|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 Arabization harmful effects in the Nile Valley (Page 3)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Arabization harmful effects in the Nile Valley |
|
kenndo Member Posts: 892 |
posted 11 August 2004 10:39 AM
  
like i said that boy looks black to me.look at the nose and lips.it looks more like a black nose and he looks black.i seen blacks in america who look like that.are you blind? IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 12 August 2004 11:11 AM
quote:
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 12 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 12 August 2004 11:26 AM
quote: No, I am not blind and be a little bit more polite please. I know that for some people in USA its probably hard,but try to be polite. Well,some "blacks" in USA look similar because they are actually mixed with Europeans. He hasnt wide nose or very thick lips and his hair is not kinky,but wavy,so its very doubtfull to call him "black". IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 12 August 2004 11:32 AM
quote: The problem is the entire statement exposes a laughably inane concept of race, which basically amounts to making up nonsense as you go along, and then filling your head with it.
quote: Ancient/medevil negroid admixture? As opposed to what "postmodern negroid.":  And you can detect this visually, and thereby determine it's significance. You are really shoveling the camel dung today!
quote:Dark skin is an African trait, as is curly hair, as are broad noses. The Africoid component in their physical make up is not "visible" to you because you blind yourself to it, out of hysterical anti-Black racism.
quote: Again, you invent your own terminology to evade an obvious simple truth, that no current anthropologist or biologist would deny.....the Arabs are a mixed people. They are mixed part Black African, part Asian. This is true of the Arabs from the very beginning of their existence, throughout their history, and ongoing unto today. Apparently the truth frightens you, judging by the way you run away from it.
quote: Black blood? Lol at your unceasing idiocy. You keep yourself ignorant by making up ridiculous terminology. You need to pick up a current anthropology and molecular genetics textbook, so that you can at least appear to make sense when you lie about the Arabs, who are at root, a MIXED part African (yes BLACK!), and part Asian people. ps - notice you manage not to respond to the essay I linked you to on ARAB RACE MYTHS, not to worry...here it is again: http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Arabs.htm You also evade this thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000764.html Why? Can't you refute it? [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
homeylu Member Posts: 490 |
posted 12 August 2004 03:09 PM
Ayazid, you may be surprised to know that language specialist have trace the origin of the arabic language to East Africa, (sub-sahara E. Africa to be more precise) the languae left with a migration out of Africa almost 10,000 years ago and spread to southern Asia, which explains how southern Arabic is close to the ancient Ethiopian language Geez, which is where the language Amharic originated from. Also you keep speaking about this language that makes all arabs united, don't you know that the arabic dialects are so distinct, that the colloquial arabic in one country is completely unintelligible to the inhabitants of another arabic country. Even southern and northern arabs in the same country can barely comprehend one another. It's actually worst than the different dialects of spanish. A number of people in arabic countries are so illiterate that they don't even understand it's written classical form. There is only unity amongst the elite, educated, political sectors, remember that. Which is why a common Egyptian can go to another gulf arab country and be treated with as much discontent as any other African. IP: Logged |
|
homeylu Member Posts: 490 |
posted 12 August 2004 03:11 PM
Off topic, or on topic, who knows with the direction these topics take 
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is contributing almost 32,000 metric tons of food to the emergency assistance operation under way in Darfur, Sudan. The new contribution was announced August 6 and brings the USAID support for the international effort in Darfur to almost 120,000 tons of food. This is in addition to more than 11,000 tons of food assistance directed to Darfur refugees who have crossed the border into Chad. USAID assistance will be channeled through the World Food Program (WFP) to more than 2 million people who are expected to need food assistance by October. In total, the United States has contributed almost $180 million in assistance for food and other survival supplies to improve conditions in Darfur and Chad." Following is the text of the USAID press release: USAID Delivers Emergency Food Aid to the People of Darfur
I'm out IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 12 August 2004 09:28 PM
quote: Good points. Wonder if Ayazid will reply by explaining how Afro-Asiatic language of the Arabs has no detectable signs of "Negroid" admixture. IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 17 August 2004 01:43 PM
quote:
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 17 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 17 August 2004 02:51 PM
quote: Unfortunately sarcasm won't help to clarify your inane concept of race, predicated on ideas such as * "ancient or medieval" negroid admixture, juxtaposed with... * "significant" negroid admixture, which we are told is to be read as... * "visable" negroid admixture, which further is not withstanding the presence of dark skin, which you assure us is independant of * "Black blood", etc. ad absurdum. Simply put, ignorance is itself offensive, and you should not spew nonsense, if you don't want it to be identified as such. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 18 August 2004 02:45 AM
quote:
These people are dark-skinned, but they havenīt any visible negroid features.Their skin is only only tailored to hot,desert climate.
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 07:01 AM
quote: As with your responses to SuperCar in your other "conversation", you cannot even be honest about what others write. I wrote that Arabs are at root part African part Asian. I based that on two sources sighted which explain in detail Arab origins. Now...you have not disputed those facts. Yet you obviously have difficulty facing them. I did not write that the Arabs had "negroid admixture". Nor is that ever said in the article/sources sighted. ONLY YOU ARE PRETENDING, TO THAT EFFECT. Now...do your next predictable bit, and pretend you can't see any difference between what Diop is saying on Arab Origins, and what you are saying. Let us know when you are ready to pull your head out of the sand. IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 18 August 2004 07:14 AM
. [This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 07:45 AM
quote: Virtually all of your pictures show the reality of the Arabs mixed origins. Dark skin, dark hair & dark eyes all show this. These are traits of tropically adapted Africans. The idea that these traits exist in Arabs independant of their African heritage is a fantasy of yours....since the Arab possesses Kushitic, Black, African Heritiage from the earliest Arabian tribes from which they descend. This is what is meant by: a Kushite Empire originally existed throughout Arabia (Diop) and pre Islamic Arabs had a Kushitic culture. Arabs are fundamentally a mixed (black/white) people, period. You do not refute this fact....you merely use inane terminology to dance around it.
quote: lol. "Mediterranean", is geographic term refering to the Mediterranean Sea. It is a common misnomer to use it as a race term. As for the Arabs, the term mediterranean does not in any meaningful way describe the Cushitic/Jectanide origins of these people.
quote: According to Peter Underhill, who found Mayan and other South American peoples have African Y chromosome, some are. Yes. However, Indian people cannot be proven to be at root: mixture of African and Asiatics....but Arabs are. Your entire rhetorical line can be reversed. quote: Again dark skin is an Africoid feature. However, you are mistakenly looking for a feature that singularly determines a race catagory. No such feature exists, and if it did, such features would certainly not be common among a mixed-race people like the Arabs. Specifically: How many arabs have 'pale skin', blonde hair, blue eyes, aqualine noses, and thin lips, that are used to describe the "true caucasian"? The answer is, a virtually negligible number of the them. Now, how many have dark skin, dark eyes, curly hair, and broad noses....the answer is...many millions of them. Arabs are a mixed race people at root, and by definition. They are part Black...and part White. They have been right from the beginning, and without that mixture, ethnically and culturally.... there is no such thing as Arab. Sorry. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 18 August 2004 08:39 AM
SKIN COLOR
Skin color should always be taken on some unexposed part of the body. Among Middle Easterners this is simple, because they cover as much of the body as is consistent with their work. The exposed skin color may be a dark brown, while the skin of the underarm is ten shades lighter. (The sun shines brightly in the Middle East.) While fair-skinned people are to be seen, they live chiefly in shaded bazaars and government offices, whence they rarely emerge into the dazzling light of day. (Carleton Coon, Caravan: The Story of the Middle East) * * * Below is the 36-tone chromatic scale devised by Austrian anthropologist Felix von Luschan to assess the unexposed skin of human populations. It's referenced throughout The Races of Europe, and Coon often loosely correlates it with his own broader adjectives for skin tones: In general, pinkish-white corresponds to #3-9 on the scale; white to #7-12; brunet-white to #13-16; and light brown to #15-18. As can be seen, even the darkest Europeans fall well within the lighter end of the spectrum.
Meet Dr. Nina Jablonski, anthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences Science Interchange reporter Stacey Fowler recently interviewed Nina Jablonski, co-author (with George Chaplin) of a paper entitled "The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration," which will be published in the July 2000 edition of the Journal of Human Evolution. Here are some highlights from the interview: Dr. Jablonski, could you tell me about the recent research you conducted on the evolution of skin pigmentation? Skin coloration is one of the most obvious ways in which humans vary from one to another. And so it is of obvious interest to everybody because you look at one another and you say, "Oh, that person's a different color than I am." What I've been interested in is what the evolutionary history of our skin coloration is. Well, skin is one of those things that isn't preserved in the fossil record. It's not like bones. And so, reconstructing the history of skin, whether we're talking about its sweating abilities or its color, is difficult and has to be done through indirect investigation. However, we've been able to shed some interesting light on this phenomenon by looking at some of the physiological characteristics of skin. For instance, skin--especially dark-colored skin--is particularly good at screening out ultraviolet radiation, and we consider it to be highly adaptive
screening out ultraviolet radiation, and we consider it to be highly adaptive. It turns out that ultraviolet radiation not only causes skin damage, like wrinkling and things like that, but also it has much more sinister effects. It actually can cause the breakdown of some crucial metabolites, or nutrients, in our blood capillaries such as the nutrient folate, which turns out to be critical in normal development. So, if you get too much ultraviolet radiation through your skin, the folate in your blood can actually be broken down by the radiation. And this can have many deleterious effects. And so, having a natural sunscreen in your skin helps to prevent that breakdown of folate. On the other hand, if you are living in areas where ultraviolet radiation is particularly low, such as areas near the Arctic or Antarctic circles, or actually as you move out of the tropics, you have another problem to deal with. The skin is the place where Vitamin D is synthesized using ultraviolet rays to catalyze the reaction. So you need some ultraviolet light to penetrate the skin in order to make Vitamin D. Vitamin D turns out to be critical to your body because it provides the means whereby you absorb calcium from your food in your digestive system. So if you don't have Vitamin D, you can't absorb calcium from your food and you can't build strong bones. Making the proper skin color turns out to be a balancing act between having enough natural sunscreen to prevent a lot of damage to the contents of the blood system. On the other hand, you have to let in enough ultraviolet light to still permit the formation of Vitamin D in your skin. So people who live in conditions of lower ultraviolet light, away from the tropics and toward the poles, have to have lighter skin than those people who live closer to the tropics or closer to the equator. Those people really have to have darker skin to protect themselves from ultraviolet light. Those of us who are sort of in the middle, like inhabitants of most of North America and most of Eurasia, have to have skin that is capable of some level of tanning so that we can protect ourselves from lots of ultraviolet radiation in the late spring and summer. But we can de-pigment ourselves as ultraviolet light becomes less intense in the winter so we can take advantage of the ambient ultraviolet radiation that does exist.
How did skin coloration evolve as our ancestors radiated out from Africa to inhabit other continents? The history of our own species, Homo sapiens, in terms of skin is a fascinating history. If we look at our earliest Homo sapiens ancestors (about 100 to 150 thousand years ago in eastern Africa), we can reconstruct that those ancestors would have had dark skin to protect themselves from the deleterious effects of ultraviolet light. But those populations began to move out of the tropics and colonize areas that were much less intense in terms of ultraviolet light. As they first moved into the Circum Mediterranean, Western Asia, then onward into Eastern Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia and so forth, these populations would have to undergo some depigmentation in order for them to be able to synthesize enough Vitamin D in their skin. Imagine, for instance, the populations that went from East Africa and slowly made their way into central Asia or northern Asia. These populations would have had to undergo quite extensive depigmentation in order to maintain enough Vitamin D synthesis potential in their skin. But imagine some of these populations that were eventually on their way into Southern India, or what is now Sri Lanka. Those populations that also originated, ultimately, in eastern Africa would have undergone some depigmentation as they moved out of the most intense UV of the tropics, and then they would have undergone repigmentation as they moved down, back into the intense ultraviolet regimes of southern India and Sri Lanka. This same pattern of intense pigmentation to start out with, followed by a period of depigmentation perhaps 10, 20, or 30 thousand years long, followed again by another period of repigmentation, I think has been followed by many different populations as they have gone from one part of the world to another. It's not a deterministic process; it's simply an adaptive process as these populations have changed from one area with one particular ultraviolet light regime to another. Are we seeing any evidence that skin pigmentation is changing in response to current environmental factors? One of the most interesting changes that we are seeing today, of course, is that people are moving from one part of the world to another. You have lots of very light-skinned European people who are moving into areas where there's a lot of ultraviolet light -- either to the southern United States or people moving from England to northern Australia, for example. And so we're seeing people who are inherently well-adapted to low levels of ultraviolet light moving into areas where there's a lot of ultraviolet light, causing them to suffer tremendously from ultraviolet light damage to their skin. On the other hand, we have an interesting phenomenon with people who are moving from where ultraviolet light is very intense, such as Africa and India, into regions where it's less intense, such as the United States or the UK. For instance, these days there are a lot of people from the subcontinent of India, including Pakistan, moving into the UK and the United States where there are much lower levels of ultraviolet light than they're used to. It turns out that these people are particularly susceptible to Vitamin D deficiencies of various kinds. Although we don't see human skin changing in response to environmental changes because our time frame is too short to see any evolutionary change, what we are seeing are the dramatic effects of human migrations as people move from areas of the world that they are well-adapted to areas of the world where they are not well-adapted in terms of ultraviolet radiation. If, for instance, an Indian family moved to the UK and lived there for several generations, at what point would their descendants begin to adapt to the climate? It's hard to say how long this adaptation would take because these days adaptation in any human characteristic is very much mediated by our cultural behavior. Humans do a lot of stuff : They wear clothes, they take shelter, they take vitamin supplements, they do all these things to change the nature of their interface with their physical environment. So it's now almost impossible to predict how long it might take for a human population to adapt to a different ultraviolet light regime because we do so much meddling. A final comment? I think one of the most important findings of our research is that skin color is a highly adaptive feature of the human body. It has changed over thousands of years to reflect environmental conditions. That is a wonderful thing in itself because it means that, basically, the skin is a highly flexible organ. We know this already from other types of physiological studies, but in terms of evolutionary biology it is also very flexible. It can change depending on the environmental conditions, which means that skin color itself is really of no value when we look at evolutionary relationships per se among different human populations. You can have individuals from different populations that share a similar bone structure, for instance, but have a completely different skin color. The two are unrelated. And so we can't use skin color for determining relationships between human groups. The map above shows the potential for synthesis of vitamin D in human skin, as computed from annual average UV radiation at the Earth's surface (UVMED). The highest annual values for UVMED are shown in light violet, with incrementally lower values shown in dark violet, then in light to dark shades of blue, orange, green and gray. White denotes areas for which no UVMED data exist (Mercator projection). In the tropics, the zone of adequate UV radiation throughout the year is delimited by bold black lines. Light stippling indicates Zone 2, in which there is not sufficient UV radiation during at least one month of the year to produce previtamin D3 in human skin. Zone 3, in which there is not sufficient UV radiation for previtamin D3 synthesis on average for the whole year, is indicated by heavy stippling. In short this means that within the tropics, people can meet their vitamin D needs through casual sun exposure. As you go farther north or south, this becomes an increasing problem. In the area we refer to as Zone 3, this is an acute problem for human populations. Successful habitation of that zone has required evolution of greatly depigmented skin and inclusion in the diet of lots of vitamin D-rich foods (like fish and marine mammals)
[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 08:56 AM
w quote: Actually this is an understatement. There are no absolute visible signifiers of race. Anthropologists and Geneticists increasingly regard race as being more of a social construct and less of a biological fact. I will address the rest of this post...in a sec. But must 1st note, that you are wandering off point - Which is...the Arabs are of mixed origins. And you have offered no refutation of that fact, in spite of more than a dozen posts intended as such. And absolutely nothing in your latest, lengthy post disputes this either. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 09:09 AM
Addressing the rest......
quote: You are quoting Carleton Coon, a nefarious racist whose outdated ideas have been completely discredited. In 1962 Coon published The Origin of the Races which offered a multi-regional hypothesis for the origin of humankind. Coon argued that the human race crossed the threshold into homo sapiens not once, but five times, with whites crossing first and black last, 200,000 years later. Putnam quickly seized on Coons theory as proof of the innate inferiority of African Americans and ample justification for segregation. One of the great benefits of my study has been to fully explore Coons relationship with Putnam. Privately Coon checked manuscripts and supplied anthropological information for Putnam while publicly maintaining that he had no relationship with the segregationist Coon believed that Caucasians were the original humans, and that pygmy and others were and inferior sub species. You need to read up on current anthropology, not promote outdated white American racist mythology, in an effort to bolster Arab race mythology, which is an example of going from bad to worse. Good luck finding any respectable scientist who still supports most of his racist nonsense. Too bad you don't know any better. http://comm.colorado.edu/jjackson/research/nyu%20proposal.htm [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 09:24 AM
quote:
IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 18 August 2004 09:32 AM
quote: ! IP: Logged |
|
Ayazid Member Posts: 555 |
posted 18 August 2004 09:35 AM
And what do you think about article of Dr. Jablonski?  [This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 18 August 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 3761 |
posted 18 August 2004 10:04 AM
quote: She is repeating conventional theory on skin color, and isn't saying anything new, particularly interesting, objectionable or at all helpful to you. Remember we are discussing the mixed origins of the Arabs based on the anthropological, linguistic, genetic, somatic, cultural and historical evidence, the facts of which you aren't so much disputing as evading. btw: Loring Brace who argued that the Ancient Kemetians most resembled the modern Somali...which in turn required him to solve the "problem of Somali origins" by hypothesizing that theu were originally non-Black immigrants from Asia...then arguing that the fact that the Somali had dark skin simply proved that they (Asians) must have been living in tropical Africa for "many 10's of thousands of years"..... because it would take at least that long for a previously white people to re-evolve dark skin. Of course, many critics of Brace noted that his argument was circuitous. If the Somali were simply viewed as indigenous Africans having always had dark skin....then there is no "problem" and no need to hypothesize an explanation for their origins, that runs counter to all other evidence. Similar with the Arabs. Their Afro-Asiatic Cushitic/Semitic mixed roots are a known fact. There is no "problem"...except the need to deny it out of racism. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
It seems you try to pretend not hear facts that you find unpleasant. That is typical of race-myth fetishists such as yourself.
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EgyptSearch!
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c