posted 12 March 2005 08:30 AM            

• Caucasoid:

  

  
  

• Negroid:

  

  
  

• Mongoloid:

  
  

posted 12 March 2005 01:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
he is correct about that Heru

---

you guys know very well,you have seen more types of asians and blacks that vary,but most white women do not look like that above,and she is barely white,and has a latina look,not a plain jane white look like most white chicks or nordic look. the chick above is from america's next top model,i seen some of the show and she said she is part persian.

posted 12 March 2005 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

It is interesting to apply Hiernaux(s) methodology to Southern Europeans.

He asks if Tutsi vary from Hutu systematically in the direction of Europeans and concludes that they do not.

Do Southern Europeans vary from Nordics systematically in the direction of Black Africans?

Compared to Nordics, Southern Europeans would tend towards Black Africans in that they exhibit....

* darker skin.
* darker hair
* darker eyes
* curlier hair
* thicker hair
* thicker lips.
* everted lips.
* greater bone density.

From: The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes, by Jon Entine
Many southern Europeans, who are disproportionately stand-outs in running, trace a significant percentage of their genes to Africa as a result of interbreeding.

From: Battling Osteoporosis - Genetics plays a role in the risk profile of men. Whites are at higher risk than Blacks. And Scandinavians tend to have a higher risk than Southern Europeans.
- Nursing Spectrum.

Of course we have the genetic evidence (E3 african haplotypes), Benin sickle cell, and historical evidence - Moorish conquest, Egypto-Nubian colonisation, is it even necessary to go thru the motions of continued denial of Southern European diversity?

---

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001543.html http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001291.html http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001498.html http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html

posted 12 March 2005 03:21 PM            

Fine Hair: What about Dravidians and many East Africans? They do have fine hair, yet are not Caucasian.

Large Eyes? You need to read some novels based on European imperialism in Africa. Many times Africans were described as having large eyes.

Narrow Nose? Pretty stupid generalization, especially when present on a more ancient West Asian and African population. When I say West Asian, I am referring to the Dravidians and similar looking people of the Arabian Peninsula and Southern Iran. The same applies to East Africans, even Bantus.

8. Orthognathous: Why is the Caucasian phenotype so broad (hence 'usually' is included), while the more ancient Negroids are so specific?

The Negroid Face is downright false as well, with terms like 'very curly' hair, like come on, most Africans don't have peppercorn hair. It is only the Khoisians that have such hair texture, and most Central and East Africans do not have 'very curly' hair. Anyhow, even if one has 'moderately curly' hair, they can't be classed as Caucasian.

PS:
- That Caucasian women is definitely not a standard, that is how a typical hybrid Southern European looks like. Here's a more appropriate picture so all the Nordics can once again be classed as Caucasian.

posted 12 March 2005 03:57 PM            

quote:

---

Fine Hair: What about Dravidians and many East Africans? They do have fine hair, yet are not Caucasian.

---

lol.

European hair is not as straight as East Asian. European hair is merely intermediate in texture betweeen Africoid and East Asian hair.

Granted the idiocies of the un-educated Eurocentrists -

Given the blatant fraud of mis-educated ones...

....but why do non-Eurocentrists attempt to refute racist terminological fallacies, by repeating them 'backwards'(?), which is what they want and expect.

Sorry, but I do not consider this...

...to be particularly indicative of a 'good' nose or 'fine' hair, or other bizarre non scientific characterisations. However it is unmistakably a white women with:

1 pale skin.
2 pale hair
3 pale eyes
4 thin lips.
5 long nose.

As for Disney argument by photo, the phoniness could not be more obvious.

His Asian example Lucy Lui,

.......is notorious for having freckles, highly unusual in Asians and which are masked by his selected airbrushed glamour photo that child-Disney wants to use to teach....TEACH, race constructs. rotfl!

His 'white' woman, Sarah Tabrizi, is in fact 1/2 Iranian and could just as easily constitute a vast combination of mixed West Asian or Afro-European phenotypes, including Mexican, Dominican, Puerto Rican......

.....South American.

Only the Black female example is selected to constitute a strict representation of a supposed 'race' archtype.

The reality is, most people DO NOT constitute such archtypes, which is why attempting to justify race using phenotype isolate is B-O-G-U-S. Most have some features that could just as easily be ascribed to 'other' races.

Racism is childish and ignorant. Disney needs to grow up and.....

Nigerian
....get real.

posted 13 March 2005 01:08 AM            

The same person, who is considered White in Brazil and many Latin American countries, but has a little African Blood or Features, might be considered Black in the U.S., Colored in South Africa, and Southern European in Germany or Sweden!

Therefore, it is wrong to use your own biased views or ethnophobic ideas to label people.

Many African Americans, who are mixed and have lighter skin color or Caucasian facial features, are not considered Black in many African Nations, including South Africa, Europe, Asia, and South America.

The United States is a Racist Society and therefore American Standards are not accepted in many nations around the world and for very good reasons.

For example, the rulers and elites in Haiti are mostly lighter skinned Blacks or should we say mixed people, but according to the Native Haitians, these people are not Black at all, and most Haitians think of them as White People.

Therefore, your attempts at using racist views to label people Black or whatever, just because that is the way it is done around you and in your myopic part of the world is totally invalid and is a form of racism in and of itself.

This is the same idea, as Afrocentrists trying to use the Biased Racial Categories of Eurocentric Racist Europeans for their own agenda!! Simply put, it is like using garbage to prove that your garbage is just as good as their garbage!!

posted 13 March 2005 05:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Abaza

Obviously your last post is directed to Evil Euro, so why not say so and specify to whom your "you" is directed.

---

posted 13 March 2005 07:57 AM            

Her "Latina look" is due to the Mediterranean ancestry in most Latin Americans, which can often dominate their phenotypes. Of course, she looks nothing like the Nicaraguan Mestiza blind rasol posted. That woman's Native American admixture is plainly evident in her bone structure.

And the kid that rasol "analyzed" to show his "Negroid traits" is, ironically, not even Mediterranean. He's more Alpine, which explains his broader features. Mediterraneans are known for their sharp, angular features. His are more common among similar Northern Paleolithic types:

posted 13 March 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

The Caucasoid example is a perfect Mediterranean type.

---

quote:

---

She differs from the Negroid in almost every respect

---

She differs from most Iranians with her thin aqualine nose. Which is exactly what you would expect given her mixed ancestry.

posted 14 March 2005 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
She is mixed, part Northern European part Iranian. She differs from most Northern Europeans with her tawny skin tone, and clines with Africans and West Asians with her dark eyes and hair.

---

Nationality and pigmentation are irrelevant to racial affinity. It has already been explained to you that Nordics and Mediterraneans are virtually identical:

"The Nordic-Iranian type D1 lies between Anglo-Saxon and Keltic area norms, and D2 is the earlier pre-Bronze Age Corded form which Coon identifies. Type D3, lighter and more hawk-nosed, is transitional to the Mediterranean type B4 and to type D4 (Iranian), which is the Proto-Iranian of Vallois, Irano-Afghan of others, and Proto-Nordic of Krogman, and which is more linear and more rugged than D3 and has a more tilted chewing plane, more nasal convexity, and deeper occiput. Type D5 approximates Coon's Danubian-Halstatt and successor Central European forms." (Angel, 1971)

quote:

---

Just another Null and Void thread from you Disney.

---

posted 14 March 2005 08:29 AM            

quote:

---

It has already been explained to you that Nordics and Mediterraneans are virtually identical

---

Grow up EuroDisney, the woman is half European and half West Asian. Mediterranian is a fake 'catagory' designed to run away from reality of diverse lineages in southern Europe.

Your latest misguided 'example' proves the exact opposite of what you intended. Another racial rant bites the dust!

So just admit that you didn't know she was a mixed European-West Asian when you posted her, and be done with it.

It's not like you will lose any credibility in doing so, as you have absolutely none to begin with.

Here's a more honest, less neurotic assessment:

I think Sara is a beautiful girl. I think because her dad's Iranian and her mom's white, she's got that exotic, unique look. - America's Next Top Model. ROTFL!

Angry?

Maybe try writing America's Top Model more hate mail, like you did when BestofSicily.com told you THE TRUTH about African ancestry in Southern Europe.

Maybe they'll think you're a fruitcake too and ignore you....just like BestOfSicily.com did.

Maybe we all should.

posted 14 March 2005 09:11 AM            

quote:

---

pigmentation is irrelevant to racial affinity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingtut33:
Can we all just get along

---

One solution is for Disney to grow up and stop wallowing in his own mess.

...then there would be one less bed pan for Abracadaba to tend to.

posted 14 March 2005 10:35 AM            

"The clan of Jasmine (Persian for flower) is the second largest of the seven European clans after Helena and is the only one to have its origins outside Europe. Jasmine and her descendants, who now make up 12% of Europeans, were among the first farmers and brought the agricultural revolution to Europe from the Middle East around 8,500 years ago."

posted 15 March 2005 08:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Mediterranian is a fake 'catagory' designed to run away from reality of diverse lineages in southern Europe.

---

Um, the word is spelled "Mediterranean", and of course it's a very real and valid category, as it's recognized by all anthropologists, including the ones you yourself quote (Angel, Briggs etc.). The category that's fake is "Black African", which insecure Afronuts invented to run away from the reality that no important population was ever Negroid.

quote:

---

mixed European-West Asian

---

Europeans and West Asians are both Caucasoid. Again, all anthropologists recognize this. Assessments to the contrary made by low-IQ slave descendents with inferiority complexes are totally irrelevant.

quote:

---

I think Sara is a beautiful girl. I think because her dad's Iranian and her mom's white, she's got that exotic, unique look. - America's Next Top Model. ROTFL!

---

posted 15 March 2005 08:39 AM            

1) A native inhabitant of the Caucasus.
2) Related languages of natives of the Caucasus mountains.
3) A member of a racial classifcation - no longer in scientific use. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,2000

quote:

---

Low-IQ slave descendents with inferiority complexes

---

quote:

---

pigmentation is irrelevant to racial affinity

---

posted 16 March 2005 08:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
3) A member of a racial classifcation - no longer in scientific use. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,2000

---

posted 16 March 2005 11:57 AM            

The reference group "low IQ slave descendant" used as epithet could be easily seen to be a) false and b) trivial.

a) According to Lynn and Vanhanen(2002) the IQ of African Americans(85) is higher that all of West Asia(~83) and South Asia(81) and on approximate par with Southern Europe(see Lynn 1978).

b)Africans were enslaved in the Western hemisphere from approx. 200 years(Haiti) to 300 years (Brazil) while Europeans were enslaved in Europe for some 1,000 years under the severe freedom denying strictures of feudalism
and serfage--hence the 16th century revolutions in Europe founded on "freeing the serfs". And of course, Greece and Rome practiced slavery for at least 200 years.

posted 17 March 2005 08:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Modern science has outgrown you.

---

95% of that AAA statement is PC tripe about the social misuses of race. And the 5% that actually deals with science 1) deliberately ignores skeletal analysis, and 2) is flat-out wrong:

"Frequently, it is erroneously contended that the high (85-95%) within-group variance of human populations is inconsistent with the existence of races because differences between individuals are greater than differences between groups." (Bamshad et al. 2004. Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 598-609)

posted 17 March 2005 08:20 AM            

Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race (Michael Bamshad, et. al), full paper here: http://shrn.stanford.edu/workshops/revisitingrace/Bamshadetal2004.pdf

"for much of humanity, race is not a meaningful descriptor of biological ancestry."

"Discriptors such as race capture only some of the information that influence phenotype"....varies depending on how race is defined, groups being studied, how the study is designed or executed. etc..

quote:

---

95% of that AAA statement is PC tripe

---

Crybaby E, the more excuses you make.

...the sillier you look.

posted 18 March 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
"for much of humanity, race is not a meaningful descriptor of biological ancestry."

"Discriptors such as race capture only some of the information that influence phenotype"....varies depending on how race is defined, groups being studied, how the study is designed or executed. etc..

---

None of which precludes the existence of races, as the authors make clear in the passage I quoted.

posted 19 March 2005 04:04 PM            

1) Southern Europeans are pure.

2) E3b originated is not African.

3) Existence of a generalized human stock in Africa (aka Mickey Mouse Theory)

posted 19 March 2005 04:12 PM            

genetics and anthropology

posted 20 March 2005 07:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
1) Southern Europeans are pure.

---

Not 100%. Nobody is. But they're as close to it as other Europeans.

quote:

---

2) E3b originated is not African.

---

African, but not Negroid.

quote:

---

3) Existence of a generalized human stock in Africa

---

There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterise any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as "generalised modern humans". Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races.

posted 20 March 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
humans cannot be accurately classified in discrete ethnic groups or races on a genetic basis.
- Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica and François Balloux: "Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of human populations"
Current Biology, Volume 15, Number 5, March 8, 2005,

---

posted 20 March 2005 10:45 AM            

The results indicate that using genetic clusters instead of race/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce race/ethnic differences which may or may not be genetic. Therefore researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing differences between clusters as genetic in origin.
- (Hua Tang et al. Am J Hum Genet, 2005)

posted 20 March 2005 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B]Not 100%. Nobody is. But they're as close to it as other Europeans.[i][/i]

---

That was not my claim, but yours. Southern Europeans are certainly not pure, but they do have influence from West Asia and East Africa.

quote:

---

African, but not Negroid.

---

You have yet properly proved this. If anything East Africans are more 'Negroid' then the stereotyped counterpart, because they are even a minority in West Africa! Not only that, but there are West Africans that look like East Africans, even though having little E3b.

quote:

---

http://www.control.com.au/bi2003/articles247/feat_247.shtml

---

This magazine has a mainly White Australian audience. Not to be racist, but most white Australians tend to even have greater pride in their race than Americans. I highly doubt that Australians would want an article stating that they derived from Negroid. I suggest you, instead of looking at such unreliable articles, actually observe the actual evidence.

Take a look at this picture:

Are you telling me the picture of the adult fossil found Herto is not Negroid?

If not, then define Negroid? If you believe that a Negroid is the variant that you post some time ago, then you are wrong. Even in West African, most of them do not look like her. If you consider the skeleton from Herto a generalized human than many Africans living in West Africa are 'generalized humans' as well.

This snippet:
"Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged."

posted 20 March 2005 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AKOBADAGETH:
http://www.geocities.com/shavlego/anthropology.htm
[...]

---

Why do I have a feeling that this user is Turkish?

Anyways, Sumerians are not related to Caucasians, nor do they have any Central Asian origin. Sumerians are related to the Elamites and the Dravidians. These three groups, even though illogically branded as Caucasoid did not come from Central Asia, nor are their language 'Caucasian', the cultures of these land were not 'Caucasian' and they were very dark skinned, unlike the pale skin nomadic Caucasians. They do, have straight hair, but their hair texture is not thick like the Caucasoid counterpart. These people are West Asians, non-Caucasian or non-Negroid in origin.

posted 22 March 2005 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The results indicate that using genetic clusters instead of race/ethnic labels are likely to simply reproduce race/ethnic differences which may or may not be genetic. Therefore researchers performing studies without racial/ethnic labels should be wary of characterizing differences between clusters as genetic in origin.
- (Hua Tang et al. Am J Hum Genet, 2005)

---

posted 22 March 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Southern Europeans are certainly not pure

---

Repeat for the illiterate negro:

"Not 100%. Nobody is. But they're as close to it as other Europeans."

quote:

---

Are you telling me the picture of the adult fossil found Herto is not Negroid?

---

"Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans."

quote:

---

Post a scholar source to prove this assertion not non-academic sources like this.

---

Non-academic?

"Australasian Science Magazine
August 2003

Herto Fossils Clarify Modern Human Origins

Colin Groves explains the implications of the Herto fossils for human evolution and our concept of race.

[ . . . ]

Colin Groves is professor of archaeology and anthropology at the Australian National University."

quote:

---

I would like to see a source explaining why the early Africans are not Negroid.

---

posted 22 March 2005 09:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You can be as "wary" as you want, but it won't make the clusters disappear

---

speaking of which.....

posted 23 March 2005 07:59 AM            

"We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit."

-- Risch, Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza, 2002

But Afronuts cling to them because . . .

posted 23 March 2005 08:15 AM            

But Erroneous E didn't listen to Sforza, so now Sforza can't save him....

"An element of modern Greeks have a sub-Saharan history suggesting they may have arrived via the Egyptian kingdom or left the sub-Sahara due to the climate"
http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/genetic_tree.htm

posted 24 March 2005 07:35 AM            

We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

-- Risch, Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza, 2002


Figure 1.5: Grouping populations -- take your pick.

Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).

posted 24 March 2005 08:10 AM            

But he cries like a baby when the clusters don't turn out "right".....

As ever: roughhouse TURNS INTO TEARS!