Essays

Cheddar Man — ‘Whiteness’, a Matter of Race, Not a Matter of Colour!

by Max Musson

THE MASS MEDIA have over the past week or so, been celebrating the apparent ‘discovery’ that the ‘first modern Briton’, had blue eyes and “dark skin”, and not simply, ‘dark skin’, but “dark to black” skin colour, such that “if he was alive today he would be regarded as black”. This allegedly ‘ground-breaking’ revelation comes as a result of the DNA analysis of the skeleton of ‘Cheddar Man’, the largely complete skeleton of a man found in Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset in 1903, and who is believed to have lived and died during the Mesolithic period, approximately 9,100 years ago.

A project team composed of anthropologists from the Natural History Museum and University College London are responsible for the DNA analysis and reconstruction of Cheddar Man and news of their findings featured prominently in most of our nation’s newspapers and television news programmes and is due to be the subject of a Channel 4 documentary on February 18th, entitled, ‘First Brit: Secrets of the 10,000 Year Old Man’.

As we might have expected, promoters of multiracialism and multiculturalism have been quick to seize upon these supposed revelations regarding Cheddar man’s colouration in order to make seemingly profound statements implying and in some cases asserting, that these are ‘proof’ that ideas of race and nationality are invalid.

In an article on the Guardian website recently, Tom Booth, an archaeologist at the Natural History Museum and one of the members of the project team conducting the DNA analysis and reconstruction of Cheddar Man, is quoted as saying: “It really shows up that these imaginary racial categories that we have are really very modern constructions, or very recent constructions, that really are not applicable to the past at all.”

And Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project team, agreed, saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and Whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change”.

Clearly the inference that we are all supposed to draw from these pronouncements is that we British have not always been the kind of people we are accustomed to thinking of as ‘British’, and that as a consequence in the face of ongoing uncontrolled mass immigration we should abandon all concern for the survival of our kind and accept the multiracial and multicultural transformation of our nation. Furthermore, the Internet is now full of articles claiming that these ‘revelations’ regarding Cheddar Man have left ‘far-right’ and racial nationalist groups confounded. Nothing could be further from the truth, however!

The first issue to consider is whether or not the findings of the Natural History Museum/UCL project team are in fact an unexpected revelation?

The Guardian article referred to above, states: “The discovery shows that the genes for lighter skin became widespread in European populations far later than originally thought …”

Obviously, journalists at the Guardian have not been reading the articles by H. Millard on this website, as in an article published here almost five years ago, H. Millard stated: “Scientists believe that a tiny mutation in gene SLC24A5 … [which] … started in the few people who left Africa and headed into Europe about 50,000 years ago was a major reason for the emergence of white skin.

“White skin allowed in more sunlight and helped with the production of more Vitamin D than darker skin, and prevented rickets. This mutation became the norm in Europe 5,300 to 12,000 years ago. This gene has primary alleles that differ in only one nucleotide, changing the 111th amino acid from alanine to threonine. In White European descended peoples, the threonine form is found in from 98.7% to 100% of the population while in Africans, East Asians and American Indians from 93% to 100% of the populations have the alanine form.”

Clearly, the ‘revelations’ regarding Cheddar Man, have not involved a vault face or retraction on the part of this website and are in fact rather in line with our expectations.

In an article published on the Science Daily website in January 2014, concerning the DNA analysis of another Mesolithic European skeleton found at the La Braña-Arintero site in Valdelugueros, in Spain, researchers came to the same conclusion regarding that specimen known as La Braña 1 that he too was a blue eyed individual with ‘dark’ skin.

The pictorial reconstructions for La Braña 1 however, do not depict him with quite the same very dark skin that has been used in the Cheddar Man reconstruction. The Spanish researcher, Carles Lalueza-Fox, states, “… the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we cannot know the exact shade … Even more surprising was to find that he possessed the genetic variations that produce blue eyes in current Europeans, resulting in a unique phenotype in a genome that is otherwise clearly northern European”.

It is generally agreed by paleoanthropologists that in common with most chimpanzees, the first hominids would have had pale skin beneath their thick body hair. There is after all no need for a melanin impregnated skin if it is protected from harmful ultra-violet rays by a thick coating of dark body hair. As our hominid ancestors learned to walk on their hind legs and to run in order to hunt prey animals, there would have been an advantage at that point in losing our body hair in order to keep cool in a hot African climate, and it is generally assumed that our ancestors gained darker skin at this point in our development in order to replace the ultra-violet protection previously provided by body hair.

There is some doubt how dark our ancestors’ skins would have become in prehistoric times however, as the modern day San people of South Africa and Angola have skin colour that is only marginally darker than that of modern day Arab populations of the Middle East, and possession of the African versions of the genes affecting skin colour does not therefore automatically make someone as dark as the Natural History Museum reconstruction indicates.

It is likely that upon leaving Africa, our ancestors would have had darker skin colour than modern Europeans, but not necessarily as dark as the Natural History Museum reconstruction suggests.

They would upon leaving Africa have found themselves in a climatic zone that would have favoured lighter skin colour and therefore, beginning 40,000 or 50,000 years ago through to recent times there would have been environmental pressure acting upon them favouring the spread of lighter skin colour, hair and eye colour, but not necessarily to such an extent that uniform lighter colouration would have been genetically fixed amongst all European population groups as early as 9,100 BP.

There are a sizeable number of genes affecting skin colour, hair and eye colour and the interaction of all these genes is not yet fully understood and so it is for this reason rather speculative to suggest that our Mesolithic ancestors were “dark to black”. Only someone wanting to win points for virtue signalling would at this stage state categorically that Cheddar Man was quite that dark. A more measured response would be to state that Mesolithic Europeans contained some groups that still had skin colour that is significantly darker than modern Europeans exhibit, and that these darker groups are represented by Cheddar Man and La Braña 1.

As Carles Lalueza-Fox has suggested, “… we cannot know the exact shade …” of the skin colour of Mesolithic Europeans, and while we might reasonably suppose that it was in some cases darker than is normal for modern Europeans, we should not assume that it was as dark as that of the darkest sub-Saharan Africans.

What Carles Lalueza-Fox also tells us is that other than with regard to colouration, the genome of Mesolithic Europeans is, “otherwise clearly northern European”, and this brings us to the crux of the matter, that even though our Mesolithic ancestors may have had darker colouration than we have on average today, and may have even been as darkly coloured as the darkest sub-Saharan Africans, they were not Negroes, they were in every other respect indistinguishable from people we would recognise as Northern Europeans today.

The fallacy here is to fall into the trap of viewing race in the way that multi-racialists try to pretend we do, as an issue of skin colour and of ‘colour prejudice’. This is instead an issue of ancestry, of different genetic inheritance, and one of a different evolutionary history that has endowed us with a range of distinctly European characteristics.

Just because the evolutionary pressures that made our ancestral line lose its melanin pigmentation occurred later than we might have previously thought, that does not mean all of the other physical, mental and behavioural changes that characterise our race didn’t take place just as we had always envisaged. And it is these other physical, mental and behavioural changes that made us and continue to make us so different from sub-Saharan Africans and other races, and that are so much more important than mere skin colour.

Attractive though white skin is, it was not white skin that caused White people to be the first racial group to engage in farming, or to develop metal working, or to create buildings in a grand style and on a monumental scale; it was not our white skin that caused us to discover electricity, or the internal combustion engine, or mechanised printing, or the computer; and it was not our white skin that caused us to circumnavigate and map the Earth, or to build rockets that can take us to the Moon. It was a myriad number of other mutations that occurred during our differential evolutionary history around the shores of the Mediterranean, on the frozen and arid plains of western Eurasia and on the peninsula of Europe that made is what we are, and as long as we regard ourselves as special and as different from the rest of humanity, and as long as we strive to maintain the evolutionary advantage we have, that will never change.

* * *

Source: Western Spring

For Further Reading

Previous post

Switzerland: White Genocide = OK; Showing White Genocide = Not OK

Next post

Preparing for Race War: The South African Bootcamps Which are Training Thousands of White Youths

11 Comments

  1. February 18, 2018 at 2:41 pm — Reply

    Just more nonsense and junk science to try to make people believe all humans came from blacks because the Out of Africa theory has utterly fallen apart under recent scrutiny and discovery.

  2. foodforthought
    February 20, 2018 at 8:17 am — Reply

    what is the evolutionary advantage if so Europeans have over say Semites and Asians. Why do we have more altruism generally speaking than non Europeans especially races that evolved in hot climates. Is altruism when its not pathological a strength or a weakness, to put it cruder is altruism an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage?

    Is there an evolutionary explanation for all these things?

  3. February 20, 2018 at 3:16 pm — Reply

    If you live in a very harsh environment such as existed in Europe during the last Würm Glaciation, in which there are no human adversaries to rival your group and in which mortality rates are high and survival depends upon individuals helping each other, then altruism becomes an evolutionary advantage.

    Conversely, if you live in a very pleasant environment such as exists in modern day Europe, in which there are and endless tide of human adversaries challenging your group for primacy of place, and in which mortality rates are low and survival can be achieved easily because of state benefits, then altruism becomes a disadvantage.

    What we need to learn is that the benefits of our altruism must be conditional. Conditional upon the presence of the newcomer being beneficial for us.

  4. answerseeker
    February 21, 2018 at 9:32 am — Reply

    So the races with generally speaking more psychopathic and less altruistic tendencies, did they develop in less harsh climates?

    • February 22, 2018 at 11:59 am — Reply

      They would have done, yes.

      The ease of survival in such environments would historically have caused many rivals to want to live there and to covet their land. An antipathy towards strangers, ranging from mere wariness of strangers at one end of the scale, to militant xenophobia at the extreme, would have evolved to motivate population groups to defend their livelihood on the land.

      Conversely, no-one is likely to fight over a piece of virtually barren, frozen tundra, especially when there may be a very high mortality rate for people living on it. There, people would need to co-operate and work as a team in order to survive.

      • answerseeker
        March 19, 2018 at 11:19 am — Reply

        what do you define as white? Where does one draw the line, who are the best dna researchers to find out from, Cavalli Sforza?

        Plus the fact, I’m not quite sure where to draw the line as you say middle easterners are not white. Have you ever heard of the near eastern farmer migration! The basques, Irish and Sardinians have large ammounts of that gene.

        • March 19, 2018 at 7:22 pm — Reply

          We all use the term ‘White’, because skin colour is the most visually striking difference between ‘us’ and ‘them’, but it is more than just a matter of pigmentation. It is more a matter of what horse breeders would call ‘conformation’, i.e. a balance between a number of morphological and psychological characteristics, such that we recognise them as ‘us’.

          This does sound rather imprecise, but we have to acknowledge the reality that at the fringes of our society and at the fringes of our geographic range there are some predominantly White people who have over the millennia infused some genes from n0n-Whites and further out, there are some predominantly non-White people who have infused some genes from the Whites with whom they have had contact. Each one of us must make a judgement call as to where we draw the line and where we draw the line will vary a little from individual to individual.

          We should not get too hung up about this because in a modern White racial state there would be adopted a voluntary eugenic programme designed to improve the stock, and within such a society those possessing the genes for high intelligence, good health, disease resistance, beauty, athleticism, artistry, honesty, courage, etc will be encouraged to have larger families, while those who possess less desirable genes will be encouraged to have smaller families. Over several generations undesirable genes, including rogue genes inherited as a result of some small degree of historic miscegenation will diminish in frequency and will eventually be bred out of our people and our future generations will increasingly resemble the Aryan archetype.

          I am aware of the successive waves of migration into Europe in pre-historic times including those from the Near East. What we must bear in mind with these migrations is that the people emigrating from the Middle East and North Africa will have been appreciably different to the peoples that live in those areas today.

          During the various glaciations the various climatic zones that currently exist across Europe were pushed further south such that a temperate climate existed across most of North Africa rather than the hot, dry, desert conditions of today, and across Anatolia and much of the Near East for example, the climate would have been cool temperate such as exists in Northern Europe today. The Mesolithic and Neolithic migrants from the Near East would have been recognisably ‘White’, albeit that they may have initially been somewhat more swarthy than most Europeans today.

          The fact that someone may after analysis of their DNA be assigned to a haplogroup that originated in the Near East or North Africa doesn’t mean that their ancestors will have been Semites or Negros. It simply means that their ancestors came from a geographic area that is now inhabited by non-Whites, but which would not necessarily have been inhabited by such people in the distant past.

          • answerseeker
            March 20, 2018 at 11:13 am

            fascinating! I am very interested in this near eastern farmer migrations, as they brought farming to Europe. I am also fascinated by the yamna culture of the Caucasus and eastern Europe I have heard I believe it was on red ice radio that the closest relatives to these farming people are Armenians and Basques. Apparently Semites came to that region much later via eastern Africa! There are huge similarities in both phenotype and linguistics between Armenians and basques. You also see this to some degree southwest of the British isles.

            However what puzzles me is that in Arnold leeses book the synagogue of satan he assimilates jews to the armenoid type however i strongly disagree with that, because on the audio version of his book there is no mention of this. Being half armenian i don’t really know where i fit in!

  5. March 21, 2018 at 9:32 am — Reply

    Answerseeker, you say you are half-Armenian, but you don’t say what the other half is?

    If I’m honest, Armenians, like Turks and Iranians etc., are a mixed bag, with some people looking distinctly Semitic or Turkic, but with others looking very European and with most somewhere in between.

    The ‘Armenoid’ or ‘Hither Asiatic’ category devised by Arnold Leese, describes, not very flatteringly, a short, swarthy, brunette race of people with prominent noses, receding chins, brachycephaly and a flattened occipital region of the skull. Leese is enthusiastic about this category because it enables him to label Jews as a distinct alien race of people as far as the majority of Europeans are concerned. However, not all Jews conform to this stereotype and many people who do to some extent or another, are not Jews.

    What Leese categorises as ‘Armenoid’, I prefer to call Turkic, this type being found in all countries where Turkish influence has from time-to-time prevailed. However throughout parts of Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Northern Iraq, Northern Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, there are also some groups and individuals that are predominantly European — some with fair skin, blue eyes and blonde hair, and many with an appearance largely indistinguishable from the Spanish, the Italians and Greeks. See: https://sanahine.wordpress.com/hamshen-armenians/

  6. answerseeker
    March 24, 2018 at 12:32 pm — Reply

    The rest of me is from north western Iran. They speak Kurdish and Azeri there, but I believe those terms were invented by the ottoman empire which in pre-islamic times cities such as tabriz, sanandaj and zanjan were home to the median empire (similar to scythians, alans etc.) once which were and still are essentially a west Iranic peoples. The Kurds and Azeri’s which see themselves as different are likely part of marxist groups which aim to destabilise the Iranic world. With my Armenian side, if you read most history books you will see that armenian and Iranian history is linked betwixt each-other, they are basically the same ethnic entity except phenotypically armenians tend to be more brachycephalic. On the charts of cavalli sforza placed on this website they pair Iranians close to Italians. But that should also include, Armenians and Kurds right? Because they are basically the same people. Also Certain native Anatolian groups which have no turkic admixture have been placed with Tuscans.

    I mean if you think I’m lying look at the charts on national vanguard and read the book by cavalli sforza and his collaborators on his book history of human genes. On the allele frequency Iranians are placed next to Italians and on the mtdna scale they are even paired closer to northern Europeans. https://www.nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Figure-7-3.gif
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/biological-reality-part-1/
    https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/biological-reality-part-3/

    But I’m surprised why it hasn’t included Kurds, Azeris and Armenians and certain native anatolian groups like the the zaza people for instance, because they are clearly a similar people. Plus there is also this obvious link via the armenoid-baskid-proto-britonic connection as well.

    Any semitic or Turkic face you see in those countries are likely from mass migration brought after the 1979 revolution, as there are now large afghan and central asians communties there or by particular towns or provinces that have been overrun by arabs and alike.

    I have a mediteranean. pohenotype with certain alpine and armenoid affinities so where would that place. However my occiputal region protrudes and has a point like in the nordic race. So where would that place me? Any credible sources or extra books you can recommend titles of perhaps? Preferably non political and more based on intellectual honesty.

  7. answerseeker
    March 24, 2018 at 12:53 pm — Reply

    How this relates to the cheddar man post is that I believe the near eastern farmer migration and the indo-European yamna culture came from the Caucasus and the Iranian plateau, at least the northern and eastern part. They then blended with proto-mediteranids and the cro magnon people (a more archaic form of Aryans to form modern Europeans

    The first swastika was found in the Armenian highlands. I fyou look at ancient armenian art it resembles heavily the later gothic manusrcipts of england.

    and the last remnant of the main aryan group the scythians are in the ossetes who live in the caucasus

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.