posted
{However Shereen's question poses a dilemma which is faced by modern day Egyptians (some of different "PRIMARY origins"). Indeed I see what you mean by the "absolutist paradigm" but how do we practically establish somebody's "PRIMARY origin" in a country with a history like modern day Egypt?}
Thought Writes:
I think it is safe to say that modern Egyptians are HIGHLY variable. But to imply that one person is “mixed” and another is not flies in the face of the known genetic data. All humans are mixed, hence what is one REALLY getting at when they say “I am mixed”. Is that an attempt to distance ones self from something? Souther Europe is just as variable as Northern Africa, yet the typical Southern European agenda seems to be to create the myth of European homogeneity.
{ For example, if my DNA says am 1/2 African, 1/4 Greek and 1/4 Jewish, of these 3 which is PRIMARY?}
Thought Writes:
Given the fact that Jews and Greeks are known to have a substantial African genetic makeup I would say you were PRIMARILY African.
{Do I pick that which is more predominant (whether or not I look typical of one of the above peoples or even feel connected to them culturally i.e "fit in")?}
Sight Writes:
That is the point. We are attempting to move away from typological thinking and the racial construct. How one looks does not determine ones lineage.
{I can understand the dilemma. No wonder we have some new categories like "Cablinasian" apparently. Maybe that's the way to go, break the paradigm!}
Thought Writes:
In my mind that path only prolongs the racial paradigm by not addressing the fact that ALL humans are mixed and that even Northern Europeans have some recent African ancestry (by recent I mean Holocene era).
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: The U.S. government has already solved your problem.
ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.
The Definition for Caucasians in the U.S. is anyone whose ancestors came from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle-East.
Of course this is what they are good at because they know YOUR ancestry better than yourself. A famous story is that one of Mostafa Hefny a Black Egyptian being classified as White and suing! Look it up on the CNN website: http://edition.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/index.html
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: The term African American, can not be used by people from Egypt or other North African Natives, becasue here in the U.S., the Blacks, have hijacked the Term for themselves only.
Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.
Which you assume she is NOT!
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: As a matter of fact, if you attempt to label yourself as such, African=American on Government Forms, your choice will be deleted and changed to Caucasian.
There goes one of the most basic human right: self-identification.
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: The U.S. government is not stupid, they knew quite well what they're doing.
Oh yes Abaza indeed Shereen is the one who is so stupid not to know what or who she is!
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: By the way, there is no such thing as a European Continent, it is called Eurasia, one big land mass, that holds very white people, as well as very dark people, such as the Dravidians in India.
Oops Shereen! Watch out for this because if you do call yourself "Caucasian" you might be mistaken for a "very dark" Dravidian!
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: The term African, does not mean Black. It is only a Geographical Term, as as Eurasian is a Geographic term.
True the term African derives from the geographical region called Africa just as the term Caucasian derives from region called the Caucasus! And your point is?
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: There are people in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other European countries who are actually darker than some Egyptians, yet they're still Caucasians.
In this case all people lighter than Southern Europeans can and should call themselves Caucasians! Including of course some Chinese, Japanese and lets not forget the Mongolians!
quote:Originally posted by ABAZA: Shereens, the problem is not you, it is the Afrocentrics, who have been trying to hijack the Egyptian Culture and Civilization for Decades, but we must not let them steal our Heritage. They just can't find any other worthy African heritage to latch on to.
At last you have spoken the truth! Shereen is NOT the problem here but it is clear that you want to force her to identify herself by your wishes. You are the problem here! You are trying to tell her who and what she is/should be. More and more we see these cheap tactics. There is no need to "hijack" a culture that was "hijacked" a long time ago. You only need to un-"hijack" it!
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:ABAZA: Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, and Other Non-Europeans are also Caucasians, and not only just the people in Europe.[/B]
Simple questions for Abaza :
How are Egyptians and North Africans caucasians? What are Caucasians? Are you a Caucasian?
If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
quote:Originally posted by supercar: If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
Thought Writes:
You can't reason with a troller. Remember, Abaza was the one who aid Europeans ALLWAYS lived in Egypt. ALLWAYS is a long time and implies that Europeans lived in Egypt before homosapiens migrated out of Africa!
quote:I think it is safe to say that modern Egyptians are HIGHLY variable. But to imply that one person is “mixed” and another is not flies in the face of the known genetic data.
This is a very important and subtle idea. The new school of racism in western anthropological study is called the 'no race' school. They are very fond of the concept of mixed-mulatto races, no race and non-racial...as long as it applies to 'other peoples'.
You are not supposed to grasp the concept that mixed race also implies 'pure' races. Without implicit 'pure' races there is nothing to mix. As in chemistry...compound mixtures imply 'elements', whether explicitly defined or not. And whom do you suppose is the implied 'elemental'? ? ?
Paraphrasing Bishop Tutu - they said let us pray together, we closed our eyes, and when we opened them, we had the Bible, but they had the land. This also applies to the wst scholarship's no race school of racism. How many of us will fall for this latest swindle??
quote:Originally posted by rasol: You are not supposed to grasp the concept that mixed race also implies 'pure' races. Without implicit 'pure' races there is nothing to mix.
Well put!
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Thought2: Thought Writes:
In my mind that path only prolongs the racial paradigm by not addressing the fact that ALL humans are mixed and that even Northern Europeans have some recent African ancestry (by recent I mean Holocene era).
posted
This whole notion of caucasian extending to mixed groups like Arabs,Egyptians,and others is a product of early anthropology like Blumebach. It was later also made to include racial subgroupings. The racial subgroupings like Mediterranean,Alpine, and Nordic were given to European groups. What happened was that other racial groups like Mongolid and Negriod were given only exagerated features and no racial subgroupings.
The whole classification system in America is largely a biproduct of the Eugenic movement in early American soceity. Southern Europeans in certain literature were actually seen as mullatoes or mixed with non-white people. After all the years the Southern Europeans sued to finally be classified as white,and thus everything south of the Mediterranean regions like Northern Africa was placed into that classification.
What Abaza does not know is that clearly multi-ethnic populations like Dominicans,Puerto Ricans,and others were at one time classified as Caucasian. The same is true for Mexicans who immigrate to America. American racial classification system can hardly be taken as any science. It shifts depending upon whatever political paradigm.
An Egyptian scholar named Soheir Morsy wrote a article entitledMorsy, Soheir A. "Beyond the Honorary `White' Classification of Egyptians: Societal Identity in Historical Context" in Gregory, Steven and Sanjek, Roger, RACE (Rutgers University Press, 1994).
For the tendency of the new Egyptian immigrants to prefer Whites to Blacks, Soheir A. Morsy, ?Beyond the Honorary `White? Classification of Egyptians: Societal Identity in Historical Context,? ibid., 175-198; for the overview on Indians in America, Joan M- Jensen, Passage From India: Asian Indian Immigrants in North America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: What Abaza does not know is that clearly multi-ethnic populations like Dominicans,Puerto Ricans,and others were at one time classified as Caucasian. The same is true for Mexicans who immigrate to America. American racial classification system can hardly be taken as any science. It shifts depending upon whatever political paradigm.
In order to fully understand the shifting nature of the US racial classification system, have a look at this webpage. It's actually a three-part article on the history of US immigration law and is a slightly cumbersome read but at the end you get a clear picture. http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html
Caucasian is just a label of convenience and way to group people who share similar features and phenotypes.
Negroid (Black)is also a label of convenience that groups similar people of similar features together.
The same can be said of the Monogloid or Asian (Yellow) race of people.
There are probably as many differences within each racial group as there are between the groups themselves.
The problem is that these definitions are sometimes quite vauge and often face problems with people who don't fit easily into one racial group or another, such as the Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, Afghanis, Iranians, Indians, Latin Americans, and Others.
Then the question becomes, where should all these people be classified into our system of five main racial divisions.
One could easily creates tens of different racial groups, but that would not be very convenient or constructive.
What the scientific community turned to, was the law of proximity, which meant how close each of these people were to the other main catergories, such as Caucasian, Negroid, and Monogloid, etc.
By looking at people from the Middle East, for example, the dominant facial features appear to be caucasian-like, yet they're distinct in several other ways. Many are quite dark and some have dark curly or even kinky hair among other features. In this case, they looked at the majority of the people and decided that they were closer to the Caucasian people of Europe than they were to the Negroid people of Africa.
Therefore, these people were classified as Caucasian. I know that many of these people from the Middle East would love to have their own racial group identity, but that may or may not happen.
Egyptians, are in exactly the same position as these other natives of the Middle East. They were judged to be closer to the Caucasian group, than to the Negroid group.
Is there some bias, in how one group of people is chosen to be included in one racial category or another? The answer is of course, because races are social constructs of mankind, and after all, humans are all just one race (homo sapiens).
A good example, is the Southern Italian immigrants, who were labelled as Non-White by the larger White society in the U.S. at that time. They faced a lot of harrassment and used to be called niggers. Nowadays, all Italians are accepted as caucasians by most Americans. But, a few who are a little darker, still face some subtle or mild forms of discrimination to this very day.
Sometimes, governments have to step in in order to set things straight, so that the ignorant members of society don't take things into their own hands and do more harm than good.
If it was up to me, I would eliminate all racial categories all together, because they have done more harm than good.
I main reason, that I object to many of the people on this forum, is because they want to divide the Ancient Egyptians and the Modern Egyptians into Arabs, Africans, Asians, which is something that just does not lend itself to the actual truth.
The AE's were a lot smarter than all these eurocentric and afrocentric people, because they choose to define themselves as a distinct group apart from all their neighbors. They were the "Romat",(the men) or the Egyptians, none of their neighbors measured up to the Native Egyptians.
I would be very happy to have the Egyptians, both Modern and Ancient be assigned their own racial group or category, just as they did in AE.
That is why I always tell people to look at King Tut's Sandals for the Clue about AE.
Egyptians are very Unique and that is why they have had a great civilization and continue to be a great country, but of course in a more limited way, these days!
I hope that I have shedd some light on this controversial topic about The Egyptian Race of People.
The one thing that I can say about most Egyptians is that most of them are very tolerant and hospitable even to others who are different from them.
That
quote:Originally posted by supercar: Simple questions for Abaza :
How are Egyptians and North Africans caucasians? What are Caucasians? Are you a Caucasian?
If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 January 2005).]
posted
I doubt that you believe any of that garbage Abaza. You only attempt to 'explain' it, in order to convince yourself that it makes sense. The American definitions that you are defending are political, not scientific. Most Egyptians are smart enough to realise this. DETROIT (CNN) -- An Egyptian immigrant is suing the U.S. government because they've told him he's white when his entire life he's been black. Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.
Did you read my previous comments, or are you jumping to conclusions without giving yourself a chance to digest the information?
Everyone has already read Mostafa Hefny's story, but what most people forget to mention is that Mr. Hefny is a Nubian and does not represent the majority of the Egyptian people. Nubians are a minority group that happens to live in parts of Egypt and the Sudan. Everyone knows this quite well, except those who are totally ignorant of how Egyptians look like.
I know that some afrocentrics would love it, if all the modern Egyptians would turn around and declare that they're actually Black Africans and therefore, their ancestors are also Black Africans.
Please don't hold your breath, because this is quite unlikely to happen, anytime soon.
Egyptians just want to be left alone. They don't need the afrocentrics or the eurocentrics to define them racially, but it is hard to ignore those two venomus people who are trying very hard to hijack our civilization and culture.
Well, I hope some people will begin to understand that there is a big difference between Culture and Race......Some afrocentrics and eurocentrics just don't seem to get it!!
Peace!!
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 January 2005).]
posted
Abaza, You touched on the key to the problem in this last post. Most of these Afrocentrics are American blacks of west African extration. They want to see ancient Egyptians in a 'modern' black sense. Mainstream scholars in the United States see all of this for what it is. They have actually created their own pseudo- scholarship. They back up their points by using the work of OTHER Afrocentrics who share their same non academic racist goals. You can't argue with them because they have no boundries. The idea that Greek thought came out of Africa or that southern Europeans are not white puts them into kooky land. This is academics out of a cereal box. I can assure you that American Egyptologists and historians do not share their views.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sadly yes, and what a waste of time it was. Your posts usually are.
quote: Everyone has already read Mostafa Hefny's story,
Everyone has already heard your story as well, but that doesn't stop you from regurgitating it, does it?
quote: but what most people forget to mention is that Mr. Hefny is a Nubian
This comment is typical of your inability to think in a coherent way. You are defending the US govt. racial aparthied classification system. In that system...they do not care about "Nubian". They do not care what he looks like. He could look like Robert Mugabe and would still be classified as white, because it is political, not scientific.
quote: and does not represent the majority of the Egyptian people.
And you do?
quote: Nubians are a minority group that happens to live in parts of Egypt and the Sudan.
..like Anwar Sadat's ancestry you mean? Funny how desparately anti-African pan-Arab 'Egyptians' cling to his image and legacy, only to spit on his mother's grave. Hypocrites.
Here is something written by another Ancient Egyptian of Nubian descent, just for you Abaza:
No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic! - Kamose.
Kamose is referring to the Hyksos or 'foreign rulers' who had come to predominate in the delta. He could easily be referring to you.
From now one: Everytime you call yourself a caucasian (read Hyksos)...I want you remember the Kamose inscription.
quote:They want to see ancient Egyptians in a 'modern' black sense.
Incorrect Professor.
The idea that Egyptians are black is ancient.
* It is an ancient Egyptian idea;
* It is an ancient Hebrew idea;
* It is an ancient Greek idea.
Your delusion that they are not 'black', that they belong so some sort of "european" related "race".... is product of modern European racism. This notion, like European colonialism, is recent, ultimately triffling, and of no enduring value and merit. It relies precisely on.....
quote:"Mainstream" scholars in the United States
...and 'that' is the primary source of your dieing ideology.
Black Americans are only relevant because they are kicking the legs out from under the rotten foundation that you are here trying to prop up. That's why you vent your misdirected anger towards them. That's why you deflect most conversations on AE towards anti African American rants, such as.....
quote:You can't argue with them because they have no boundries.
Yes, as always this is your standard excuse - why you cannot engage in a scholarly discussion thru everyone else's fault except your own.
Allow me to disabuse you of your excuse....
quote:The idea that Greek thought came out of Africa or that southern Europeans are not white puts them (African Americans) into kooky land.
Wrong.
The idea that Ancient Greek culture has Afro-Asiatic roots originates IN ANCIENT GREECE, specifically with Herodotus.
The best known, and perhaps the best scholarship advancing this notion is: "Egypt and the Light of the World", by Gerald Massey.
The primary current scholar who has advanced this particular view is a white American Professor Martin Bernal, "Black Athena".
Professor: since you've given yourself and excuse for your inability to debate 'Afrocentrics' how about offering us a lucid critique of Black Athena, or perhaps, Egypt and the Light of the World?
I'm sure you've read them.
Give us for once, something to think about, and not just someone to laugh at.
Professor...Do your homework! No more excuses.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 January 2005).]
posted
The Black Athena is pure garbage. You can't engage scholarship when their is no scholarship. It would be like Stephen hawking trying to discuss space with the Director of the 'UFO Society of America.' Keep in mind rasol when you bash the west and its scholarship that everything you have in this world depends on it. When you get up in the morning you put on clothes designed in the west, you pop your bread into a western toaster. When you leave your air conditioned house you get into an automobile developed and invented in the west. When you get on your computer, developed in the west, it may go through a phone line invented by another westerner Alexander Graham Bell. In short rasol, everything you have and everything you are is western. The west won and created the modern world, I'm sorry if you don't like that but its just the way it is. The only thing that you have that is not western is some sort of weird, victim mentality that believes the world owes you some kind of credit, for God knows what. This has been going on for 500 hundred years at least and shows no signs of letting up. Whats the old saying, if you can't beat them, (which you can't) then join them and share in the prosperity.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Black Athena is pure garbage. You can't engage scholarship when their is no scholarship." Did you actually read it, or are you just 'hating' out of prejudice? Can you explain to us why Martin Bernal, Professor Emeritus in Near Eastern Studies of Cornell University is considered by you to be a 'non scholar'. You have superior scholastic credentials?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
What you fail to realise is that technological developments are like a relay race. Each new scientific find or technological development builds on what went before. In this regard, the major inventions and scientific developments that took place in only certain areas of what is called the West today and only in certain research circles(France, Britain, Holland and later Germany)are all due to the influence of the so-called Renaissance--which really was the transmission of Greco-Egyptian knowledge to Western Europe by way of Moorish scholars and Arabic language researchers.
Thus the scientist Newton spoke of being indebted to the Egyptians and their work in astronomy. But all the inventions that Horemheb speaks about derive from knowledge of mathematics and measurement which were not invented in the West. Smelting of iron did not begin in the West. Writing and symbolic representations are not of Western provenance--all necessary to do scientific and technological work. Clothing was not invested in the West given that most Europeans wore the skins of animals until the Roman era--and even beyond.
All the inventions-except clothing-- Horemheb mentions depend on electro-magnetic theory which would not have been possible without the crucial inventions made elswhere. The truth is that the foundations and building blocks of the theories behind these inventions were non-Western.
Sure, there are modern inventions of Western provenance but given the fact that they derive from earlier crucial steps we have to admit that the West is not much more than a recently arrived(arriviste) civilisation which, however, must take credit for synthesising the spadework of earlier and more pristine civilisations.
quote:Originally posted by YuhiVII: In order to fully understand the shifting nature of the US racial classification system, have a look at this webpage. It's actually a three-part article on the history of US immigration law and is a slightly cumbersome read but at the end you get a clear picture. http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html
Although I posted a link to this article earlier, in order to reiterate my point I will quote the most relevant sections(to this discussion):
Race, Nationality and Reality: INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898 By Marian L. Smith
"The history of "race" in relation to immigration and nationality law is but one example of the difficulties inherent in writing or administering legislation that employs vague concepts about which the nation is either confused, conflicted, or for which Americans do not have a concrete, constant definition."
"INS changes to the classification of race and administration of racial provisions in immigration and nationality law reflected changes in American thinking or "common understanding." "
"The cases of Majid Ramsay Sharif (Shariph) and Noshad Khan are illustrative.45
Sharif, an Arab, applied for an immigration visa in 1941 but was denied as an alien racially ineligible to citizenship."
"In both cases, because they were not petitions for naturalization, the questions went not to the courts but to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).46 Administrative law could now determine the question of racial eligibility. "
"In Sharif's case involving the eligibility of an Arab, the board, like the courts, relied on the Thind decision. Unlike the courts, the BIA was persuaded by a brief for the U.S. government in the Thind case that argued that "whiteness," for lack of a better term, is associated with Western civilization, and Western civilization includes "so much of the Near East as contributed to, and was assimiliable with, the development of Western Civilization of Greece and Rome." "
"Having recalled the cultural link between the ancient and modern western worlds, the board concluded "that it was not intended, either in 1790 at the time of the first enactment of the governing statute or certainly in 1940 at the time of its last enactment, that Arabians be excluded from the group of 'white persons'."47 Unless one is prepared to believe immigration officials were naturally more benign that Supreme Court justices, the Sharif case demonstrates a changed "common understanding" in 1941 from that which persuaded the court in 1923. "
"The case of Mostafa Hefny is a good example. In 1997 in Detroit, Michigan, Egyptian immigrant Hefny filed suit against the US government for classifying him as racially white when he was obviously black. This classification resulted from use of the obsolete Office of Management and Budget Directive #15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting," which classified Egyptians as white. Egyptians had long been considered eligible for naturalization by the courts, and the reader will recall how the Board of Immigration Appeals' 1941 reconsideration of the Thind decision in the Sharif case declared natives of the cradles of Western Civilization to be "white persons.""
So as we can see from the above examples among many the US government while using it's racial classification system does NOT KNOW per se but uses a set of definitions which shift from case to case depending on a "common understanding". Needless to say this is NOT scientific and very much biased. Of course in it we see the entrenched thinking that is circular.
Western Civilization is that of white persons, therefore the cradles of Western Civilization are those of white persons and hence all those nationals of nations considered the cradles of Western civilizations are white persons!
This is the history of immigration law in the US that gives us such absurd scenarios as Mr.Hefny being told he was white.
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
Caucasian is just a label of convenience and way to group people who share similar features and phenotypes.
Negroid (Black)is also a label of convenience that groups similar people of similar features together.
Seriously, you should be embarrassed by answers of this sort. "Caucasian" has become a euphemism for folks of "white" race. The terminology is somehow supposed to imply a connection with Caucasus Mountains in Eurasia, not Africa. How can you say indigenous Egyptians are Caucasians, when it is blatantly clear that they don't trace their ancestry to any such setting. Moreover, indigenous Ancient Egyptians (Kemet's founders) having never left the continent, cannot simply be labeled as some outer-continental race. That is what Eurocentrics and folks like you try to do, when you put pseudo labels like "Caucasians" on them. There is a name for such desperate tactics; it's called crack science. If "Negro" is supposed to signify dark skin tropically adapted folks of Africa, then there is nothing wrong with labeling indigenous Ancient Egyptians and their descendants as being such. You cannot equate "Negro" with "Caucasian". You are resorting to a whole "new" pseudo-species, an idea which was obviously initiated by racist Europeans back in the 19th century, so as to vainly separate white folks from “inferior” people of “color”. The problem with that, was that when Europeans came to other lands that already had complex civilizations, in order to maintain their propaganda of the so-called superior "race", they needed to explain off these developments as those of outsiders. These outsiders were somehow supposed to be strongly affiliated with White folks, rather than the indigenous folks. Those racist Europeans knew very well that in terms of color alone, it would be very awkward to call Egyptians "White" folks; hence the resort to usage of the pseudo-science terminology of "Caucasian", which doesn't even remotely have anything to do with indigenous Ancient Egyptian ancestry. This is why it is very laughable that you call indigenous Egyptians Caucasians, while at the same time, attempting to claim the ancient civilization. Your attempt at separating Egyptians from indigenous Africans, is as blatantly desperate as that of those racist Eurocentrics of the 19th century.
You are the one doing Egyptians a disservice by pathetically trying to credit their indigenous accomplishments to some sort of a back-migration “race”. I hope that I don’t have to reiterate exactly what is wrong with that notion!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 12 January 2005).]
What you fail to realise is that technological developments are like a relay race. Each new scientific find or technological development builds on what went before. In this regard, the major inventions and scientific developments that took place in only certain areas of what is called the West today and only in certain research circles(France, Britain, Holland and later Germany)are all due to the influence of the so-called Renaissance--which really was the transmission of Greco-Egyptian knowledge to Western Europe by way of Moorish scholars and Arabic language researchers.
Thus the scientist Newton spoke of being indebted to the Egyptians and their work in astronomy. But all the inventions that Horemheb speaks about derive from knowledge of mathematics and measurement which were not invented in the West. Smelting of iron did not begin in the West. Writing and symbolic representations are not of Western provenance--all necessary to do scientific and technological work. Clothing was not invested in the West given that most Europeans wore the skins of animals until the Roman era--and even beyond.
All the inventions-except clothing-- Horemheb mentions depend on electro-magnetic theory which would not have been possible without the crucial inventions made elswhere. The truth is that the foundations and building blocks of the theories behind these inventions were non-Western.
Sure, there are modern inventions of Western provenance but given the fact that they derive from earlier crucial steps we have to admit that the West is not much more than a recently arrived(arriviste) civilisation which, however, must take credit for synthesising the spadework of earlier and more pristine civilisations.
Well put, Lamin. Horemheb constantly spams the board with these warped geopolitical views of his. He even forgets about the many inventions in the "West" by people of "color" and black folks. The computer, the cars, and many of the things he mentioned, not to mention other modern inventions that he didn't care to include in his blabber, have critical components or elements developed by black folks and other people of "color". It only nurtures ego-building for folks like Horemheb, to live in a fantasy world, where white folks are supposed to be just "givers" but not "takers". It is simply comforting for him to casually use all the technology around him, while vetting out the notion that such convenience owes its existance to the hard work and the many ideas of people of various color and "racial" background. Such is the demented mode of thinking by Eurocentrics, unlike others who embrace the idea of contribution from all humanity.
posted
Supercar, For the life of me I don't see how you get up in the morning and manage to dress yourself. Greco-Egyptian....what a pile of nonsense. Rasol...I do not claim to have the near eastern scholarship background that Bernal has but you must know he has been hammered consistently by Greek Classical scholars everywhere for this bizarre work. Why did he put it out? Who knows? Perhaps he wanted to sell books at the end of his career, perhaps he knew that such a topic would appeal to a segment of the population who respond to these issues. When I came on this board I made it a point to read as much of the Afrocentric 'line of thinking' as i could find. i kept running into this "we have to do this for the self esteem of young blacks." What kind of scholarship is based on crap like that? The only Egyptian young blacks in America might know about is King Tut because he is in a video game. More important is how do we lower the 60% drop out rate among young blacks, what do we do about the 75% of black babies born out of wed lock? I could go on and on. Black culture in America is in serious crisis and these idiots want to solve the problem by creating an alternative history in Ancient Egypt. Its la la land all the way.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Supercar writes: Horemheb constantly spams the board with these warped geopolitical views of his.
Too true, rather than waste time dignifying his spew by addressing it, something of relevance:
Professor Christopher Ehret (UCLA)[historian/linguist]: Bernal has done fine work. His grandfather was Alan Gardner, a famous and important Egyptologist. He went into other things, but has always been, at heart, an Egyptologist. He knows his Egyptian materials very, very well. And as he started looking at these materials, he became interested in the history of literature dealing with Greek-Egyptian connection. He saw that, as you moved into the 19th century, histories became increasingly distant from what the Greeks themselves said about their Egyptian connections....we can't ignore, for instance, Euclid saying that he stayed in Egypt and, after he returned, wrote the Geometry. A whole bunch of people in the Classics departments have made their careers - the wonder of the Ancient Greeks. If you make any connection between Africa and what the Greeks were doing, our Western upbringing can come back to surface in a way people don't realize is taking place. They don't realize that, actually, Africans were just as advanced.
And then there's the thought of Egypt was this place that got great but then just stopped, stagnated. And that's not a correct reading of history either.....the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. I don't think it does at all.
posted
lamin, Under your theory i suppose we could find who invented the wheel and move that forward thus giving them credit for the moon landing. frankly, I give Africa and other parts of the world almost no credit for the creation of modern civilization. Its almost purely a European and Euro-American creation. That said, I think there are no limits on what non western peoples can do in Global economy. Frankly, we have terrible social problems to deal with in both Africa and the African American community here. Creating some sort of alternative world history that acomplishes nothing will not help us solve all of these problems.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin, You have asked a very good question and after I come back from lunch today or in the morning I will try to give you a good answer. Let me start , however, by refering you to a recent book by Rubenstein titled 'Aristotle's Children.' From a philosophical point of view he outlines very well the rediscovery of Greek thought in the middle ages and thus one aspect of the emergence of Europe on the world stage.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin, To answer at least part of your question today there are a few things we must do first. We have to establish when the modern world, as we know it, began? Most scholars today would mark the modern world as beginning around 1500 give or take. Several things took place at about this time that made possible the worlk we now know. 1. The formation of the nation state in Europe (thus the breakdown of the Medieval world) 2. The reformation ....began the secularization movement in Europe that made it possible for important activity to occur OUTSIDE the control of the catholic church. 3. The beginnings of capitalism which led to the high output economies that we have today. 4. The invention of the printing press in 1476 leading to an explosion of knowledge. 5. The European discovery of what we will call the frontier (the Americas, Africa and Asia) which resulted into millions of dollars pouring into Europe to stimulate the economy and provide for unprecedented growth. 6. The emergence of European (especially northern European) states as military powers. Europeans led the world in military technology at this time thus making it possible for them to control other peoples.
All of these things will end up creating what we know as the modern world and they all began to take vivid form in about the year 1500.
This is a very complex subject so we'll have to look at many complicated aspects. I'll be back to finish later.
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: 5. The European discovery of what we will call the frontier (the Americas, Africa and Asia) which resulted into millions of dollars pouring into Europe to stimulate the economy and provide for unprecedented growth.
What you call the frontier is all the world except for Europe.
There was no discovery. Europe was effectively cut out of the existing old world trade system. Once Europe learned advanced sailing technology and cartography from Muslim civ they set out with superior weaponry to appropriate already known trade routes. This hardly rates as discovery. Its more akin to piracy.
In the case of the Americas lets be honest and call this what it was, the total rape and pillage of those two continents.
In Africa there initially was willing collusion for mutually beneficial trade but it that devolved into underdevelopment and 300 years afterward became colonialism.
Asia Im not so sure about except that India was effectively conquered and Australia made a criminal settler colony as was N. America.
But its typical of the mentality of the Europeans of those times to see all the world as the frontier and all the worlds people as fauna. Most Euro people have matured spiritually as much as they have grown materially over the last 500 years and realize the so called age of discovery was no more than an age of exploitation.
The modern world is an outgrowth from the time of European militancy and dominance. With the dismantling of overt racist policies and less prohibition of hi tech trade and education to certain nations, the modern world is the joint product of the global community of all humankind. A perusal of various whos who registries, patents, and Nobel prizes shows that virtually every ethnicity contributes to the modern world. I would say the modern world began around 1950.
Without the hallmark of discrimination and racial attitudes that characterized the age of Euro appropriation of world resources and violent dominance over many peoples humanity would have entered the modern era maybe 200 years ago.
White supremacists like Horemheb will never understand that and will cling to the idea that whites did everything because of innate superiority not because of propensities to violence and unwillingness to share between 1500 and 1900. Normal white people already know the story and through humanitarian organizations and antiracism are balancing out the gross evils that led up to our modern world.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Supercar, For the life of me I don't see how you get up in the morning and manage to dress yourself. Greco-Egyptian....what a pile of nonsense.
Quite simple really: I use my brains and natural gift of physical appendages. Funny though, I was just about to make the same assessment of you , how you can make it straight to the toilet and take care of business yourself, including the idea that you can think at all. For you to be able to do these things, you need BRAINS!
Talking of brains, what "Greco-Egyptian" gibberish are you pointing to, in reference to anything I said herein?
I stand vindicated on the fractured mentality I mentioned earlier, concerning racist European ideology that past inventions which led to new ones, count for nothing, as long as they aren't by people of European descent. Horemheb and other racists like him, are daily using non-white inspired technology...but that counts for nothing in Eurocentric fantasy land. Exactly when they will wakeup and smell the coffee, is anyone's guess!
He is using a non-white invention to communicate with us at this moment, but don't expect him to know how this is so.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 14 January 2005).]
posted
#1. not that you guys need this, i know that very well, but i do want to apologize for i feel i am partially the cause of recent hostilities. of course, i'm bright enough to know there are some histories amongst you all on this board, but i still did not expect the very negative reactions amongst yourselves. i didn't mean to create a tizzy.
that being said, reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
#2. i actually wanted to respond to some of abaza's points, but i don't think i will bother now.
#3. to respond to Thought2's point, i'm sorry if my slang did not catch on. what i meant by calling myself a "mutt" was not intended in a depracating or disrespectful manner; i apologize if i offended anyone. all i meant was that i view myself--and alwyas have--as a mix (ie, a "mutt" versus a "purebreed") and proud of it. and i certainly wasn't referring to myself as a "bitch" either.
#4. thanx!! for your insights and opinions. after doing research of my own, talking to a federal grants program director, talking to other people, and reading your posts, i think i'm a lot clearer now.
#5. i'm african. that wasn't so difficult, now was it?
quote: shereens: reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
The observation regarding humans around the globe being mixed (genetically speaking) and that social constructs of "race" boiling down to phenotypes or physical appearances, was the intended point of the replies to your earlier comment. The purpose was not to offend, but shed light on the subject.
posted
Part 2, We discussed some of the reasons for the European transion from the medieval period to the modern era. We can view those things as we would the foundations of any building. Moving forward from each one we can see how western power developed in the modern world. What did the Europeans encounter in the 'frontier' areas after 1500? What did Europeans find these areas so easy to conquer and control? 1. North America. Most of this contient was sparsly populated by Indian tribes who were neolithic at best. Many were still in a hunter gatherer stage of development. When Europeans began to arrive on the east coast of Canada and what is now the United States the Indian population was too technologically weak and far to fragmented to offer any meaningful resistance. 2. Mexica and Latin America. Although there were some colorful and complex societies, especially in Mexico and Peru, they lacked the military technology to defend themselves aganinst European conquest. 3. Africa. Once again, some interesting and complex societies but far to fragmanted to even attempt to deal with aggresive European eforts at conquest and exploitation. 4. The Middle East, Islamic countries. After having what could be called a golden era between 700-1200 these areas became bogged down in rigid religous systems that stifled the energy and creativity they had once known. 5. When Commodore Perry reached Japan as late as the 19th century he found a medieval society still in place. Both China and Japan were far behind the Europenas in societial refor and military technology. The result was the obvious European domination of the region until the end of World War II. Thus just as the Europeans were beging to hit full stide and enter what we would call the modern word the rest of the world, the 'frontier' areas were in as weak a position to resisit as they had ever been. European conquest of all of these areas poured massive wealth back into Euro-America and fueled technology and eventually the Industrial revolution. Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
Africans are Black, White, Yellow, and Brown.
The term African is not a racial term.
Does that mean that you feel closer to the Negroid (Black) Africans or do you feel closer to the Caucasiod (White) Africans, or neither groups, pehaps more like the Arabs or Berbers.
Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
One thing that most people sometimes get confused, is that African Americans are not just a racial group, but also a Cultural Group. For example, many Black Cubans, feel very little solidarity with Black Americans (African Americans), because they identify with their Latino Culture.
Here in the U.S., there are essentially two ways to identify yourself, one is how people perceive you racially and also, how you see yourself.
As I said before, many Southern Italians, used to be called "Niggers" by the larger White Society, because they were ignorant of how some Dark Caucasians look like.
Paul Anka, who is of Lebanese descent, used to be called Black and nigger, when he was growing up in Canada, because he was darker than all his classmates, yet he is Caucasian.
Finally, I don't believe that the Egyptians are "Mixed", because they have always looked like this, since the times of our Ancient Ancestors (the AE's), i.e., thousands of years ago.
If you have a chance, go to your local Egyptian Museum and look at all the pictures and statues and you'll realize, that the AE's and the modern Egyptians are quite similar and some would even say, that they're the same as the people in Egypt today.
Egyptain Art is the best anti-dote in the face of the afrocentrics, because Caucasian facial features and profiles don't lie.
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and please don't be afraid of the afrocentrics or their tactics. They only want to use Egypt and the AE's for their own goals and to help them with their self-esteem problems. Please be proud of who you are, because you have a very "Noble" heritage....
Peace!!
quote:Originally posted by shereens: #1. not that you guys need this, i know that very well, but i do want to apologize for i feel i am partially the cause of recent hostilities. of course, i'm bright enough to know there are some histories amongst you all on this board, but i still did not expect the very negative reactions amongst yourselves. i didn't mean to create a tizzy.
that being said, reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
#2. i actually wanted to respond to some of abaza's points, but i don't think i will bother now.
#3. to respond to Thought2's point, i'm sorry if my slang did not catch on. what i meant by calling myself a "mutt" was not intended in a depracating or disrespectful manner; i apologize if i offended anyone. all i meant was that i view myself--and alwyas have--as a mix (ie, a "mutt" versus a "purebreed") and proud of it. and i certainly wasn't referring to myself as a "bitch" either.
#4. thanx!! for your insights and opinions. after doing research of my own, talking to a federal grants program director, talking to other people, and reading your posts, i think i'm a lot clearer now.
#5. i'm african. that wasn't so difficult, now was it?
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 14 January 2005).]
When you say that you're African, what does that mean? Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
Perhaps she wishes to state a fact: that she is a native of Africa. That says quite a bit actually.
You are apparently irked because she refuses to qualify herself on your terms. I've noticed that many Egyptians on this forum do not. You've noticed too.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 January 2005).]
You know quite well, that the word African could be anything.
What Shereen is trying to say, is that she is from Africa, but she does not identify herself as Black African.
Dark Caucasian, is probably the best way to identify her, because her Mom, looks like a Southern European, as many Northern Egyptians look.
Shereen, you should place yourself on a "pedstal", just like your great ancestors and remember that Egyptians, ancient and modern are very smart, good looking, and unique people!!
King Tut's was a master at stepping on all the inferior people, who were the enemies of Egypt. He stepped on all of them at once.
This is fact not afrocentric fiction!!
Peace!!
If you don't mind, I would love to look at your picture, and give you my unbaised opinion.......you can send me an Email if you like.
Peace!!
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Perhaps she wishes to state a fact: that she is a native of Africa. That says quite a bit actually.
You are apparently irked because she refuses to qualify herself on your terms. I've noticed that many Egyptians on this forum do not. You've noticed too.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 15 January 2005).]
You know quite well, that the word African could be anything.
That sentence is incoherent. As is most of your silly babbling.
quote:What Shereen is trying to say,
...oh please. The last thing you need to be doing is trying to clarify(!) someone else's views given your complete inability to make any sense of your own. Get real. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
When you say that you're African, what does that mean? [This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 14 January 2005).]
Thought Writes:
Abaza, you ask of Shereen that which you will not give yourself. You want her to elaborate on her ideas and define her terms, but when we request the same from you, you clam-up. This is a sign of a troller. We respect your right to disagree, but the fact that you do not particpate in a manner that indicates that you are not a troller is troubling.
When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
Africans are Black, White, Yellow, and Brown.
The term African is not a racial term.
Does that mean that you feel closer to the Negroid (Black) Africans or do you feel closer to the Caucasiod (White) Africans, or neither groups, pehaps more like the Arabs or Berbers.
Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
One thing that most people sometimes get confused, is that African Americans are not just a racial group, but also a Cultural Group. For example, many Black Cubans, feel very little solidarity with Black Americans (African Americans), because they identify with their Latino Culture.
Here in the U.S., there are essentially two ways to identify yourself, one is how people perceive you racially and also, how you see yourself.
As I said before, many Southern Italians, used to be called "Niggers" by the larger White Society, because they were ignorant of how some Dark Caucasians look like.
Paul Anka, who is of Lebanese descent, used to be called Black and nigger, when he was growing up in Canada, because he was darker than all his classmates, yet he is Caucasian.
Finally, I don't believe that the Egyptians are "Mixed", because they have always looked like this, since the times of our Ancient Ancestors (the AE's), i.e., thousands of years ago.
If you have a chance, go to your local Egyptian Museum and look at all the pictures and statues and you'll realize, that the AE's and the modern Egyptians are quite similar and some would even say, that they're the same as the people in Egypt today.
Egyptain Art is the best anti-dote in the face of the afrocentrics, because Caucasian facial features and profiles don't lie.
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and please don't be afraid of the afrocentrics or their tactics. They only want to use Egypt and the AE's for their own goals and to help them with their self-esteem problems. Please be proud of who you are, because you have a very "Noble" heritage....
Peace!!
I said this before, but I'll reiterate, because it applies to both "cultural subordination" and the "identity crisis" indicative of your above comment:
"Indigenous Kemetians weren't Caucasians, but were true Africans who never migrated out of the continent. So where is the justification for labeling them such a "back-migration implicated" terminology? Abaza's next best resort, appears to be that they are "non-black". If someone was to ask him for the definition of this terminology, I am not sure the answer will be as forthcoming. Indigenous Egyptians were tropically adapted, and thus had to have enough melanin dosage in their skin. I guess going by what appears to be his mentality, an argument can be made that other tropically adapted Africans are "non-black", because they aren't literally black! Science shows, even Eurocentrists can't deny this fact, indigenous Egyptians were indeed tropically adapted. So Abaza: When you say that Kemetians were "non-black", are you then implying that indigenous Egyptians were "Albinos" or lacked melanin content?"
The above is coupled with Thought's:
quote: Abaza, you ask of Shereen that which you will not give yourself. You want her to elaborate on her ideas and define her terms, but when we request the same from you, you clam-up. This is a sign of a troller. We respect your right to disagree, but the fact that you do not particpate in a manner that indicates that you are not a troller is troubling.
...I challenge you to come up with a logical answer the question put forward!
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians
What the hell are you babbling about? Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid. It says that it's "remarkably close to Angel's Ancient Greek 'Classic Mediterranean' Type B". And if Lower Nubian crania belong to Type B, that means they're NOT Negroid, but rather Mediterranean Caucasoid. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
quote:One thing Dienekes has failed to address concerning Coon was that Coon stated THIS as per quoted from the same source:
Coon ('39, p.63) has remarked that "many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction" show a considerable negroid tendency, but here it assumes the role of a sexual as well as racial characteristic
L. Cabot Briggs Stone Ages of Northwest Africa p. 62
That's "negroid" with a lowercase "n". It refers to independently evolved archaic traits that have re-emerged, such as prognathism. Coon also states that Alpines show a "mongoloid tendency". Obviously, he isn't suggesting that they're descended from East Asians. It's just an evolutionary trend.
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians
Euro writes Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: That's "negroid" with a lowercase "n". It refers to independently evolved archaic traits that have re-emerged, such as prognathism. Coon also states that Alpines show a "mongoloid tendency". Obviously, he isn't suggesting that they're descended from East Asians. It's just an evolutionary trend.
Yes and Coon says that Mediterraneans show a considerable Negroid tendency. You also forgot that Briggs found that type B were similar to both lower Nubian and a series of crania from Gabon in central Africa, so are gabon people Mediterranean Caucasoids? Your name ought to be stupid Euro, not evil euro. Who are you to say what Briggs meant when he said negroid? I read his book all the way through. His book states nothing about 'Negroid traits evolving independently, i quote Brigg's work not Coon's.
quote:What the hell are you babbling about? Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid. It says that it's "remarkably close to Angel's Ancient Greek 'Classic Mediterranean' Type B". And if Lower Nubian crania belong to Type B, that means they're NOT Negroid, but rather Mediterranean Caucasoid. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
Lower Nubians are Mediterranean Caucasoids? I don't get it with you Euros, one minute you all use Nubians to prove that Egyptians aren't Negroid but then when Negroid traits show up on Europe or in places deemed as traditional non-Negroid territory, you call people who are obviously Negroid(Lower Nubians) Mediterrranean Caucasoids? That shos paranoi on your part, not a lack or reading skills on my part.
quote:However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in anumber of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. Now, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series)
Similarly, with regards to the Somali
quote: Increasingly, evidence places the Somalis within a wide family of peoples called Eastern Cushites by modern linguists and described earlier in some instances as Hamites. From a broader cultural-linguistic perspective, the Cushite family belongs to a vast stock of languages and peoples considered Afro-Asiatic. Afro-Asiatic languages in turn include Cushitic (principally Somali, Oromo, and Afar), the Hausa language of Nigeria, and the Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic. Medieval Arabs referred to the Eastern Cushites as the Berberi.
In addition to the Somalis, the Cushites include the largely nomadic Afar (Danakil), who straddle the Great Rift Valley between Ethiopia and Djibouti; the Oromo, who have played such a large role in Ethiopian history and in the 1990s constituted roughly one-half of the Ethiopian population and were also numerous in northern Kenya; the Reendille (Rendilli) of Kenya; and the Aweera (Boni) along the Lamu coast in Kenya. The Somalis belong to a subbranch of the Cushites, the Omo-Tana group, whose languages are almost mutually intelligible. The original home of the Omo-Tana group appears to have been on the Omo and Tana rivers, in an area extending from Lake Turkana in present-day northern Kenya to the Indian Ocean coast.
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: Lower Nubians are Mediterranean Caucasoids?
I'm just going by what you quoted. If Type B is similar to the Classic Mediterranean type, and Lower Nubians belonged to Type B, then it follows that Lower Nubians were similar to Classic Mediterraneans. It's simple logic.
Besides, all of those Types describe Mesolithic Northwest Africans. It's absurd to think they could be Negroid. Stick to SUB-Saharan Africa. The North is Caucasoid territory. It doesn't concern you.
quote:Who are you to say what Briggs meant when he said negroid? I read his book all the way through. His book states nothing about 'Negroid traits evolving independently, i quote Brigg's work not Coon's.
Again, your reading comprehension is poor. Briggs is merely relaying remarks made by Coon, and I'm telling you that Coon uses "negroid" and "mongoloid" in a European context to describe primitive traits, not racial ancestry.
posted
Euro: Hope that's not your best dissembling.
If the the remains in question have affinity with Nubian and Gabonese series, it suggests that they are likely indigenous African variants.
The term "mediteranian" that you are desparately clinging to is just a classic Coon-ian buzzward. [Coon applied to East Africans, others applied it to Australians, Dravidians, etc. which is ridiculous and why the concept is now defunct.
It does not 'offset' the specific skeletal affinities or physical "prognathous" traits sited.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 January 2005).]
quote:I'm just going by what you quoted. If Type B is similar to the Classic Mediterranean type, and Lower Nubians belonged to Type B, then it follows that Lower Nubians were similar to Classic Mediterraneans. It's simple logic.
Listen Eurofool, those same Type B have affinities with a series of crania from Gaboon, if sub-Saharan Africa is Negroid territory using your logic what the hell are Type B and Lower Nubians? Moreover, Lower Nubians and Gabonese don't have primitive traits moron, if primitive traits are quasi-Negroid, what you're saying is that Negroids are primitive, a position not held moron. Besides, in the book, Briggs said the Negroid traits in Type B came from the headwaters of the Blue Nile and peoples from the southern Sahara, that sounds nothing like evolution of primitive traits.
quote:Besides, all of those Types describe Mesolithic Northwest Africans. It's absurd to think they could be Negroid. Stick to SUB-Saharan Africa. The North is Caucasoid territory. It doesn't concern you.
From the description of the crania given, those crania aren't Caucasoids, except for Type D. The North isn't Caucasoid territory except in your whitewashing mind in order to keep southern Euros racially pure.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
:
Printer-friendly view of this topic