posted 24 September 2003 02:57 PM            

to appear in American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Brief communication: Y-chromosome haplotypes in Egypt
G. Lucotte *, G. Mercier
International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France
ABSTRACT

posted 24 September 2003 05:52 PM            

The problem would be agreeing on the subject. PS; I been told there has been 3 succesful extractions of DNA from Mummies. Excluding the one in Australia. Maybe these can be compared to rural egyptian DNA? I will try to find out were when and by whom.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/2/13

posted 24 September 2003 09:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Ozzy & Thor,
Please explain to me the difference between negroid and other african people.

Is it like the difference between european caucasian and mediterranean caucasian?

---

again we are back to the delimma. race does not exist, so how do we define black? black and negro mean the same thing. if we modify negro to only allow certain groups, who's to say who's allowed in that group?

these classifications are as senseless for people back then as they are for people today. personally i think it's enough to say that kemites were indigenous africans. i think the whole non-negro theory is just to make sure that africans around the diaspora don't associate with kemites, thought not to suggest you meant that ozzy.

posted 25 September 2003 01:00 PM            

''In addition, comparison with the large amount of existing data on human mtDNA variation enables us to confidently assign mtDNA types in Nile River Valley populations to northern (Eurasian) or southern (sub-Saharan African) affiliation and to use this information to infer migrations.''

Since when were Egyptians Eur-Asians?

''Northern mtDNA types are associated with a C at 16223, a T at 16311, and the absence of the HpaI site, whereas southern mtDNA types are associated with a T at 16223, a C at 16311, and the presence of the HpaI site (fig. 2). Therefore, Nile River Valley mtDNA types with the northern character at two or three of the sites were classified as originating from the north, whereas those with the southern character at two or three of the sites were classified as originating from the south.''

See,I don't understand what exactly the author means by Southern and Northern samples. Are they refering to samples taken from Upper Egypt or Northern Nubia[Northern Sudan] How exactly can you define people in Egypt as Eur-Asians?

''Given the cultural and linguistic differences that exist between Egyptian, Nubian, and southern Sudanese populations, the question that we address here is whether the Nile River Valley has been a corridor or a cul-de-sac for human migrations.''

Nubians culturally were very similar to Upper Egyptians,although the Nubians speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Southern Sudanese populations like the Shilluk in Southern Sudan have divine kingship like the Ancient Egyptians.

''To identify the probable geographic origin of mtDNA types from the Nile River Valley, the published literature on mtDNA-sequence and restriction-site polymorphisms was scanned for polymorphisms that differ significantly, in frequency, between Eurasian (northern) and sub-Saharan African (southern) populations''

Who was represented in these populations?

''This is perhaps to be expected, given that, during the second millenium B.C., Pharaonic Egypt colonized part or most of Nubia and that Nubian kings conquered Egypt during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. (Shaw and Nicholson 1995). Thus, there is historical evidence documenting much direct interaction between Egypt and Nubia.''

The interaction of Nubians and Egyptians goes back to Pre-Dyanstic times. Nubian A-group pottery has been found in Upper Egyptian sites,and there are other cultural conformanlity between the two people. Plus Ta-Seti,the Nubian nome,was the first nome of Upper Egypt. The 12th dyansty kings came from this region.

posted 25 September 2003 01:10 PM            

Is the author infering that all populations in Northern Africa are caucasians. H22 is a Northern African halpotype that occurs in modern Egypt around 22%. What Northern African population are the people refering to? I know the Tuareg,Haratin,Chuleh,Upper Egyptians,Nubians are certainly not caucasians and all reside in Northern Africa. Are they refering to the Kaybele,Riffian,and Shawi Berbers?

The study also dismisses the Yap ++ Halpotype which is found in Egypt at 50%.

'', U6 traces the first detectable Paleolithic return to Africa of ancient Caucasoid lineages. It has been mostly found in Northwest Africa, with a global estimated age of 47,000 years [28] reflecting an old human continuity in that rather isolated area.''

Northwest Africa is not the Nile Valley nor any where close. I would believe this because the people in this region are still caucasoid. Previously,I posed a study that explained that the Berbers maternal lineage during the Neolithic was through the Near-east and Europe.

''Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions.''

Are these the ancestors of the Basque in Europe? What region of Northern Africa did they reach?

''Two hypothetical routes for the Asian colonization have been proposed [13], one through Central Asia and one through South Asia. Coincidentally, we detect at least two independent lineages spreading out of Africa. One comprises all M derivatives that radiated 30,000–57,600 yr BP. Subsequent expansions of this clade have been found in India [9] and Eastern Asia where it possibly originated and expanded as haplogroups C, D, G and others [14]. The star-like radiation of these clades suggests that this wide geographic colonization could have happened in a relatively short time''

Emphasis on the word hypothetical,which leads me to ponder if historical data and genetic data work toghter in this observation.
The traces of a certain halpotype in Ethiopians can be explained through Sabean immigration into Ethiopia that occured at an early date.

''After coming out of Africa, modern humans first spread to Asia following two main routes. The southern one is represented by haplogroup M and related clades that are overwhelmingly present in India and eastern Asia. The northern one gave a posterior radiation that, through Central Asia, again reached North and East Asia carrying, among others, the prominent lineages A and B. Later expansions, can be detected by the presence of subclades of haplogroup U in India and Europe. There were also returns to Africa, most probably from the same two routes. The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of M in Northeast Africa, and the arrival of Caucasoids by the existence of a subclade of haplogroup U that, today, is mainly confined to Northwest Africa.''

Notice it says today mostly confined to Northwestern Africa.

posted 25 September 2003 01:16 PM            

From the abstracts you posted,it appears you believe they were black skinned caucasians that migrated into Africa.You relize this is the argument of Eurocentrics like Sir Gtrafton Smith,Gulliselpi Sergi,and Cartleton S Coon all suffled up under the banner of modern genetics.

Notice the double standard when anthropologist no longer use Negriod in scientific litterature,but continue to use words like caucasians and Caucasoid!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted 25 September 2003 03:16 PM            

Ohh and geee you got me! I am a white racist "re hashing" old Eurocentrics views trying to argue that the Egyptians are realy white Caucasoid, that got black from the sun.

Ill just add the new catagories you have placed me in to the other ones I have been accused of and called shall I.

posted 25 September 2003 04:05 PM            

"Infer Migrations", I think they made their intentions clear. They also made clear how they broke up the areas and the people, along with their references to data used for Eurasian and Sub-Saharan.

Frequencies of three mtDNA polymorphisms in Eurasian (blackened bars) and African (hatched bars) mtDNA types. The frequencies of T at 16223 and C at 16311 are based on 1,873 Eurasian and 624 African sequences (Handt et al. 1998). The frequency of the HpaI site at 3592 is based on 1,355 Eurasian and 754 African mtDNA types (Denaro et al. 1981; Johnson et al. 1983; Bonné-Tamir et al. 1986; Brega et al. 1986; Cann et al. 1987; Harihara et al. 1988; Scozzari et al. 1988, 1994; Vilkki et al. 1988; Semino et al. 1989, 1991; Tikochinski et al. 1991; Ballinger et al. 1992; Soodyall and Jenkins 1992; Ritte et al. 1993; Chen et al. 1995; Graven et al. 1995).

I posted this as I said because i saw it had representation of people from Assiut and Assuan which you have mentioned before are not being represented in studies, not to support any argument.

posted 25 September 2003 05:03 PM            

I am very cautious of people that put up genetic data with no historical backing. When you have no historical backing to your genetic studies it often leads to confusion. This is what cultural diffusionist like Grafton Smith,Gullselpi Sergi,and Carleston S Coon,and others tried to do cranialmorphological features. Selgiman tried to do this with language and race. He sugested there was a uniformity in with language and race;thus the Hamitic Hypothesis.

I would like to point out to people that not all of Northern Africa is the same,and variations within these regions exists.

I saw where the people took samples from Assiut,Aswan,and even Mansoura;however the study did not define who was Nubian and which was Egyptian. Most Nubians in Aswan are only about 150,000,but the overwhealming majority are Egyptian. Darrow is the divinding point between Nubia and Egypt. Historically is was around Elephantine;Although Ta-Seti was the Nubian nome in Upper Egypt often called the first nome.

posted 25 September 2003 05:18 PM            

Ausar said: “Amungst which Northeastern population?”

The mitochondrial haplogroup M, which was first regarded as an ancient marker from East-Asian only, has now been found in India and Ethiopia. I don’t have a link, but I will try and find one for you.
As for categorizing here is my view.

From Diop:

"There are two variants of the black race:
(a) straight-haired, represented in Asia by
the Dravidians and in Africa by the Nubians
and the Tubbou or Tedda, all three with jet-
black skins; (b) the kinky-haired blacks of
the Equatorial regions."5

Far from being old hat, Diops classification of Negro is widely used. This view would include the peoples of all Africa, Dravidians of India, Indonesia, New Guinea, Australia, The dark skinned Island people along the Equator, and the Native Americans of the Amazon region. The Mongols peoples of Asia have often been placed in this category also.

Diop and others observations that many of these People share many similar traits is I think absolutely correct in some respects. The first contact with many of the Islands along the Equator, Australia etc, reported people as “coal black like the Negroes of New Guinea, and their hair to be short and curled like that of the African Negroes” Other descriptions are reminiscing of Greek descriptions of the Ancient Egyptians, citing, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged people. But as much as was correct a comparison was also incorrect. And the similarities were relative to the views of the people and the times.

It is reasonable to expect people to compare to what they knew. And I think this is not considered when reading the accounts of Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucian, Timolaus, and others quoted by Diop as being a good source of proof that Ancient Egyptians were Negros. How much was referenced to their knowledge of their times. And how much was incorrect?

Far from being a good reference to classify a group of people these physical traits have proven to be totally incorrect in grouping a people’s affinity and much more of a negative than a positive. Genetics has proven the relationship between these groups of people to be only as early as 50-60 thousand years ago. If this is used as a yard stick, every man on earth is Negro! I know for a fact that an Australian Aboriginal, of which I have in my family, would argue furiously if categorized into this category. Not because he does not whish to be classified with other Black people, but because he calls himself an Australian, which he consider being unique. Which he is!

To classify all these people into one group called Negroid is as absurd as the native Ainu being classified into that other useless category of Caucasoid because of their “white” physical traits. The color of the skin or other Physical traits is clearly not enough to categorize people into any form.

posted 25 September 2003 05:50 PM            

My friend you were refering to me. I think you should know by now I know full well who Sir Gtrafton Smith, Gulliselpi Sergi,and Cartleton S Coon are, I have given you my opinon of them already,

posted 25 September 2003 07:46 PM            

Plus I don't know many Nubians with straight hair. I know many Nubians that have wavy-thick hair that is real course and different from cacuasian hair. I have never meet an Nubian with straight hair,so Diop is wrong about this.

''The mitochondrial haplogroup M, which was first regarded as an ancient marker from East-Asian only, has now been found in India and Ethiopia. I don’t have a link, but I will try and find one for you.
As for categorizing here is my view.''

Wheather this origin is ancient is debatable. Ozzy,what I tried to explain to you is that gene-flow from Yemen into Ethiopia goes back a long date in time. Naturally some Veddoid type people lived in Yemen,so many Ethiopians got this from the migration of Yemani people into Ethiopia.

''Far from being old hat, Diops classification of Negro is widely used. This view would include the peoples of all Africa, Dravidians of India, Indonesia, New Guinea, Australia, The dark skinned Island people along the Equator, and the Native Americans of the Amazon region. The Mongols peoples of Asia have often been placed in this category ''

I know of no modern Anthropologist who classified these people as being black African people. Some people have tried their hardest to find caucasians in Indonesia,Polynesia,Mirconesia,and even papua New Guinea.

''Diop and others observations that many of these People share many similar traits is I think absolutely correct in some respects. The first contact with many of the Islands along the Equator, Australia etc, reported people as “coal black like the Negroes of New Guinea, and their hair to be short and curled like that of the African Negroes”''

None of these people have the Yap++ African Halpotype. None of these people share genetic affinities.

''Other descriptions are reminiscing of Greek descriptions of the Ancient Egyptians, citing, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged people. But as much as was correct a comparison was also incorrect. And the similarities were relative to the views of the people and the times. ''

Greo-Roman descriptions of Egyptians were mixed. The Greeks also described the Lower Egyptian people[Northern Egypt] as looking like people in Northern India and gradually darking as they went down the Nile.

However,Herodotus traveled to Upper Egypt and he most defiantley saw people that had Melachrones[dark skin] and oliriches[wooly hair] Many people in this region today look no different from what Herodotus described. Many modern day Upper Egyptians have kinky hair. My friend from Lower Egypt in zagagzig has olive complexion with kinky hair that she inherited form her mother.

''It is reasonable to expect people to compare to what they knew. And I think this is not considered when reading the accounts of Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucian, Timolaus, and others quoted by Diop as being a good source of proof that Ancient Egyptians were Negros. How much was referenced to their knowledge of their times. And how much was incorrect?''

What was incorrect was saying that all Egyptians had a unversial phenotype. Obviously difference were seen in Egypt around the time of the 12th dyansty in the poem ''The Tales of Sinhue'',which relate the contrasts between the Delta and Upper Egypt. This contrast still exists today in Modern Egypt.

''Far from being a good reference to classify a group of people these physical traits have proven to be totally incorrect in grouping a people’s affinity and much more of a negative than a positive''

Avelouar prongathism is found amungst many Modern day Egyptians,and halpotypes like Yap ++ is also found. Isn't is resonable to assume Egyptians have black ancestry? Prognathism occurs in some Europeans,but not at an extreme.

''Genetics has proven the relationship between these groups of people to be only as early as 50-60 thousand years ago. If this is used as a yard stick, every man on earth is Negro''

People most likley during this period would have been Khoisan like. Khoisan are classified in their own branch which is neither negriod or caucasoid.

''I know for a fact that an Australian Aboriginal, of which I have in my family, would argue furiously if categorized into this category. Not because he does not whish to be classified with other Black people, but because he calls himself an Australian, which he consider being unique. Which he is!''

I don't consider Aboriginals to be black Africans or classify them as such. I understand some anthropologist have even called them caucasoids.

''To classify all these people into one group called Negroid is as absurd as the native Ainu being classified into that other useless category of Caucasoid because of their “white” physical traits. The color of the skin or other Physical traits is clearly not enough to categorize people into any form. ''

Agreed

''Honest question: What historical backing do you expect when refering to pre historic migration?''

I expect some archeological data even if it scarce. The dates like 50,-35,000 there alread existed in Costal Norrthern Africa people called the metcha-aflou and Ibero-Maurasian industry. Have you heard of these people?

posted 26 September 2003 03:51 PM            

No the mitochondrial haplogroup M1 is an ancient marker, in fact, so much so that another report I read yesterday said it may actually outdate the out of Africa migration, and would therefore place its origins in the African Northeast most likely Ethiopian. Every turn of the page points to Ethiopia. This would of cause not support what I have said, But the marker is no were near young enough to support an historical introduction, like Yemen.

Ausar Quote:”None of these people have the Yap++ African Halpotype. None of these people share genetic affinities.”

That’s my whole point, the classification is based on physical appearance not genetic affinities. So if we agree on this then how can one base an affinity like Negro or in fact Caucasians on an Ancient peoples appearance. I have a feeling this is the exact reason for the closing statement from the Unesco. Its clear that although Diops argument was by far the most well researched, argued and presented, the findings of “The General history of Africa” did not accept the main thread of his argument which was, “the ancient Egyptians were Negroid”. If he had simply argued that the Ancient Egyptians were native Africans he would have been considered to have been supported 100%.

Ausar quote:“I don't consider Aboriginals to be black Africans or classify them as such. I understand some anthropologist have even called them caucasoids”

I would like to read that, what anthropologists? No one classified them as black Africans, only Negroid. I think a problem is that these two are now days indistinguishable.

Ausar quote :“Avelouar prongathism is found amungst many Modern day Egyptians,and halpotypes like Yap ++ is also found. Isn't is resonable to assume Egyptians have black ancestry? Prognathism occurs in some Europeans,but not at an extreme”.

The subject of prongathism I have rarely heard mentioned in Anthroplogy outside of pre-historic classifications like Homo-erectis are your references from views held by Marcus Garvey.
You have mentioned that halpotypes Yap ++ is not represented in research I have posted. Haplotypes are different from Haplogroups. Haplogroups are defined solely on the basis of unique mutation events, this lends more to ancient migration research as it shows the ancient spits between groups of people and dates can be inferred. Haplotypes are represented by the number of repeats at certain alleles, or markers on the y chromosome. The studies that have included Yap+ haplotypes that I have seen have not mentioned a specific haplotype (Yap ++) can you direct me to a source please. The Yap marker is an African origin marker, but I was under the impression it was widely found marker outside Africa also.

Ausar quote: “I expect some archeological data even if it scarce. The dates like 50,-35,000 there alread existed in Costal Northern Africa people called the metcha-aflou and Ibero-Maurasian industry. Have you heard of these people?”

Would you consider Ice core evidence of climate change corresponding with dna migration data evidence?
Yes I have heard of these industries, and they too are from sites used periodically during different seasons, Most Archeological evidence is from sites showing a stationary population. There is no Archelogical evidence that the migration to America happened. So should we concluded that the DNA evidence of the Americas is inconclusive?

Ausar quote:“People most likley during this period would have been Khoisan like. Khoisan are classified in their own branch which is neither negriod or caucasoid.”

The bushmen are posobly the oldest linage on earth, Although they are the adam and eve of man, the haplogroups that left Africa would be closer represnted by the Ethiopians I think. As the migrations out of Africa are dirivitives of the L2 L3 Haplogroups. And as I said M1 may have actually originated there too. Having said that there is clear close relationship between the Khoisan and the Ethiopians.
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2002_v70_p265-268.pdf

posted 27 September 2003 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
can one of you please define a black african or a negro for me? and please give me examples of who fits into these categories.

---

American Association of Physical Anthropologists

"In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species".

"The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances".

There are as far as I have found some 60 or more criteria used in the classification into the below groups. No more than 10 are used in any one method and some are simply based on no more than two.

A report in 1996 conducted an analysis on 60 anatomical and social variables, and found that the similarities outweighed the differences and no clear boundaries could be clearly made due to 90% of all the criteria overlapping into each race category.

Historically accepted Classification.

Races, Negroid
A major racial group distinguished by classification according to physical features. This group is found largely as African Negroes in the western, central, and southern parts of Africa; as Melanesians and Papuans in New Guinea; as Negrillos in the African Congo; and as Negritos in the African Congo, Malay peninsula, New Guinea, and Andaman Islands. (Winick: Dictionary of Anthropology,)

Race, Caucasoid
A major racial group distinguished by classification according to physical features. This group also called Europoid, centers around the Mediterranean Sea but includes central and northern Europe. They are indigenous also to northern Africa, southwestern Asia, and India. (Winick: Dictionary of Anthropology, ; American Heritage Dictionary, 2d College ed)

Race, Mongoloid/ Asiatic
A major racial group distinguished by classification according to physical features. This group centers around the Pacific Ocean and includes the Malayan, Northern and Southern Chinese, Mongolian, Siberian, Eskimo, and American Indian.

Race, Australoid
A racial group that includes the Australian aborigines, the Veddahs of Ceylon, the pre-Dravidian people of India, and possibly some other remnant populations of Malaysia. (From Molnar, Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, p17)

These words and classifications above are no longer accepted by the United Nations, the Scientific societys (Current Scientific Dictionary’s of Anthropology, include the words with a warning they are no longer in Scientific use.), nor most Anthropological societies.

However they persist in scientific journals even today, mainly out of ignorance more than anything else. As the Y chromosome,and the mtDdna trees grow, the close checkered history of man and women, will give us the real relationship between groups of peoples as slight as the may be. However I have no doubt people will still continue to debate on ancient people’s color of skin. I don’t think this should pose a problem as long as the color of the skin, or any other physical aspect of a people is not classified into one of the above. As it is clear from even these treads that the word black, and negro (Negroid) is considered interchangeable and the same. It is clearly no more so than Caucasoid representing all white skinned peoples of the world.

This was Diops problem, he could not differentiate between the black color of a people’s skin and the obserd classifications of Negroid.

So Kem, my answer would be, there is no such accepted classification, only to those that see the need to make them. So if most of us can agree that the Ancient Egyptians had black skin, hence they were black, which does not infer “Negro” then we can at least agree on something. If however one needs to associate the black color of skin and place them immediately in the nonsense category of Negro, it is impossible to debate.

On the same level, as a white skinned person, I would find the argument that because the Greeks were more white than anything else that they were Caucasoid and hence because of the colour of my skin I am directly related. Likewise I doubt a Dane too, would like his history to be consider simply classified in one super heading of “Caucasoid” Europe.

The African continent has the most diverse population on earth and has had numerous independent civilisations, why would they too wish to be grouped under a similar super group heading.

posted 27 September 2003 06:36 PM            

For example, most of this last topic you posted seems to argue that these ideas of race, Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongolid etc, don't physically exist, and should not be accepted. I don't think you would have much trouble finding people who agree on this issue. I'm totally with you on this one.

But then later you say that even if Kemites had black skin, that doesn't make them negro. That is slightly confusing, at least to me. If your point is that we shouldn't classify anyone, including Kemites, Kushites, modern day Africans, etc as negro because such a broad classification is silly, then I agree with you 100%. I hope I live to see the day when these classifications are not necessary.

But if you're argument is that black skin does not make Kemites negro, but other groups would fit nicely into the negro category, then I have a problem with the argument. Right now, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make.

posted 27 September 2003 07:01 PM            

This is the problem that people classify all Northern Africans as caucasoid. Even though many Northern Africans have kinky hair and look nothing like caucasoids.

People who classify all Northern Africans as caucasoids are never specific to which ethnic group or people they refer to. the only caucasoid groups I know in Northern Africa are Berbers. It is debatable if these certain groups that live in Costal Areas are indigenous at all,and if they are probally isolated communities.

The other problem arises is when people debate about the Egyptians they try to isolate certain phenotypical traits to indicate negriod. This is just another rehashing of the Hamitic myth that was hypothesis by Carl Seligman.
The word Negro simply means black and does not denote any paticular racial group. People have tried to isolate some mythiological group called''True negroes'' relating to the bantu groups that migrated from Cameroon to other regions.

posted 27 September 2003 08:26 PM            

Nowadays we see terms like Africoid and biologically african being used. They mean the same thing.

It was only in recent years that genetic evidence pointed out that an african village has more genetic diversity than all the worlds non-african population combined. Defining the diversity of african people is an ongoing process

posted 27 September 2003 10:13 PM            

Ausar, The point is they dont.The reference is from a 1972 Medical science Dictionary. And is not accepted by all major scientific assosiations. If these turms turn up in papers then the autors are no doubt ignorent of the fact and are using incorrect physicaly orientated terms. And even when they do, how could one possibly know which of the numerouse criteria are being used.

Kem said "But if you're argument is that black skin does not make Kemites negro, but other groups would fit nicely into the negro category, then I have a problem with the argument. Right now, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make".

My point was that no groups fit nicely into it. The classification of Negroid, does not represent or fit any peoples Nicely or correctly, the term is as usless, as the criteria ( The criteria being the main problem) used to determine it. No less than 60 diferent criteria have been used to clasify people under this term and the others, and they all fail to single out a group of people specificaly under this name.

The word Black and Negro, or negroid do not mean the same thing any more than white mean caucasoids and European. Thats 80% of the problem.

Defining a people as Black skinned native African, pretty much says it all I think, adding "Negro" with the criteria used to supposedly define it creats the debate.

May be I should have posted the numerouse criteria that has been used and the arguments against each one, because in every single one representitives of other people around the world can be found, which clearly makes the term non specific.

Obenga said;"Diop believed that KMT was a black african culture this is his point, his use of terms like negro, negroid was simply a reflection of the times. Everyone used those terms back then."

It wasnt just a reflection of the times, He argued not just that KMT was a balck african culture, but argued Black meant Negro. His whole presentation to the Unesco was based on this subject. He even defines his clasification of Negro, which included geneticaly unrealated peoples, by physical caracturistics only. He was wrong.

Aprt from being an outdated turm with no real meaning, I dont understand why a people as diverse as africans would accept being clasified under one term. I would find that highly offencive.

posted 27 September 2003 10:19 PM            

Why is that Obenga? Could you explain please.

posted 28 September 2003 12:00 PM            

we are in 100% agreement on this.

Ozzy said: "The word Black and Negro, or negroid do not mean the same thing any more than white mean caucasoids and European. Thats 80% of the problem."

posted 28 September 2003 01:05 PM            

The people were not named for their color, the color was named from the people.

My reference was to the words use to define people, not the literal meaning, I suppose I should have made that more clear. The word “Black” has been used in reference to many different peoples, around the world, including but not excluding, Australia, India, Indonesia, China, Africa, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea, mainly as a reference to the color of skin not as an ethnic grouping word. The word and classification of Negroid caries many more inferences than simply the color of the skin and does not incorporate all peoples with black skin.

But I am getting the message that for many people there is no difference and Black will always simply mean the same as Negro. America has a lot to answer for!

posted 28 September 2003 08:02 PM            

I think part of the confusion comes from different locations have different meanings from the same word. I think most people on this board are from the U.S. and western Europe. And here, "black" and "negro" are pretty much synonamous. They simply mean that a person has demonstratable African features, and neither really have anything to do with skin color. For example, a person can have fair skin, thin lips, small nose etc, and still be black/negro in the U.S., like the actor Will Smith.

This is why I don't think that Diop was wrong when he said that Kemites were black African, or any other group that might have migrated from Africa. In the western European context, if you're indigenous African or an African descendant, then you are black African. This was the focus of Diop's argument. At his time, popular belief in Egyptology was that Kemites were Asian invaders who simply settled in north east Africa. Diop's work was basically to show that this was silly, and that Kemites were indigenous to Africa, which automatically makes them black/negro in the western definition. Even Mary Leftkowitz admitted this.

posted 28 September 2003 09:29 PM            

Unofrtunatley,early Egyptologist like James Heneery Breasted tried to designate word like Neshsi to mean Negro. This is not the case,and the word Neshsi means riverline Nubian;nothing more,nothing less.

''The word and classification of Negroid caries many more inferences than simply the color of the skin and does not incorporate all peoples with black skin.''

You are correct,but I was always under the impression that avelouar prongathism,Kinky hair,a flat nose,prominent mouth made a person negriod. Even though negriod can have various phenotypical traits as the caucasoid can.

''"Negro" comes from the River Niger. "Niger" found its way into Latin and since the people from that region were dark-skinned, Niger, nigra, nigrum came to mean black''

This was just one of the many words that the Romans called dark skinned people. Aethiopies,Melachrones,Afer,and various others as well.

The word Negro is nothing more than the Portugeese word for Niger;since most of the vocabulary of Romance Languages are latin. The word orioginally just mean black,buit after social stigma it became to be used as a derogatory epitaph.

''Africa comes from the ancient Egyptian "Af-rui-ka," or Kafrica, the land of the Kaffir."''

This is not correct,because Kaffir is a Arabic word that means non-believer or infadel. The word Africa comes either from Scripio Africanus or from a tribe in Southern Tunisa called the Afer.

posted 29 September 2003 07:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Obenga said " An example would be that most black americans would find that if they trace their Y chromo most would find themselves in places like germany, Scotland and england even though they may look like Wesly Snipes or Whitney Housten".

Why is that Obenga? Could you explain please.

---

The Y chromo of many african americans comes from the white male slave master who is of European descent. So even though they look black the Y chromo can often say something opposite to the way an individual actually looks.