Talk:Melanesians

Essay by Tumahab

- From Lord Tumahab - Please don't incite race out of the context of its actual meaning. There are five distinct varieties of humans based on linguistics and genetics. Neither of these groups are distinguishable by skin. There are sub-varieties within these groups that may be more noticeable of what you would identify as race. Nonetheless, white and black people are not definite races. There are dark skin people who are more culturally, linguistically, and skeleton structurally similar to "white" people than they are to other "black" people. These groups of blacks are Somalis along with other Cushites, Berbers, Hausa people along with other Chadic people, Omotic people, East Sudanic people such as Nubians, West Sudanic people such as Songhai, Mande people, and the Senegal-Guinea people (primarily the Fula people) all demonstrate a similar Consonant mutation feature and other relative features as well as physical structural features which suggest a closer relationship and ancestry with each other than with other blacks. Also a close genetic relationship with "whites" than with other blacks as well.

This goes even further as demonstrate between whites and Asians or Mongolic people in which the same mutations are prevalent especially with the Aztecan Amerindian people, Austronesian people, the Japanese, and Uralic people.

A good question to raise is "when does the issue of race and its necessity of use become scientifically relevant?"

Bases on the sub-strain of human genetics we can divide humans into: (Race)

1) Niger-Saharans or Borean-Congolese (Based on resistance to various chemicals, drugs, and relative longevity)

2) Pygmies

3) Bushmen or Khoisan

4) Australian Aborigines and Paleo-Indians (Although not all Australian Aborigines may belong to this group)

5) Melanesian-Papuan-Negritos (Although not all Melanesians and Papuans may belong to this group)

4 and 5 might be group together as Paleo-Borean, being the oldest group of Homo sapien sapiens to migrate out of Africa.

group 1

In Niger-Saharan we can divide humans up into the following: (Sub-Race)

1) Niger-Congolese 2) Borean-Saharan 3) Meso-Borean, which I propose would include Amerindian, which I propose the Ainu people might belong as well as some distinct Papuans and Australian Aborigines 4) African Isolates, which is more of a generic collective term for all African people who are not Niger-Congolese or Borean-Saharan, yet fit under the Niger-Saharan Race

group 2

In Borean-Saharan we can divide humans up even further into: (Infra-Race)

1) Borean-Mande-West Sudanic or Borean-Sudanic 2) Central Sudanic (Lendu people) 3) East Sudanic (Nubians) 4) North Sudanic, which I suspect was a much larger family consisting largely Eritrea until the arrival of Cushitic and Semitic people. The largest surviving branch would be Kunama. 5) Fur-Sudanic (Darfur people)

By the way, East Sudanic and Borean-Sudanic could be categorized together due to a close genetic relationship than to other Borean-Saharan groups

group 3

In Borean Sudanic, we can divide humans up into: (Parv-Race)

1) Macro-West Sudanic (West Sudanic and Mande) 2) Neo-Borean (Chinese, Apache, English, Russian, Arab, Filipino, Thai, and Mongol)

group 4

Neo-Borean, we can divide humans up into: (Below any subgroup category of race)

1) East Neo-Borean or Dene-Daic (Chinese, Apache, Filipino, and Thai) 2) West Neo-Borean or Nostratic (English, Arab, Russian, and Mongol)

Not even at this depth have we actually divided Caucasian, Negroids, and Mongoloids from one another.

group 5

Dividing from Nostratic we have:

1) Elamo-Afroasiatic (Elamites, South Caucasian, Dravidians, and Afroasiatic people such as Arabs and Somalis) in which Dravidian is a mixing of Austro-Asiatic and Elamite 2) Eurasiatic (English, Russian, Mongol, Japanese, Korean, Turkic, Uralic, Inuit, German, Celtic, Italic, Greek, Armenian, Iranic, Indo-Aryan, Northwest Caucasian)

Armenian by the way is a mixing of Iranic and Greek, Indo-European is a creole of Uralic and Altaic with a closer affinity towards Uralic. Germanic is a mixing of Saami, Balto-Slavic, and a Proto-Celtic group similar to Lusitanian that is related to Celtic, but not part of the Celtic family. They are nonetheless closer related to Slavs and Baltic people than anyone else. Anatolic languages which are closely related to Indo-European are also related to Etruscan and the Pre-Paleo-Balkan languages that were absorbed by the Paleo-Balkan people (Greeks, Macedonians, Thracians, Dacians, and Illyrian). And the influence of Dacian may have been responsible for the divergence of Baltic and Slavic languages. Albanian is an Illyrian language that is highly influenced by Turkish, Slavic, and Italian.

And all of this is supported by genetic, skeleton structural, and even linguistic evidence.

Melanesians?

The word Melanesian does not represent a true people or a location on earth that existed thousands of years ago for explorers to travel from. This is a critical point because the word Melanesia has been used to re-write (and by extension – devalue) the travels of African people as they settle much of the South Pacific. By using the word ‘Melanesia’ or ‘Melanesian’ the link from the South Pacific to Africa is severed. The term (and therefore the considerable reference to global exploration – colonization) of European is identified with those people who are from Europe. Asian identifies the people from the Asiatic part of the world. However, when the term Melanesia or Melanesian is used, the word use to identify the people of dark skin who were present in the South Pacific when the colonist arrived, how can the word reference a people from the place that they travel to? How can this be? There is no location of Melanesia for travelers to come from. Logically, dark skinned people in the South Pacific and dark skin people in Africa must have a common ancestor. This would mean that African explorers journeyed to the far reaches of the South Pacific from their land in Africa thousands of years ago. Again, since the term Melanesian is liberally applied to those who are of dark skin the only logical location for explorers who were represented in the South Pacific island to have originated from is Africa.

The current inhabitants of Melanesia are not Melanesian they are Fijian, Solomon Islanders, New Guinean, etc… There may be some value to using the word Melanesia as a geographical locator of a group of dark skinned people in the South Pacific but why?--Vulagaman (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Melanesians do not directly originate from Africa according to current knowledge, and certainly not a few thousands of years ago. They immigrated from the Asian mainland tens of thousands of years ago. There are some indications that people resembling Australo-Melanesians rather than the current Mongoloid Asians populated South, Southeast and even parts of East Asia by 10,000 years ago or so.

Read Neoteny. It seems that more than any other modern group of humans, including African populations, it is Australo-Melanesians who most resemble in appearance the first humans (H. sapiens sapiens) who migrated out of Africa. The dark skin and curly hair is simply common inheritance of Sub-Saharan Africans and Australo-Melanesians, not an indication of more recent connections. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Tahitians - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tahitians which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous article - Suggest correction or deletion

The population numbers are prima facie ridiculous. Vanuatu alone has a population of nearly 250,000, of which the overwhelming majority are indigenous and Melanesian. The arbitrary distinction between 'Papuan' people and Papua New Guinean Melanesians is politically motivated and indefensible. Please either fix these and many other errors or delete this page; it's a travesty.

Origin newest research

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/summer-2015/article/australo-melanesians-and-a-very-ancient-ancestry --Hienafant (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate, bordering on pro-Indonesia propaganda

. . .

This page appears to be an attempt to locate the majority of Melanesian people within Indonesia.

The 'editors' have added authoritative sources - but none of them support the population claims made here.

As commented below, this page is a farce and travesty, and should be amended or deleted.

The facts are that Indonesia has mounted a very well-documented campaign of slow genocide against the indigenous people of Papua, and their population is much lower than that of fully independent Papua New Guinea, which occupies the other half of the island.

I am more than happy to detail where this article is wrong, and where there are already much more reliable, neutral and well sourced articles on Melanesia. In fact the POV dispute tag is probably wrong, it probably should be just deleted.

In support of my contention, I note that edits are made by anonymous editors. Also, I was only alerted to this page by an Indonesian FB user, who used it as a basis for disputing criticism of Indonesia's record in (West) Papua.

Please see this (public) link to a discussion on my public profile:

https://www.facebook.com/aboutjasonbrown/posts/781238935338191

--Avaiki (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)