...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
The First Europeans were Khoisan
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: I now understand your point better. Still you seem to be measuring with two different rulers.[/QUOTE]I am not using any ruler. I am just explaining a citation to you that you don't understand. Like I told you earlier, whether you agree with it or not is another thing. I am also telling you why the citation is not doing what you said it is doing. [QUOTE] You noted flaws in my approach because I didn’t mention variation, yet, when they do it[/QUOTE]This shows that you did not actually understand what I just told you, even though you claim that you did. [QUOTE] [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above. [/QUOTE]You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to [b]systematically study[/b] people.[/QUOTE]If I intended to stray, I would not have said this: [i]But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.[/i] What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me. [QUOTE] I challenge you to correct me, and if you can, I will give you credit.[/QUOTE]That depends on what you are saying. See above. [QUOTE] There were civilizations before, but there were no civilizations that had the standards, methods and understandings to systematically study people.[/QUOTE]I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people". [QUOTE] Africoid, as you can see from the features I listed in this context, is NOTTT not the equivalence of True negro. [/QUOTE]If that is not so, then why is its antonym according to your own citation, [i]caucasoid[/i]? Why does it implicate traits that are presumably associated with the "forest negro"? Does your source implicate another African variation, that is different from the [i]Africoid[/i]? [QUOTE] If this was the case, the Africoid features I listed wouldn’t be seen in East Africans.[/QUOTE]This doesn't make sense. East Africa is in fact amongst one of the most diverse areas of Africa. [QUOTE] Furthermore, it would NOT distinguish the 18 dynasty from Europeans because members of the 18th dynasty are not western Africans nor what we would describe as ‘’true Negro’’ or ‘’forest Negro’’. [/QUOTE]I think I know the source being tacitly referenced here, but I'll let you provide the specifics anyway, before I can comment further on it. [QUOTE] \Africoid simply means African-ish, and you would know that if you would take a look at the features I listed.[/QUOTE]So, "caucasoid" traits are not African-ish? [QUOTE] None of the ‘’Africoid’’ features I listed said broad nose opening, or broad face.[/QUOTE]Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it? [QUOTE] I do agree however, that the features I provided were generalizations. [b]Any of the ‘’Caucasian’’ features in the quote can be found in Africans without needing gene flow.[/b] [/QUOTE]And yet, you sit here telling me that there is nothing wrong with your citation's typological characterizations, which have long fell out of use scientifically but you are still trying to defend. You disagree, why is orthognathism not included in your African-sh [i]Africoid[/i]; are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that this trait is not African-sh? [QUOTE] Why not just go back to my original post to see the context in which I’ve used Archaic?[/QUOTE]Ok then, I am assuming that you are referring to this, unless otherwise stated: [i][b]Archaic features can only refer to what is older, and Africans, Australians have a lot of those ''archaic'' features. Europeans don't have those features anymore because they have adapted[/b]. Some of the so called archaic features are: A steep jawline Prognatism Protruding incisors Retreding chin Sloping forehead Bigger teeth robustity etc etc These traits are archaic because homo erectus and Neanderthals had some or a combinations of those features.[/i] - Kalonji In which case, there are still some further clarification questions: 1)Is the definition--as highlighted--that you gave, really the one research analysts go by? 2)What do you understand by steep jawline. Are you saying Africans have this, but Europeans don't? Like wise: Are you suggesting that Africans have "sloping foreheads", but Europeans don't? Are you saying Africans have "protruding incisors" but Europeans don't? You can repeat this line of question for the rest of your list. 3)Since you claim that Homo Erectus and Neanderthal had or some of these features, are you then implying that Africans craniometrically cluster closer to these hominid phyla than Europeans do, and/or by extension, that Africans will cluster out of modern human clusters and form their own separate cluster that is in between those hominids and the rest of humanity? If so, then I'd like to see empirical scientific demonstration of this. If not, then why would any sane person consider anything about modern Africans "archaic"? Also, does the general human body plan not share elements with either of the said homonids; should those too not be deemed "archaic"? Europeans show closer crural and brachial indices with Neanderthals. Should that not be "archaic"? Body hair; some folks have more of it than others, like Europeans generally tend to. Should that not be archaic? [QUOTE] Archaic is not an idea that I harbor, it is a word you can find in the dictionary. I do agree that [b]our usage in this context may differ[/b][/QUOTE]Nuff said then. Anything else you rationalize after that is immaterial to my need for clarification. [QUOTE] but I wasn’t referring to my usage when I said: [QUOTE] Originally posted by Kalonji: In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general. [/QUOTE]I was referring to your own usage and your own understanding of the word. [/QUOTE]You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I [i]have[/i] questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me. And in any case, if I did [which to repeat, was not done], should that not have told you what I "agree" with, right then and there? Why would you then have to ask me if I agree or disagree with my "own idea" of "archaic"? Don't you find anything comical about that mindset? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3