PDA

View Full Version : Indian Race History and the Concept of Progression



Agrippa
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004, 10:51 PM
Thats from a discussion in Dodona and I thought it might be interesting for those of us which do not visit this forum:

Weddid is in German the world for Veddoid and afaik its the same as in Coon terms.

Of course its the old human strata which lived imo from South India to Australia before the Mongolids came as the most successful and specialized groups out of it.

In different waves they took South East Asia and mixed with local people which I would say were both related to Weddids and Negritids.

You can see this process still at work in Indonesia were pure Australoids/Melanesids/Negritids are displaced by mixed Palaemongolid groups and new waves of more progressive Palaemongolids and East Asian Mongolids (Sinids).

I dont think Mongolid features developed in Sout East Asia, they were just stronger and more successful and displaced or mixed with "Australoid" groups related to Weddids and Negritids.

This more primitive human strata of Protoeuropids or Prodoasians/-mongolids as you want came under pressure by both, the more progressive and culturally further developed Europids from the West/NW and the Mongolids from the East.

In North India Europids displaced and mixed with the Protoasian/Australoid groups, in Cambodia by Mongolids.

Just modern civilization probably stopped that trend in some parts or fastened it in others (Indonesia).

Its the same story like with Khoisanids in Africa which couldnt stand the Negrid pressure.


First of all progressive means "new".

The Homo sapiens is more progressive than the Homo erectus.
Sapiens groups were and are more progressive than others.

The Australoids represent an almost unchanged human variant whereas the Mongolids and the Europids f.e. have new features.

You can further distinguish between "new" features which are just the result of "foetalization" or better paedomorphism, infantile features, and non-infantile progressive features.

F.e. Palaemongolids are more infantile than progressive, because their body type and sexual dimorphism is partially reduced to a level which might be good if there is bad nutrition and in extreme tropical climate but not in general.

Sinids or Europids on the other hand have new features but are on average not physically reduced and therefore just progressive without infantile traits.

Progressive traits are those which are of advantage at least in certain areas and not disadvantageous in general imo.
Neutral traits can be also progressive whereas negative ones are degeneration.

So progressive or neomorphic means a better, higher potential of a group, a further development in the evolution of the species.

On the other hand primitive or archemophic doesnt have to mean "bad" it just mean that its relatively "unchanged" and the features are "old".

Most races have some primitive, some infantile and some progressive features, but some have one of these 3 more than the others.

Progressive traits are f.e. Orthognathie, fuller lips, stronger chin, refined facial features etc...

Thats just a short and of course vulnerable argumentation for the concept of progression, but its typical than in almost all regions "Australoid" or better "Australiform" features were more common in the oldest strata and disappeared over time with further (neomorphic or paedomorphic, climate related adaptations) developments.

The Australoid populations were just too small and the area to similar to regions of human origin that further developments were neither necessary nor possible.

Just think about all the animals in Australia which were unable to survive with Eurasian concurrence.
They had just a protected biosphaere with other selective pressures.

Same is true for the biological and cultural character of the Aborigines.
There was not the same selective pressure for intraspecific group related selection as in Eurasia and therefore no evolution of the same kind.

The Weddids are more progressive than the real Australoids, but still they had the same problem of later and weaker adaptation both biologically and culturally.
So it was just logical that they were sooner or later colonized by stronger (Europid and Mongolid) elements.

The difference to European colonization is that the advantage of the new elements was biological and genuine cultural first whereas the Europeans in later times had the combined advantage of technology developed by themselves and others to a much greater extent.

Maladaption or negative overspecialization is characterized by a weakness against non-specialized or other specialized new elements.
If present that means that you may have the best adaptation for the natural environment (the local nutrition and subsistence) but not against f.e. non-tropical groups without that adaption in the intraspecific selection.

Therefore there is and was never a equality of features neither in animals or humans.