posted 13 May 2004 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

Clearly the statues of Rahotep, Thutmose III, Hapshepsut, Tut, and others are clearly not negroid. Egyptian art speaks volumes as they always distinguish between themselves and black Nubians.

---

But Senwroset,NBiyankh-Pepi-Kem,the fourth dyansty deserve head,and others demonstrate that clearly there were negriod people amung the Egyptian population.

quote:

---

Technology will give us all the answers in 15 or 20 years. It will show that the black population in southern Egypt are actually Nubians who migrated up the river over time. This would be a natural migration.

---

Does not matter much anyway since Southern Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan are hardly different from each other. I highly doubt the dark brown people within this vincinity migrated from Northern Sudan. Only about 150,000 Nubians live in Aswan and mostly around Kom Ombo. The majority of the dark skinned Egyptians live in Luxor which is above the first cataract.

Does not matter much anyway because pre-dyanstic remains in Egypt have been found to have affinities with A-group Nubians and Eastern Africans called the Teita.

quote:

---

We also have many of the mummies on hand that clearly show a southern European connection.

---

Which mummies are these? The Ptolomeic dyansty ? Reserch by Kent R. Weeks and others have shown that many of the mummies had Nubian affinities especially the 18th dyansty ones.

You can't tell somebody's ethnicity just from simple observation from a mummuy when it requires X-ray and dental analysis. Look at Kent R. Weeks X-raying the Pharoahs.

posted 13 May 2004 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Horemheb: Clearly the statues of Rahotep, Thutmose III, Hapshepsut, Tut, and others are clearly not negroid. Egyptian art speaks volumes as they always distinguish between themselves and black Nubians.

Ausar: But Senwroset,NBiyankh-Pepi-Kem,the fourth dyansty deserve head,and others demonstrate that clearly there were negriod people amung the Egyptian population.

---

posted 14 May 2004 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Clearly the statues of Rahotep, Thutmose III, Hapshepsut, Tut, and others are clearly not negroid. Egyptian art speaks volumes as they always distinguish between themselves and black Nubians. We also have many of the mummies on hand that clearly show a southern European connection.
Technology will give us all the answers in 15 or 20 years. It will show that the black population in southern Egypt are actually Nubians who migrated up the river over time. This would be a natural migration.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 13 May 2004).]

---

When will you please quit trolling and reply to the information that I posted? Was that information I posted propaganda or fact?

posted 14 May 2004 06:10 PM            

Black population exist in the Maghreb also,but mostly in the Sahara region where they historically existed. The modern day Berbers come from the Capsians,Metcha-alArabi people. Some have also speculated that Northern Africans was once covered with khoisan type people.

posted 17 May 2004 01:30 AM            

During the existence of our site, the major point of contention has been whether the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. It is quite understandable that this issue would stir up heated passions. For nearly two hundred years now, White scholars have removed Black people from Egypt, Egypt from Africa and Africa from world history."

How true! Colonization has indeed attempted to monopolize the cultural, philosophical and scientific history of the world by denying non-Europeans credit for the numerous contributions they have made to world civilization.

As an Indian who is exceedingly aware of how India's role in the world has been diminished and demeaned, I share your anger and frustration.

European civilization is relatively very young - because for many hundreds of years, much of human progress took place in other continents. European civilization has borrowed very heavily from scientific and cultural progress that took place elsewhere in the world. But colonial attitudes continue to work overtime in trying to obscure this debt.

Concerning skin color in ancient Egypt - I'd like to offer the following points:-

Africa is a huge continent, and it would not be at all surprising if the people of ancient Egypt were somewhat lighter skinned on account of Egypt's cooler climate. Some non-European people of South Africa and Namibia are also somewhat lighter skinned (probably for the same reason). But they are still all African.

In any case, the racial heritage of the rulers of ancient Egypt varied from dynasty to dynasty and included rulers from what is now Ethiopia and Sudan (at the very least). Would these same racist historians then proceed to deny the Africanness of the ancient Ethiopians and Sudanese royal families who reigned in ancient Egypt?

In an examination of some of the surviving sculpture from Egypt - and particularly from the equally rich civilization of ancient Nubia - one can discern distinctly African features.

To deny Africans (of whatever complexion) - a connection with Egypt is not only racist, but a deliberate exercise in deception. It can only be derived from a false or highly selective reading of the numerous surviving artifacts which show the ancient Egyptian monarchs to be not just lighter skinned Africans but (depending on the dynasty) also darker skinned Africans with characteristic African features.

In any case, there are also other places in Africa that have made important contributions to human civilization. In my view, some of the most interesting buildings of the Roman era are not to be found in Italy but what is now Libya and Algeria!

Yet, rarely ever are Libya and Algeria acknowledged as important centres of Roman civilization!

In the ancient Roman world - people of all races lived in the ports and trading centres of the Roman world. It would therefore be quite absurd to argue that Roman civilization in Northern Africa was purely European, and had nothing to do with the majority of the people who inhabit the vast continent of Africa.

There was probably much more racial inter-mixing and cohabitation than is generally acknowledged.

I might also add that some of the cultural artifacts found in the civilizations of Western Africa - (coinciding with what is now the area around Ghana, the Ivory Coast and Nigeria)points to a people who were highly skilled in metallurgy, ivory work and other pre-industrial crafts. Some of the sculptures are of exceptional quality - and the decorative crafts made from gold foil are also very attractive. They would deserve a place in any fair compendium of World Art and Culture.

European historians are either very ignorant of this legacy, or simply continuing a tradition of racist subterfuge in history writing.

Colonization gave the European nations a huge advantage that they are still exploiting. But that doesn't take away the many centuries of civilizational progress that took place in Africa and Asia prior to their recent ascent.

With best wishes, and in solidarity - Shishir Thadani (Co-editor, The South Asian History Project)
http://india_resource.tripod.com/sahistory.html

posted 17 May 2004 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
For those Africanist who believe that the contient was a negroid island in ancient times you may have been interested in the Hannibal special aired this weekend on Discovery Times. Not a single black represented in Carthage or Hannibal's army. The Punic Wars were 230 BC...getting back there pretty far guys.

---

Sight Writes:

posted 18 May 2004 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
Plenty of wishful thinking in this paragraph. There are NOTHING that egyptians refered to as African or Africa. Your post just brings up images of Jessie Jackson speaking. Africa or African were never united politically, never had a common language, religion, etc. You can't talk about Africa like you can are talking about India. if you examine any subsahran Afrian country you probably find all kinds of differences in every level. African American them selfs came from all over Africa sometime with little or no thread uniting them. I don't know how can you or any one else talk about Africans as they were a group or a homogenious population, maybe they are now in the USA but not in Africa. The problem that African Americans look at AE as a creastion of the forefathers "Sort of" There is the attutide that AE is ours (African American) more than it is for the modern day eguyption. This is 100% wrong.

I would like to appologize if any one was offended by my post, and also sorry for bad spelling and grammer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thought:
[B] Thought Writes:

Egypt was a African melting pot with Africans moving

---

More petty gulf arab talk...Only a gulf arab would automatically relate this discussion to African-Americans and Jesse Jackson. Don't remark on thing you know nothing about to people that you are not even a part of.

posted 29 May 2004 08:05 PM            

Thank you Keino for your great observation.

I'm new in this forum, and some of the garbage I've been reading could be termed nothing other than "white-washed", because is far beyond "brain-washed". It is interesting to note that "black" is a skin color more so than a race. As an African American with tan skin,pointy nose, and full lips,and wavy hair,I tend to wonder if I should make any large contributions to this society, in a 1,000 years my ancestors would somehow read that I was "white", or simply "American" deliberately choosing to deny my "African Ancestry", as have been donw with the Egyptians. One of the most ignorant, racist things any of the posters can do, is to try to separate Egypt from Africa. I keep constantly hearing the term "Meditteranean" as if that is a country or race. When in fact its a geographical location, with people from a number of races. Its like calling me a Georgian (because I live in the southern united states), and calling my lighter skinned sister who lives up north a New Yorker. It only identifies our geographical location not our ancestry, since we both descended from Africa. In case any of you so called "intellectually" minded individuals are not aware that African Americans in the south, tend to be darker that African Americans in the north, then I suggest you take a class on the effects of sun rays on skin melanin. I can say with 100% accuracy, that if I took my brown-skinned self to equatorial Africa, and spent just "ONE" day in the sun, you could litterally call me "BLACK". As more exposion to the sun will trigger the production of melanin which would result in hyperpigmentation of my skin color. As redundant as many of you sound when trying to differentiate between the Nubians and the Egyptians, its all a matter of complexion. Just as all white Europeans do not have the same tint of skin, hair, or eye color because of melanin, the same can be said of Africans. The Egyptians were, still is, and always will be AFRICANS, no matter if they are black, brown, mahoganny, tan, yellow,olive, and all colors in between. 99% of their art shows them in shades darker than tan. They belonged to a dark skinned race, just as 80% of the rest of the world. Just as a dark brown skinned Nigerian with kinky hair distinguishes himself from a light brown skinned Ethiopian, a light brown complexioned Nigerian with curly hair, would distinguish himself from that dark brown complexioned Ethiopian with kinky hair. Afican has ten of thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.

I say all of that to say this, NOTHING IS MORE RACIST THAN TO ASSUME ALL DESCENDANTS OF AFRICA HAVE THE SAME COMPLEXION, SAME HAIR TEXTURE, AND SAME FACIAL FEATURES.If I considered any caucasian with out blonde hair and blue eyes, non-white, I would be labeled a racist. Give the Africans the same respect. There is a whole continent of negroes with naturally straight hair and naturally blonde hair, and jet black skin, called Aborignes, with broad noses and full lips, check out a photo depiction of one here:

blonde hair "http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_kids_portr_1/Source/1.htm",
blonde curly hair, and jet black skin
"http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_culture/Source/9.htm"

jet black skin, and straight black hair
"http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_children_2/Source/8.htm"

Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today.

For photo reference, there is no online depiction of how the Egyptians/Nubians viewed themselves, than this website:

"http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm"

posted 30 May 2004 01:12 AM            

However, I agree that Africans have diverse nasal shapes and even hair textures. Even a tribe in Uganda called the Bahimba have naturally wavy hair as do some Nubians. What you fail to realize is that even African wavy hair is different from caucasoid wavy hair. African wavy hair is much more thick as opposed to thin wavy hair.

Nose shape in Eastern Africans and other groups in Africa is because of enviromental adaptation. The same can be said of some African groups with lighter complextions than say a Dinka in Southern Sudan. The Dinka are the darkest Africans and not even Western Africans appear like them.

""....Nose form is function largely of climatic factors,such as temperature and mositure content of the air,rather then a simple result of racial affinities. The nose serves moisten the inspired air,so in the drier regions of thwe world people have noses which pocess the greatest surface area of the moucous membrane,a condition achieved by the longer ,more narrow nose form;so among desert and mountain peoples the narrow nose is predominant.[7] Even in cold and drier climates the Eskimos have a narrow nasal aperature,which provides an effiecent mechanism for warming as well as moistening the inspired air. It is simple matter of fact that a high narrow nasal opening can warm and mositen air more effeciently than a short borad one,and in climates where the moisture content of the air is very low ,selective forces act on this particular nose form ,wheather the dryness is due to intense heat or intense cold[Table 3-8]

Since face form is due to the interaction of the growth processes of several facial bones,and single feature is interacting forces. This is especially true of nose form,whose width is correlated with climate,as noted above ,but also with the size and proportion of the upper dental arch.As the palate gets wider,the nasal aperature becomes broader. The case of the Austrlian Aboriginees is a good example;though they live in a very dry area of the world,their noses are extremely broad ,and this dimension is related to the chewing process exerted on the velop. Also,prongnathism tends to be associated with a short borad nose,and significant correlation is found between the length of the skull base and nasal width.

These factors of climatic influence and structural interrelationship suggest that human face form is extremely complex,numerous varible being invovled in growth and development. Conclusions should not be drawn about relationships between two populations on the basis of a similairty in structure ,because face form[like the small statue in pgymies and Negritos discussed above] develops according to local factors of natural selction. It is not ncessary to postulate migrations and intermixtures to explain similairites between populations,as once was done for the Nilotic face form found in groups like the Nuer,Shilluk,and others in Eastern Africa. At one time their long striaght noses were believed to be due to contact and interbreeding with caucasoid groups form Western Asia. subsequent genetic studies donot borne this theory out . No doubt,over a period of thousand years,contact with Western Asia populations has taken place and some interbreeding has resulted,but people with Nilotic face are the result of local selective forces acting on the population;it is not merely a matter of interbreeding between races......."""""

Page 63-64

Race,Types,and Ethnic Groups
the problem with human variation
Stephen Molnar

posted 30 May 2004 02:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
<b>To deny Africans (of whatever complexion) - a connection with Egypt is not only racist, but a deliberate exercise in deception</b>

Thank you Keino for your great observation.

I'm new in this forum, and some of the garbage I've been reading could be termed nothing other than "white-washed", because is far beyond "brain-washed". It is interesting to note that "black" is a skin color more so than a race. As an African American with tan skin,pointy nose, and full lips,and wavy hair,I tend to wonder if I should make any large contributions to this society, in a 1,000 years my ancestors would somehow read that I was "white", or simply "American" deliberately choosing to deny my "African Ancestry", as have been donw with the Egyptians. One of the most ignorant, racist things any of the posters can do, is to try to separate Egypt from Africa. I keep constantly hearing the term "Meditteranean" as if that is a country or race. When in fact its a geographical location, with people from a number of races. Its like calling me a Georgian (because I live in the southern united states), and calling my lighter skinned sister who lives up north a New Yorker. It only identifies our geographical location not our ancestry, since we both descended from Africa. In case any of you so called "intellectually" minded individuals are not aware that African Americans in the south, tend to be darker that African Americans in the north, then I suggest you take a class on the effects of sun rays on skin melanin. I can say with 100% accuracy, that if I took my brown-skinned self to equatorial Africa, and spent just "ONE" day in the sun, you could litterally call me "BLACK". As more exposion to the sun will trigger the production of melanin which would result in hyperpigmentation of my skin color. As redundant as many of you sound when trying to differentiate between the Nubians and the Egyptians, its all a matter of complexion. Just as all white Europeans do not have the same tint of skin, hair, or eye color because of melanin, the same can be said of Africans. The Egyptians were, still is, and always will be AFRICANS, no matter if they are black, brown, mahoganny, tan, yellow,olive, and all colors in between. 99% of their art shows them in shades darker than tan. They belonged to a dark skinned race, just as 80% of the rest of the world. Just as a dark brown skinned Nigerian with kinky hair distinguishes himself from a light brown skinned Ethiopian, a light brown complexioned Nigerian with curly hair, would distinguish himself from that dark brown complexioned Ethiopian with kinky hair. Afican has ten of thousands of tribes which separate themselves amongst cultural lines and not complexion lines.

I say all of that to say this, NOTHING IS MORE RACIST THAN TO ASSUME ALL DESCENDANTS OF AFRICA HAVE THE SAME COMPLEXION, SAME HAIR TEXTURE, AND SAME FACIAL FEATURES.If I considered any caucasian with out blonde hair and blue eyes, non-white, I would be labeled a racist. Give the Africans the same respect. There is a whole continent of negroes with naturally straight hair and naturally blonde hair, and jet black skin, called Aborignes, with broad noses and full lips, check out a photo depiction of one here:

blonde hair "http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_kids_portr_1/Source/1.htm",
blonde curly hair, and jet black skin
"http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_culture/Source/9.htm"

jet black skin, and straight black hair
"http://ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_children_2/Source/8.htm"

Please get out of the racist habit of trying to box all Africans into one complexion, one hair texture/color, and one Nose size, lip size etc.. The Egyptians were clearly showing the diversity of the African race, then ,as we are today.

For photo reference, there is no online depiction of how the Egyptians/Nubians viewed themselves, than this website:

"http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm"

view it for yourselves

---

You made one clever point that whites and Eurocentrists fail to address, and that is diversity among Europeans. Thex are quick to label us(blacks) with terms like hamite and true Negro, but consider Europe homogeneously one white continent. They do not apply the same standards to themselves they apply to Africa.

posted 30 May 2004 11:10 AM            

I guess you're not aware of the course-haired redheads of scotland and Irish, but nevertheless,

There is only one branch of science that studies human beings , and that's anthropology.

This isa summary currently the AAPA's statement on race:
POSITION
We offer the following points as revisions of the 1964 UNESCO statement on race:
As scientists who study human evolution and variation, we believe that we have an obligation to share with other scientists and the general public our current understanding of the structure of human variation from a biological perspective. Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines.

1.All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent.
2.Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.
3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.
4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world.
5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations.Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries.
6.6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.
7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions.Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place.
8.Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence.
9.The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications.
10.There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates.
11. Physical, cultural and social environments influence the behavioral differences among individuals in society.

So there you have it, all this talk about difference in skin color, hair, nose, blah blah blah, was all made up in the 18th century.

And yes Mohammed, it is not uncommon to see a white person with a broad nose, thick lips, tightly coiled hair, or any combination, just as European so-called racial types have influenced Africans, so too have Africans influenced them.

One of the most racist idealism that I hear subconsciously is the ideal that all these so called racial types came to Africa and influenced them, but Africans with the exception of slavery, didnt have "sense enough" to venture out and explore the rest of the world. And frankly I'm annoyed with it. The mitochondrial DNA theory supports the fact that ALL HOMO SAPIENS MIGRATED OUT OF AFRICA. PERIOD!!!!

posted 30 May 2004 11:43 AM            

What early racist scientist did was phernology and not physical anthropology. Phernology was where people measured the size of somebody's skull against their brain size.

If you are curious about early studies of ancient Egyptian remains then go to your local library and request Shomarka Keita studies that appeared in the American Journal of Anthropology.

Anyway,can you contribute something about Egypt besides racial affinities? How about some discussion about religion,economic,or even social structure of the ancient Egyptian soceity.

posted 30 May 2004 07:35 PM            

All geneticist and anthropologist agree that:
Can a DNA analysis identify my racial or ethnic identity?]
There is no test for racial identification. Race is a social construct, not genetically determined. Similarly, ethnicity is more cultural than biological.

When a so-called negroid is born with albinism, does that make him white? similarly a black skinned person born with an aqueline nose, and thin lips, is not white either.
Forensice Scientist are also using the method developed by Cheik Anta Diop to determine the melanin content of the epidermis of mummies, for use on tragically burn victims,(to determine their race) did you know that.

posted 31 May 2004 12:54 PM            

Egyptian fighting to alter racial designation--Mostafa Hefny (Photo: CNN July 16, 1997) sued the Federal government in March 1997 through US District Court in Detroit, Michigan, to have his racial classification changed from White to Black. He is specifically taking aim at the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which sets racial categories for federal record keeping. In 1977, the OMB implemented Directive No. 15, which defines immigrants from North Africa as White, while immigrants from other parts of the continent have been classified as Black. Hefny looks like any other Black American (Black/brown skin-frizzy/curly hair) and cannot understand the concept of being classified as White since he has been Black his entire life. He blames the US government for using the concept “White” as an honor badge for North Africans

posted 31 May 2004 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Anthropologists have written books that dispute the once traditional concept of 3 or 4 distinct races of mankind. As a biological concept physical anthropologists no longer use the term “race.” If a person is brown or black but has straight “European” looking hair, they are Caucasians, but if people have light skin and wavy or tightly curled hair, they are still Caucasians. I doubled over with laughter at the ridiculous absurd theories and am sure some black/brown groups wholeheartedly grasp the concepts so that they can remain White.

Ausar has shown this absurdity when presented with the "negroid" features of the aboriginals of Austrailia, the only physical trait that is similar to "white europeans" is their HAIR/TEXTURE/COLOR, yet they are classified as caucasian-
Is there anything more ridiculous, as the so-called Nordic race is realizing just how extinct they are becoming because of thier recessive genes being dominated by "genes of color" that these once proud people of "pale skin" wants to now idenify with "dark skinned" races. Just as blacks have invented straightening combs, and hair relaxers, white have invented tanning lotions, and sun blockers- this would sure only add to the already confused forensic anthropologist categories of race. With this said, I'm basically finished with this topic, as it is apparent that Europeans have become desperate in re-classifying races as they are coming to the realization the possibly by 2150, blonde hair/blue eyes will become [b]EXTINCT[/B]

---

I don't want to interfere in this but it is YOU and not Ausar who's hung up on race.

now lets look at Australoids, thex do possess some traits that are Negroid-like, but they are not Negroids. australoids even with some of their Negro-like traits are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans. And most anthroplogists, modern ones that is, do not classify Australoids as Caucasoids, you've been reading and knocking down outdated anthropology that has already been debunk, so why beat on a dead horse?

Some Afrocentrists as well as Eurocentrists are hung up on race, look at Clyde Winters and his Black chinese and black Greeks, thats just a bunch of nonsense. Some blacks are just as guilty, but I wouldn't say to the point of some Eurocentrists.

posted 31 May 2004 02:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Anthropologists have written books that dispute the once traditional concept of 3 or 4 distinct races of mankind. As a biological concept physical anthropologists no longer use the term “race.” If a person is brown or black but has straight “European” looking hair, they are Caucasians, but if people have light skin and wavy or tightly curled hair, they are still Caucasians. I doubled over with laughter at the ridiculous absurd theories and am sure some black/brown groups wholeheartedly grasp the concepts so that they can remain White.

Ausar has shown this absurdity when presented with the "negroid" features of the aboriginals of Austrailia, the only physical trait that is similar to "white europeans" is their HAIR/TEXTURE/COLOR, yet they are classified as caucasian-
Is there anything more ridiculous, as the so-called Nordic race is realizing just how extinct they are becoming because of thier recessive genes being dominated by "genes of color" that these once proud people of "pale skin" wants to now idenify with "dark skinned" races. Just as blacks have invented straightening combs, and hair relaxers, white have invented tanning lotions, and sun blockers- this would sure only add to the already confused forensic anthropologist categories of race. With this said, I'm basically finished with this topic, as it is apparent that Europeans have become desperate in re-classifying races as they are coming to the realization the possibly by 2150, blonde hair/blue eyes will become [b]EXTINCT[/B]

---

I don't want to interfere in this but it is YOU and not Ausar who's hung up on race.

now lets look at Australoids, thex do possess some traits that are Negroid-like, but they are not Negroids. australoids even with some of their Negro-like traits are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans. And most anthroplogists, modern ones that is, do not classify Australoids as Caucasoids, you've been reading and knocking down strawmen and outdated anthropology that has already been debunk, so why beat on a dead horse?

Some Afrocentrists as well as Eurocentrists are hung up on race, look at Clyde Winters and his Black chinese and black Greeks, thats just a bunch of nonsense. Some blacks are just as guilty, but I wouldn't say to the point of some Eurocentrists.

posted 31 May 2004 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
now lets look at Australoids, thex do possess some traits that are Negroid-like, but they are not Negroids.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 31 May 2004 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

What is a "Negroid"?

---

well put it this way Thought, tropical Africans and Australoids are not the same race and are distinct not only phenotypically, but also genetically. australoids developed their distinct traits mostly due to isolation from other races. In Africa you had tropical Africans of many different variants who mixed with each other, Keita calls it intra-African mixing, to produce the kind of diversity thats seen in Africans today, not mixing with non-Africans. Thats what separates Australoids from tropical Africans, the diversity not to mention that Africans are distinct from Australoids.

posted 31 May 2004 03:01 PM            

Octavivs
Junior Member

member is offline

errare hvmanvm est, in errore perservare stvltvm

Gender:
Posts: 83
Re: Blacks in the Gladiator movie
« Reply #31 on: 05/14/2004 at 12:10:03 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on 05/14/2004 at 11:32:28, Said Mohammad wrote:The counter arguments you made in Poe's forum were bullshit, just like this lame thread about something stupid. You're mad because you were banned for trolling Oct.

HAhahahaah... you don´t even know why I was banned. That "Thought" guy was saying that Cavalli-Sforza said the Berbers were black. I was trying to send the true Cavalli-Sforza affirmations, that would kick his ass and Poe´s ass too. Poe changed my words and didn´t published the Sforza´s studies I sent. And invented a excuse to ban me. Bullshit are the arguments you assholes use to try to convince eberyone important was black. You use exceptions to try to make them appear the rule. Pfff... And why you are using a Arabic name? ashamed of your origins, Said? Or you, like the assholes in Poe´s forum, will try to convince me the Arabs are mullattos?
Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ein Prosit, ein Prosit..
der Gemütlichkeit
Ein Prosit, ein Prosit..
der Gemütlichkeit!

posted 31 May 2004 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
well put it this way Thought, tropical Africans and Australoids are not the same race and are distinct not only phenotypically, but also genetically. australoids developed their distinct traits mostly due to isolation from other races. In Africa you had tropical Africans of many different variants who mixed with each other, Keita calls it intra-African mixing, to produce the kind of diversity thats seen in Africans today, not mixing with non-Africans. Thats what separates Australoids from tropical Africans, the diversity not to mention that Africans are distinct from Australoids.

---

S.Mohammad: you are correct in most that you say, but not in that "australoids developed their distinct traits mostly due to isolation from other races." Its more likely the other way round. The two or more migrations into Australia, the last being around 10,000 years ago and the first at the very latest 60,000 years .Skelital remains and ancient dna show phenotypically and geneticaly modern Aboriginals and Ancient Aboriginals have changed little, yes due to their isolation, but not changed by the isolation but retained by it. The differences we see in Africa today and Aboriginals of today are as you say due to the diversity of Africans, intra-African mixing. A good case for this is the extraction of DNA from Mungo Man which produced the most ancient dna to date, which belongs to a dead line of people, having no living representations left on earth. No doubt we will one day find that dna in Africa, and in that the origins of the aboriginal Australians and other black races found along the norther costal migration route.

As an Australian I find it rather strange when this Caucasoid connection is brought up. It is only ever brought us as proof that there are those trying to whiten black peoples by classification.

From the time of Cpt Cooks first interaction with the aboriginal peoples of the Eastern coast, were he discribed the difference between aboriginals, Africans and other known black races to the present day, there have been very few who have made any Caucasion connections with aboriginals. In fact I have only ever read one.

Ozzy

posted 31 May 2004 05:19 PM            

Lets examine a few examples. This so called term "negroid" has developed from the term "negro". If you look "negro" up in any of the languages of Latin descent, you will find "black race", i fact its synonomous with "black". By contrast, if you look up "white race" its termed any member of the caucasian race, and even more interesting is when you look up caucasian race, it includes, black, browns, and white. Is that absured or what? These physical anthropologist have been "re-classifying" racial categories everytime they uncover the great ancient work of the "black race".
Now they have classified "negroid" to mean so-called features like nose width, hair texture, skull size, etc.. which isn't unique to just sub-saharran African, as their features vary.

To give a modern examples of this madness, is the recent discovery of the Collosal Heads of Ohlmec culture. While these heads have distinct "negroid" features, the mad scientist have been at work again, now claiming that "negroid features" are not unique to "negro" people. ROFLOL.

Whats apparent to afrocentrists is that any great ancient civilization that lends credit to the successes of the black/negro/negroid/africoid race, is somehow Theorized to exclude this race from their great contibutions to the world.

posted 31 May 2004 05:21 PM            

It would've been sweet, though, if the discussion could've ended with Keino's statement below & Horemheb's reply to it. Their exchange sums up what the arguing is about at its root, since the "racial" make-up of the Kemetans is clear enough in the many images they left us.

Keino wrote:

>>Colonization has indeed attempted to monopolize the cultural, philosophical and scientific history of the world by denying non-Europeans credit for the numerous contributions they have made to world civilization.... colonial attitudes continue to work overtime in trying to obscure this debt.<<

...To which Horemheb replied with this chuckler:

>>the problem is that in terms of the DECISIVE things that have created the modern world Africa, Asia and other areas are not very important.<<

We all should've had a good laugh & left it at that.

posted 31 May 2004 09:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
well put it this way Thought, tropical Africans and Australoids are not the same race and are distinct not only phenotypically, but also genetically.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 31 May 2004 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
What did you do to that guy to get him heated like that?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 01 June 2004 04:35 PM            

australoids even with some of their Negro-like traits are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans
Only by their hair texture/color, same could be said about some African Americans, yet we still consider ourselves negro/black.

originally posted by Ozzy
As an Australian I find it rather strange when this Caucasoid connection is brought up. It is only ever brought us as proof that there are those trying to whiten black peoples by classification
Never thought you and I would agree, but well put ;-).

Originally posted by Andreas360
To give a modern examples of this madness, is the recent discovery of the Collosal Heads of Ohlmec culture. While these heads have distinct "negroid" features, the mad scientist have been at work again, now claiming that "negroid features" are not unique to "negro" people.
perfect example, nothing else needs to be said.

Originally posted by Sunstorm
Colonization has indeed attempted to monopolize the cultural, philosophical and scientific history of the world by denying non-Europeans credit for the numerous contributions they have made to world civilization
You just outlined my whole purpose for studying Ancient African civilzations from a "racial" standpoint--to give that credit back to its people-Black People.

Originally posted by Ausar
The fact is not an exageration that old anthropology has twisted up ethnicity to the extinct of lunacy.
So now we're on the same page, hmmmmm

Originally posted by Thought
I do not believe in the concept of race in a biological sense.
Needs further clarification.

What everyone needs to know, is that what began as 3 or 4 distintiver racial types, has now evolved to over 300 different racial types. And as soon as these anthropologist uncover remains that dont fit into one of these categories, they simply "create" another category.

What they are essentially telling you intelligent folks, is that your eyes are deceiving you. So what your skin is jet black like the color of charcoal-----once you remove the skin,hair, tissues, and all the organs, you're left with nothing but a skull, and if that skull shows a certain nasal depth, cranial size, etc.... thats right jet black individual, you are CAUCASIAN!!

"lunacy" is not even the word, sorry Ausur.

posted 01 June 2004 05:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]I don't want to interfere in this but it is YOU and not Ausar who's hung up on race.
This post began about race, in the physical anthropolist sense, so the same could be said about everyone responding including yourself.

australoids even with some of their Negro-like traits are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans
Only by their hair texture/color, same could be said about some African Americans, yet we still consider ourselves negro/black.

[/B]

---

There are people who call themselves African-Americans who could pass as white, should they be considered racially white due to the fact they possess few features with blacks? I'm using your logic. Australoids and Negroids are also craniometrically different, have you seen their brow-ridges? Look up some anthropological sources and you will see. Even the most extreme so-called "Negroid" looking black African would NOT be mistaken for an Australian Aborigine. Melanesians and some Fiji Islanders will, but not Austrailan Aborigines, most will not on average.

posted 01 June 2004 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I agree that "Australoids" have unique features and genes. However, some do see similarities between "Australoids" and some African groups, especially Tasmanians and Africans. It is a subjective issue in my opinion. In Australia "Australoids" are refered to as "Black" as far as I am aware.
I do not believe in the concept of race in a biological sense.

---

Ausar, I have read many papers and books on Aboriginal Australia, all of which have been writen by australians, ranging from Captian Cook (Not to say he was Australian) through the 1800s 1900s to the 60s and 70s when a large amount of research started, to present, and I have never come accross this description, the closest I have read is reference to dental charactoristics which are more simular to Archaic momonoids than any other living people. The archaic homonoids they compared these too were of European origin, dating 100s of thousands of years ago. No one I am aware of has tried to claim that these homoniods showed Cocasion charactoristics! Again a reginal reference ather than a ethnic one.

The dental traits of aboriginals can still be seen today in many rural peoples in particular the northern Territory and western Australia Kimberly reagion. I have seen it in my extended Family from NT. I can not see it being a serousely accepted possition in any period.

And on the subject of Tasmanians of which their are unfortunately no full blood representitves, it has and was recorded the Tasmainians were marginly different from the mainlanders in apearance, the two main traits mentioned were the darkness of the skin which is unusual in itself due to the possition and climate of Tasmainia and the kinky hair more simular to Africans, but geneticaly they share that with mainland Australia. Keep in mind that Tasmainia has been isolated from Australia for at least 10,000 years after the sea rises at the end of the Younger Dryas period, and the last posible migration to Australia was about the same time, the time period from these last migrants to reach the south extreem of Australia from the Kimberly reagions would be many more thousands of years. They may have shared closer resemblance to the extinct pigmies of the Athertain Table Lands.

I can assure you no Aboriginal would object to being called black, but they would have objections to being called African, for no other reason other than their history as a disticnt people of ocupation is one which outdates even most of those in Africa today, this is supported geneticaly linguisticaly, archaologicaly and culturaly.

PS: it interesting to note that no Aboriginal myths legends or beliefs contain migration tales, very Unique!

Ozzy

posted 01 June 2004 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Ozzy,I was refering to early Anthropologist from the 30's-40's like Roland Dixion who classified Aniu,Aboriginals,and other groups of people into the title arhaic cacasoid. Even people like Carleton S. Coon feel victim to this unsual pratice. Understand this was before the pratice of more sophistcated measurement and statistics when have today. What people did back then was taken cephallic indexes or nasal indexes and run wild with them.

---

posted 02 June 2004 03:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]There are people who call themselves African-Americans who could pass as white, should they be considered racially white due to the fact they possess few features with blacks? I'm using your logic
You obviously don't understand my logic, as I don't subscribe to your so-called "phenotypical" ideal on race. If these African Americans can "pass" for
"white" 9 times out of ten, they probably
are half white/mulatto, 50% of one race, 50% of another. On the other hand a white person, who's great great grandmother was black,on one side of the family, has about 10%, european ancestry, 9 times out of 10 would call himself white. And the same for blacks, who may have about 10% European ancestry, would call themselves "black". As the law that required you to call yourself black if you had a drop of negro blood, is how do you say....history.[/B]

---

Race is about phenotype, its the perception of what we see,ie, you thinking Australian Aborigines are the same as black Africans minus the hair color. Thats what you physically see from the outside, that is race. If I were to show you a "black" person who could pass as white and I didn't tell you anything about that person's ancestry you couldn't possibly tell that the person was passing.

posted 02 June 2004 11:58 AM            

I personally could care less if you're Sudroid, Astraloid, Negroid, blah blah blah

posted 02 June 2004 08:30 PM            

An experience of mine changed my perception of and how I look race and how I define it, Although I find genticts interesting and informative, I find culture defines peoples relationships with one and other more accuratly.

This may mean nothing to some, but it may hit a cord with others.

I was fortunate to be a part of a concert as an escort/organiser, once, a number of years ago, for a organisation called WOMAD, (not NOMAD) some may know what it is, but for those who dont, artists from around the world perform, discuss, teach and share their music, arts, dance and culture with the public.

My greatest memory of this was in a small room were a number of Drummers had got together for a jam, there were Drummers de Burundi, Australia, india, three de differente parts of Africa, Argentina, New Zealand, jamaica, and a guy from the Japanese drumming group.(The energy this guy had)

The different styles, the different drums and indead the different sounds were unique however when they found a rythm the sound that came out of that room was something I will never forget, nor I imagine anyone else that was there.

They looked to all, as they did to me, a group of black drummers who had found a common thread, or a link. And in fact during a pause, and American said to me "It dont matter were we come from Black folks got the rythm" to which I found myself nodding in agreement. The comment was followed by another responce "Well Black is Black man".

I may have even agreed with that too at that point as I watched with what ease these guys played off each other to create some amazing sounds.

But it was one of the guys from Zimbabwe who shocked me when he turned our direction and said,

"If people who come see us perform, think as you , then we work for nothing. If they see is Black as you see black, they learnt nothing of me, my people, nor my culture". "Black aint just black".

The comment was supported by the many drummers and confirmed by a thud on the New Zealand drum.

Although the remark was not directed at me, It made me think none the less, as while they played I had forgoten the different drums, the different music, and the different cultures they had all proudly come from, just as the two beside me had.

As one of the other guys offered "Black aint just black its as varied as the rainbow".

The resulting discussions that day showed me that all present resented being boxed by the lable of skin color. And in particular by those of the same skin color.

I dont think I need to mention which two people left the room.

Ozzy

posted 03 June 2004 04:26 PM            

Romantic for sure -- but not deserving of the Zimbabwean dude's "byotch-like" hypersensitivity.

That Zimbabwean guy is a clown (& a "clown of justice" to boot). He reacted to "Jessie Jackson's" good nature with haughtiness and spite -- an *over-reaction* even if he disagreed with the sentiment.

I wish I had been there.

---