Several paragraphs of utter nonsense.
Humans are inevitably becoming Whiter based on your piss-poor interpretation of genetics & false assumptions that humankind must be wanting progressively widening inter-racial procreation over the centuries?? Therefore, there can't ever be "white washing" behavior if we're all actually getting whiter???
Absolute drivel.
Sorry Clara, but on this you are 100% wrong in your interpretation of what I said. My point is, with no actual evidence to the contrary, any assumption of white washing is someone's assumption. That's my point, it is an assumption. I also did not misunderstand genetics to imply that people are getting lighter as a result. Quite the opposite.
My statement clearly implies that it is quite likely that in the last 400 years, the skin tone of the average Indian has darkened, possibly quite significantly. I am also well aware that 400 years ago, Indian skin tones across the continent would have varied much more widely then they do today.
Those in the North Eastern regions would have had lighter skin due to mixing with people from Pakistan, the people in the North East a different tone entirely from mixing with the people of Nepal and China. In the Southeast, they would have been darker from mixing with Indian/Pacific Islanders. The East and Southeast influenced by heavy mixing with various Middle Eastern and East African people groups.
I also further realize that the industrial revolution which led to massive urbanization in India, pulled in all these various people groups from around the country and have had major effects on the current expression of skin colors across the country. My point is, we don't have a CLUE what any of these folks who were supposedly 'white washed' really looked like. Everyone wants to throw around a dumb term when no one can prove it even happened.
Since you seem to be way off your game today, let me break it down to you sweetums... In this specific example where the OP accused the Inno artists of 'white washing' we have ZERO, that's right ZERO evidence 'white washing' took place. They were tasked to produce 4 avatars based on the historical figures who built the types of buildings being represented. They do a quick google search for reference materials and they find everything we did, showing most everyone with lighter skin. Using the reference material as inspiration, they create their art, under a very tight deadline.
Now, y'all want to come along 250 years later, to call images created 150 years after the actual people lived 'white washed'. Fine. Prove it. Because I can't. I can find no hard evidence that the skin tones of the actual people were NOT as light as they are represented. Any accusations of 'white washing' are from the last 50 years based on no real evidence, just an assumption (there's that word again), that they had to be as dark back then as they are today, so therefore all the images that seem to almost universally show something different have all been 'white washed' because whatever made up 'absolute drivel.'
Which leads me to ask again, why do you keep wanting to make this about race, there is no race, only the human race.
Let me be the one to break it to you, sweetie.... If your closed-minded & slyly simplistic assumptions about genetics & math & human behavior were actually the primary factors in your pathetic scenario of how humans will look as the centuries pass, then all of us - including your descendants - would eventually appear some range of majority asian/dark-skinned african. There currently is & has always existed literally billions more of them compared to any other race. The mathematical majority bits of DNA will prevail?! Not that it matters much, right.
I can't follow any of this and have no idea what you're trying to say. So let me break it down further since it's your slow day.
With all of us coming from just 8 people, we all started out with the same skin color. As population grew and roamed, various people groups became largely isolated by geography. Over time, different levels of melanin in the skin proved to be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on climate, largely relation to sunlight.
Those who were born with darker skin in Northern latitudes ended up being at a disadvantage, as they began to suffer maladies associated with vitamin D deficiencies, while those with lighter skin had an advantage being able to absorb more sunlight into their skin to produce more vitamin D. As time went on, it was the genes for lighter skin that were passed on to subsequent generations.
In Equatorial latitudes the opposite was true, those born with lighter skin in Equatorial latitudes ended up being at a disadvantage, as they roasted in the sun, while those with darker skin had an advantage being able to block more sunlight and keep from burning. As time went on, it was the genes for darker skin that were passed on to subsequent generations.
And guess what? Now that we are no longer as isolated by geography and people are roaming, mixing, and mingling more than ever before, we're all gonna end up looking pretty much alike again. Sooner or later. Which is why all y'all who keep talking about race and trying to make it about race are F'ing NUTS! There is no race!!!
In fact, any geneticist will tell you that the best way to strengthen the human genome short of DNA editing in a lab is for humans to mix and mingle even more. [Edited to remove
@Roxana 1184 the Wise's picked nit.]
Here's another breakdown since you can't find your meds.
In the example of Thandie, Halle and Barack, I could just as easily have worded it to represent them as having been 'black washed' by their DNA, when compared to their white parent's ancestry and it would be just as accurate. BUT ... y'all haven't made black washing a thing yet. Which is EXACTLY MY POINT. WTF???
By the way.... Overwhelming evidence from drawings & paintings by indigenous people of themselves from everywhere in the world over the past 4000 years shows skin tone/etc unchanged in the overwhelming majority now compared to then. But, I can understand why you'd prefer to only use 300-400 year old European source material to support your views. Someone here certainly likes to revise history (hint, look in the mirror).
I'm using the 300-400 year time frame because THAT'S THE TIME FRAME WERE TALKING ABOUT!!! The Taj Mahal didn't exist 4,000 years ago. Seriously WTF???
You want to use the 4,000 year time frame to dismiss all of the genetic changes in the last 400 years, when most of the genetic changes actually occurred. I'm not revising history, I'm accurately representing it unlike you. Until you can provide contemporary evidence to sustain your assertion that Shah Jahan (reign 1628-1658) and his consort Mumatz Mahal had the same skin tone as current Indians, it's all made up. I cannot find any.
But no, skip another dose and give me another rant. Tell me how I'm whatever. Then go away until you find your meds.
