibly be related, usually by the standard stereotype: white hair, pink eyes & bad eyesight. Or they’ll say albinism is caused by a specific genetic mutation or allele that they don’t share.

Both are wrong. There are different types of albinism; some affect the skin but not the eyes or hair, some the hair or eyes but not the skin, some all three. There are also different degrees, so albinos can come out with blonde or ginger hair; blue, green or amber eyes; and skin not alabaster but still markedly paler than their parents.

But something struck me as odd. For all his knowledge on global ‘black’ histories, the author remained almost silent on Africa south of the Sahara. Years ago I questioned him why this was, for such in-depth information would teach us something of humanity’s deepest origins. His reply was, and I quote:

If and when, sub-Saharan Africans write their own history, then we will both know.”

I had also complimented him on his avoidance of talking about the Maafa. He responded with:

“The constant recourse to slavery IS troubling, but perhaps that’s because there is nothing else.

The nonsense of Mansa Musa efforts to impress, set a bad example, and are therefore not reported.”
That was an extremely strange thing for a seemingly conscious ‘black’ guy to say. I’m assuming it’s a man but could be wrong. Written records of sub-Saharan African histories had been available on the Internet long before I contacted him, so how did he find it so hard to include them on his site? And in what way was Mansa Musa ridiculous?
Answers I speculated:
  1. He’s actually one of these aboriginal ‘black’ non-Africans, and thus genuinely ignorant of African history. But the ignorance is doubtful due to his knowledge of slavery & Mansa Musa, and the non-African part by his native-level English,
  2. He has some kind of agenda, meant to make us feel this whole world originally belonged to us. All well and good, but to exclude sub-Saharan Africa while admitting it is our ultimate origin smacks of Afrocentric-style revisionism. Yes I’ve heard this kind of rhetoric before, the “we’re not African and never were” claim.

Who knows? But despite his biases, I believe his basic point about the origins of humanity hold water.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s