Is this accurate?

Attached: 13456.png (1357x628, 42K)

>USA
>Mongoloid race
kek

It's natives obviously. Are you 13?

it's supposed to be pre-colonial, but honestly it's a stupid distinction considering that migration has been occuring forever anyway

The map is showing the original population distribution.

Btw, I don't think you ever had caucasoids in north africa.

Is Bangladesh Mongoloid?

Does this look like a Caucasian?

Attached: horner (2).jpg (1080x720, 128K)

migration != invasion/colonization

Whiter than you, Jamal.

Attached: 1542568208906.gif (250x195, 801K)

Somalia
>caucasoid race

Attached: chihuahua.png (518x444, 266K)

>Btw, I don't think you ever had caucasoids in north africa

what is that supposed to mean. Modern and ancient north africans were caucasoid.

>implying race isn't a social construct

Attached: 1553311975217.jpg (894x894, 368K)

That's the pleistocene era
It's reasonably accurate.

It's the pleistocene era.

Colonization, in the context of groups of people moving from one area into another (ie Europeans moving from Europe to the modern US) is certainly a form of migration. The fact that it was done with force and displacement does not change that. The involuntary movement of Africans to the modern US through the trans-Atlantic slave trade was also a form of migration; it doesn't have to be willing.

Okay, that's fair. Good to know that it wasn't based on an arbitrary distinction between 'native' and 'non-native' peoples.

It's the pleistocene era.
It's one distinct time period of history.

what's that got to do with my post

Modern north African causasoids aren't pure blooded, they have admixture from a previous more pure stock of caucasoid hominid from the pleistocene era.

yeah I know that. They're still cluster with caucasoids minus the ethiopians and somalis which are somewhat intermediate. Still don't see what your comment had to do with my original post though.

they*

I would definitely hybridize eastern africa and central asia.

Adjusted for accuracy.

Attached: 1553392091432.png (1357x628, 44K)

A lot of people from south eastern asia and the pacific islands have abo ancestry

Five races isn't enough to capture the diversity of humanity.

no

I do think it's worth having americoid separate from mongoloids. American indians have ancestors that they do not share with asians

First Post Best Post does not apply in this situation.

Attached: 1552915401634.gif (607x609, 754K)

Did you know it was a map of continental distributions of the races during the pleistocene era, or not?

I don't know about that. The races as we know them did not exist back then.

no, Caucasoids and australoids are mixed in india, as they were back then and the himalayas prevented mongoloids from entering India.

no. I simply knew it was before the bantu migrations and obviously europeans ones. I also thought It was after the indo european migrations but i'm not certain about that. Either way it has no relevancy to my original post.

What's going on on Madagascar?

The lines represent hybrids. And i kept canada and alaska as mongoloid because the eskimos are directly descended from asians. They are from a migration separate than the ones that the ancestors of american indians took.

Attached: 1553392091432.png (1357x628, 54K)

They are actually a mix of abo, mongoloid and african i think

Yes. He sure doesn't have West African skull structure.

Also Indians aren't Asians. Phenotype drift.

Austriod and Africans mixed, they have a unique genetic history