posted
Ok I have been doing some reading about the Race of early egypt ok and alot of the research points to the conclusion that the people of egypt today are not the same people of egypt from ancient times pointing to the egyptians of ancient times were black as opposed to being arab the researcher's point to the Negro looking spinx, statues and other artifacts. The research's also point to the bible in the fact that Arabs and Isrealites have common lineage and they both came along long after egypt. I just wnated to know what you guys thought on the Issue me Personally I think ancient egypt was very much apart of the black or dark contenent
Posts: 3 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't mean to sound condescending, but babe it's been said a million times , the vast majority of ancient egyptians looked like black people, and if you wanna be specific about it, like Northeast African black people, i.e. your somalis, nubians, sudanese, etc... AT THE SAME TIME, us negroes in America shouldn't be obsessing over egypt and claiming heritage from it like it's the only african civilization (because our heritage lays firmly in West and central Africa), hey there were countless others, some that were in my opinion more spectacular than anything that arose in the Nile valley .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you're new, but please don't start any topics on the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians, since pretty much almost every topic posted in this forum is exactly about that in one way or another.
I suggest you just look through the archives at all the evidence presented.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
thanks for the info but Im going to post about questions that intrest me weather they are about race or not.
Posts: 3 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ However, if you seek answers, and not just attention, you can search prior conversations to find them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by B: Ok I have been doing some reading about the Race of early egypt ok and alot of the research points to the conclusion that the people of egypt today are not the same people of egypt from ancient times pointing to the egyptians of ancient times were black as opposed to being arab the researcher's point to the Negro looking spinx, statues and other artifacts. The research's also point to the bible in the fact that Arabs and Isrealites have common lineage and they both came along long after egypt. I just wnated to know what you guys thought on the Issue me Personally I think ancient egypt was very much apart of the black or dark contenent
I have been coming to this site for over year and everytime I try to accept Ancient Egyptians being black there is usually a rod thrown in the mix. Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly. Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a Mixed international society than a solely black one. Based on Genetics they are definetly African, but what does that say for their race etc. then when I try to look at the skeletal work done on ancient Egyptians many of the scientists have different opinions and the people on this site say that is not an indication of race lol so I am like what the hell *shrug*. Truth is I just don't know, I hope this helps and I would agree to make your conclusions based on previous threads that are on this board about the subject.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly.
Race is itself ambiguous. I challenge you to say anything about the 'race' of any people that cannot be disputed.
This is why the attempt to assess Ancient Egypt in terms of the Western construct of race is futile.
quote:Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a mixed international society
The above comment is a nonsensical discourse in evasion and denial.
Kemet [Ancient Egypt] defines and African 'nation', not a mixed international society.
quote:than a solely black one.
This is a hypocritical strawman argument as *no society* can meet such a ridiculous burden of proof. Why don't you equivicate over the existence of European 'white' society pending proof of something that is 'soley' European, or purely white (?) - of which there is in face *nothing*.
quote:Based on Genetics they are definetly African
Correct.
quote:but what does that say for their race etc.
This question has no answer, because race is a discourse in nonsense. All people who discuss race as if it is a self evident reality - must eventually ground their own discourse down into nonsense.
Disagree?
Then present a definition of 'race'.
If you have no definition of race, then how can you define any people in terms of race.
Racial thinking is essentially childish.
quote: then when I try to look at the skeletal work done on ancient Egyptians many of the scientists have different opinions and the people
This is true for all people everywhere in the world. Craniometry never has and never will prove or define 'race'.
Until students of African history move beyound parrotings of the Eurocentric-racist world view our understandings will remain permenanently arrested in a quagmire of shoulder-shrug, i just know, confusion.
Of course you are confused. You make a conscious effort to stay "confused", because that helps justify avoiding any conclusion which you may be uncomfortable with.
One has to think in order to know, and therefore transcend mere confusion. Parroting is not thinking, which is why it's predictable that the most unthinking parrots end up being confused in spite of all their ver batim channelings of prior belief.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Acient Egypt's racial make up just seems too ambigious to make any assertions honestly.
Race is itself ambiguous. I challenge you to say anything about the 'race' of any people that cannot be disputed.
This is why the attempt to assess Ancient Egypt in terms of the Western construct of race is futile.
If you are saying we can't define the Egyptians racially then they are what they are called Egyptians..not black not white not yellow not brown etc. Which to me defeats the purpose of battling Eurocentrics.
quote:
quote:Right now I would accept Ancient Egypt to be a mixed international society
The above comment is a nonsensical discourse in evasion and denial.
Kemet [Ancient Egypt] defines and African 'nation', not a mixed international society.
An African nation based on geographical location sure, but when I say a mixed international "society"(key word) I am talking about "people" not he land.
quote:than a solely black one.
This is a hypocritical strawman argument as *no society* can meet such a ridiculous burden of proof. Why don't you equivicate over the existence of European 'white' society pending proof of something that is 'soley' European, or purely white (?) - of which there is in face *nothing*.
quote:
quote:than a solely black one.
This is a hypocritical strawman argument as *no society* can meet such a ridiculous burden of proof. Why don't you equivicate over the existence of European 'white' society pending proof of something that is 'soley' European, or purely white (?) - of which there is in face *nothing*.
Ok I will agree with this.
quote:
quote:Based on Genetics they are definetly African
Correct.
Even though it has been said on this site that there is no ancient Egyptian dna I would porport the oldest clades in modern Egyptians to be evidence of Ancient Egyptian dna...it's the most logical conclusion in my book.
quote:
quote:but what does that say for their race etc.
This question has no answer, because race is a discourse in nonsense. All people who discuss race as if it is a self evident reality - must eventually ground their own discourse down into nonsense.
Well like I said before..if there are no races then Egyptians aren't black. I find it really strange how there is no race but there is racism lol. Thats like mouse traps with no mice in existence, but whatever fancies you. I have never heard any African scholar that would have a problem with calling Nigerians, South Africans, Senegalese, Gambians etc. blacks(race description) but for some damn reason when talking about Egypt there is this ambiguity about there not being any races on both sides of the spectrum hmmmm.
quote:Then present a definition of 'race'.
If you have no definition of race, then how can you define any people in terms of race.
Racial thinking is essentially childish.
Ok I will describe the racial type of black from your own mouth Rasol... * dark skin.
* curly hair.
* elongated forehead.
* high lower limb to upper limb ratio, low torso to limb ratio.
* maxillary progathism.
* thick lips.
* alveolar prognathism
I would add nasal index and petruding jaw although if both aren't seen in African populations doesn't indicate them as not being black because there are plenty of blacks with underbites.
quote:
quote: then when I try to look at the skeletal work done on ancient Egyptians many of the scientists have different opinions and the people
This is true for all people everywhere in the world. Craniometry never has and never will prove or define 'race'.
Until students of African history move beyound parrotings of the Eurocentric-racist world view our understandings will remain permenanently arrested in a quagmire of shoulder-shrug, i just know, confusion.
Of course you are confused. You make a conscious effort to stay "confused", because that helps justify avoiding any conclusion which you may be uncomfortable with.
One has to think in order to know, and therefore transcend mere confusion. Parroting is not thinking, which is why it's predictable that the most unthinking parrots end up being confused in spite of all their ver batim channelings of prior belief.
Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this. Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception. Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me, but only to explain the hurt caused by whites done to weak minded black people.
I am proud to be black how dare you say this is a European construct...then turn around and say Egyptians had a concept of race in ancient times.
Not to mention all of you here are inspired to study Egypt because whites have projected Egypt to be a non "black" African nation unlike the others. So for you to run from race isn't going to help the situation. Relying on genetics isn't going to help because Egyptians could genetically be some proto non-Africoid looking types due to the environment i.e Indian peoples(which aren't called black/negroid).
I am trying to imagine a basketball coach that is losing a game telling his players to start playing baseball to beat the other team. How can you not address race when the opponent is? If all of you negros died today the coroner would say dead negro male..thats FACT. Why? Because race is a "social" construct and doesn't have to be biological. If one of your children came up missing for a year and they find some bones of a boy how are they going to know it's one of your black children and not a white child that came up missing? This has been done in forensic science, but for some reason when it comes to Egypt..there are no races smh.
Do you not like being black? Do you feel if race is swept under the rug that that is going ot stop racism?!?!?! Very odd to me.
Race is based on appearance so if no one says that the appearance of Egyptians is any race then they are just Egyptians and shouldn't be claimed by anyone but MODERN Egyptians living there now.
Will be happy to see your responses to this Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Unless you are lazy (?)
Yes, there are PLENTY of prior discussions.
Speaking of such, can anyone link me to a good page on the demographic origins of LOWER EGYPT?Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Speaking of such, can anyone link me to a good page on the demographic origins of LOWER EGYPT?
The non Anglo-Saxon mindset does not usually categorize people based on colour. It is usually their tribal designation or social status! Demographic, I am using, in my North America induced stupor, as a way to divide and distribute stuff!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.
This is a false statement.
The Eurocentric discourse attempts to remove Kemet from Africa, and make it part of fabricated, ahistorical, and colonialist construct known as the Middle East.
quote:Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.
At which point they are required to define their terms. As usual I asked for you, or anyone else who advocates these terms to define them. As usual, you write me back a long off-point reply that never does answer my question.
By not answering my question you make the point, that racial thinking is unintelligent, childish, and so ultimately...indefensible.
quote: Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me
Then stop running.
Answer my question by defining race.
Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.
The facts are clear:
You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.
Prove me wrong and answer the question.
Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.
Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.
This is a false statement.
The Eurocentric discourse attempts to remove Kemet from Africa, and make it part of fabricated, ahistorical, and colonialist construct known as the Middle East.
Wrong, that's old school and this is what frustrates me with African Americans from the ghetto that know nothing about white people. One thing they do in their evil is EVOLVE they have the ability to change very quickly in their racist thinking. Now the common argument with White Nationalist Eurocentrics is that..
1. Caucasians/whites/cuacasoids came down from Europe in some great migration 5600 bce and built egypt from Kartoum and up the nile lol(silly I know, but HEY this is what THEY say).
2. The more realistic one is that all north Africans are Caucasoid/non black/non negro/non forest negro/non true negro/ non sub saharan Africans and are considered indigenous Caucasoid Africans that built this African civilization.
quote:
quote:Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.
At which point they are required to define their terms. As usual I asked for you, or anyone else who advocates these terms to define them. As usual, you write me back a long off-point reply that never does answer my question.
By not answering my question you make the point, that racial thinking is unintelligent, childish, and so ultimately...indefensible.
The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognised by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains[3].It has various meanings.
Caucasoid race is a term used in physical anthropology to refer to people of a certain range of anthropometric measurements [4]. The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).[5] His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples
[edit] Caucasoid In 1934, Carleton S. Coon redefined Caucasian race as Caucasoid race based on typology. [12]
Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[13] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Caucasoid as as noun or adjective meaning Of, pertaining to, or resembling the Caucasian race.[15] The suffix -oid can indicate "a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else"[16], so Caucasoid can mean "resembling" the Caucasian race, itself a term with an inexact definition. Likewise, it can mean pertaining to or belonging to the Caucasian race.
In the past, the United States National Library of Medicine used the term Caucasoid as a "racial stock". The "racial stock" categorization scheme was replaced in 2004 with Continental Population Groups which focuses on geographic origins.[17]
quote:
quote: Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me
Then stop running.
Answer my question by defining race.
Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.
The facts are clear:
You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.
Prove me wrong and answer the question.
Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.
Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology.
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
The term race describes populations or groups of people as distinguished by various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept (which I have said many o times that I have no problem with). Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[2] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions (this is fine, but it doesn't disprove or even prove the concept of race); they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[3] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation." Many scientists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs (which I again most certainly concur with!!). If race doesn't exist than neither does society in your rationale.
Again; is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!! Does biology make up humans YEEESS do humans make up society YESSS, so what we have here is a dichotomy(nature vs realty is not always synonymous - but what would you know about Philosophy or Epistemology, you always want to be some science robot and that doesn't work in real life sir) that YOU don't want to address because you have been scared by the big bad white man and I can't empathize nor sympathize because I am not that weak and have no problem being black/negro like YOU DO apparently(this is probably why you afrocentrics always date out of your race smh).
If someone lined up mister T, Connie Chung and Brad Pitt up against the wall and asked you to tell the "black/negro" guy to put on a hat, with your rationale Rasol, you are saying you would play the fool and say there is no such thing as race and I can't tell who is black Now YOU tell me what is childish?!?!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well Rasol I would have to say it's futile to fight Eurocentrics with "Egypt is an African civilization" considering they have no problem accepting this.
This is a false statement.
The Eurocentric discourse attempts to remove Kemet from Africa, and make it part of fabricated, ahistorical, and colonialist construct known as the Middle East.
Wrong, that's old school and this is what frustrates me with African Americans from the ghetto that know nothing about white people. One thing they do in their evil is EVOLVE they have the ability to change very quickly in their racist thinking. Now the common argument with White Nationalist Eurocentrics is that..
1. Caucasians/whites/cuacasoids came down from Europe in some great migration 5600 bce and built egypt from Kartoum and up the nile lol(silly I know, but HEY this is what THEY say).
2. The more realistic one is that all north Africans are Caucasoid/non black/non negro/non forest negro/non true negro/ non sub saharan Africans and are considered indigenous Caucasoid Africans that built this African civilization.
quote:
quote:Why? Because north Africans are white/caucasoid in their perception.
At which point they are required to define their terms. As usual I asked for you, or anyone else who advocates these terms to define them. As usual, you write me back a long off-point reply that never does answer my question.
By not answering my question you make the point, that racial thinking is unintelligent, childish, and so ultimately...indefensible.
The term Caucasian originated as one of the racial categories recognised by 19th century craniology and is derived from the region of the Caucasus mountains[3].It has various meanings.
Caucasoid race is a term used in physical anthropology to refer to people of a certain range of anthropometric measurements [4]. The concept of a "Caucasian race" or Varietas Caucasia was first proposed under those names by the German scientist and classical anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840).[5] His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Caucasian Peoples
[edit] Caucasoid In 1934, Carleton S. Coon redefined Caucasian race as Caucasoid race based on typology. [12]
Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people."[13] According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Caucasoid as as noun or adjective meaning Of, pertaining to, or resembling the Caucasian race.[15] The suffix -oid can indicate "a similarity, not necessarily exact, to something else"[16], so Caucasoid can mean "resembling" the Caucasian race, itself a term with an inexact definition. Likewise, it can mean pertaining to or belonging to the Caucasian race.
In the past, the United States National Library of Medicine used the term Caucasoid as a "racial stock". The "racial stock" categorization scheme was replaced in 2004 with Continental Population Groups which focuses on geographic origins.[17]
quote:
quote: Running away from "race" doesn't make any sense to me
Then stop running.
Answer my question by defining race.
Define race, right here and right now, or admit that you aren't making any sense.
The facts are clear:
You won't define race, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about when you discuss 'race'. The best you can hope to do is to destract with non responsive replies that don't answer the question.
Prove me wrong and answer the question.
Or, prove me right and respound with jibberish, in a futile attempt to run away from your inability to answer the question.
Race is the idiots thesis of anthropology.
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
The term race describes populations or groups of people as distinguished by various sets of characteristics and beliefs about common ancestry. The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]
Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept (which I have said many o times that I have no problem with). Some argue that although "race" is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans.[2] Mainstream scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions (this is fine, but it doesn't disprove or even prove the concept of race); they thus reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity.[3] Today most scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using more rigorous concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation." Many scientists contend that while the features on which racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, the idea of race itself, and actual divisions of persons into groups based on selected hereditary features, are social constructs (which I again most certainly concur with!!). If race doesn't exist than neither does society in your rationale.
Again; is race biological to Vidadavida NOOOO, is race a social construct to Vidadavida YESSSS!!!!!!! Does biology make up humans YEEESS do humans make up society YESSS, so what we have here is a dichotomy(nature vs realty is not always synonymous - but what would you know about Philosophy or Epistemology, you always want to be some science robot and that doesn't work in real life sir) that YOU don't want to address because you have been scared by the big bad white man and I can't empathize nor sympathize because I am not that weak and have no problem being black/negro like YOU DO apparently(this is probably why you afrocentrics always date out of your race smh).
If someone lined up mister T, Connie Chung and Brad Pitt up against the wall and asked you to tell the "black/negro" guy to put on a hat, with your rationale Rasol, you are saying you would play the fool and say there is no such thing as race and I can't tell who is black Now YOU tell me what is childish?!?!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Earlier you wrote:
In Genetics they are *definitely African*, but what does that say for their race?
If you truly believe that race is defined by a common heredity, and the Ancient Egyptians are *definitely African* by heredity then why not just say the Egyptians are definitely African, by race? -
Conversely, if you believe there is a distinction between heredity and race, then you don't actually believe your own definition and are being disingenuous, no?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept
Yes, this is my position. Hence, we are still waiting for you to provide a meaningful definition of race. You have not done so. If you don't have one, then admit it, and we can move the discussion beyound race.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]
^ Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain why you reject modern anthropology and cling to 19th century notions of race?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is race a biological construct, no, is race a social construct to Vidadavida yes.
Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain how biology can be used to assess race, if race is as you admit biologically invalid?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Phene or phenotype is a physical characteristic of and organism.
For example: sickle cell morphology which is found in much of tropical Africa, SouthWest Asia India and Southern Europe is a phenotype for cells which are shaped like sickles and provide resistence to malaria, but also sometimes exascerbate malaria.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol, next time can you post your response in one post because I have to cut and paste when you chop it up like that.
quote:race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
Earlier you wrote:
In Genetics they are *definitely African*, but what does that say for their race?
If you truly believe that race is defined by a common heredity, and the Ancient Egyptians are *definitely African* by heredity then why not just say the Egyptians are definitely African, by race? -
Conversely, if you believe there is a distinction between heredity and race, then you don't actually believe your own definition and are being disingenuous, no?
Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept
Yes, this is my position. Hence, I am still waiting for you to come up witha meaningful definition of race. You have not done so thus far.
And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor.
quote:According to Leonard Lieberman, Rodney C. Kirk, and Alice Littlefield, the concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[14]
^ Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain why you reject modern anthropology and cling to 19th century notions of race?
Sarah A Tishkoff and Kenneth K Kidd state, "Despite disagreement among anthropologists, this classification remains in use by many researchers, as well as lay people
Two sides to every coin.
quote:Is race a biological construct, no, is race a social construct to Vidadavida yes.
Yes, this is my position. We are still waiting for you to explain how biology can be used to assess race, if race is as you admit biologically invalid?
I already did; you just don't like the answer because you are asking for a definition that fits your criterion, and based on YOUR criterion there is no such thing because race is not biological which we have BOTH agreed on(this is begging the question).
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
Nice try, but no cigar. Now I have answered your questions kindly now answer mine please...at least be courteous.
What is the "phene" that you described above and what is the differnce between "phene" and "race"?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."
Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.
^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?
Vida also says:
"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Vida says:
quote:"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."
Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.
I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race. No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.
quote:^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?
That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"
Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid
Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid
Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid
Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental(native americans)
Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic(middle eastern) 8. Hispanic(latin/native hybrids in the Americas)
Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world(reason, logic) in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me. Vida also says:
quote:"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings. You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.
I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
Don't try to claim that all African Americans feel this way. Fanon and others have found that this is a characteristic of "middle class"/uncle tom Blacks around the world.
I believe that Rasol is African. Supercar/Mystery Solver from his style of writing is probably living in England.
Also stop claiming you are African you are European.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Vida says:
quote:"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."
Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.
I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race.
I have also posted the definition of race, and it says your definition is wrong. But going by 'your' definition, then also race = finished product? What is so 'finished' about physical appearance only?
quote:Vidadavida:
No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.
Relevance to the 'substance' of race?
quote:Vidadavida:
quote:^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?
That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"
So in essence, you are saying that your use of the word has no 'definition'?
quote:Vidadavida:
Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid
Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid
Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid
Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental(native americans)
What about the great degree of phenotypic variations within the groups you just mentioned? Based on your 'race = phenotype', shouldn't each of these variant groups be in their own 'race', rather than lumped with others?
quote:Vidadavida:
Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic(middle eastern) 8. Hispanic(latin/native hybrids in the Americas)
Again, there are no phenotypic variants within these groups?
quote:Vidadavida:
Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world(reason, logic) in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.
Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.
quote:Vidadavida :
quote:Mystery Solver:
Vida also says:
"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings.
Race applies to all organisms, including humans. You have just failed to show us that human 'races', as opposed to the human 'race', exists.
quote:Vidadavida:
You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.
How can you say both are valid, when 'race' is a clearly defined biological construct, a definition which you've abandoned, but claim that another without 'definition' is just as valid as the former?
quote:Vidadavida:
I am not an advocate for race
Then why do you advocate the term, as one without a definition?
I'm an advocate for race, just not the way you use it [which still needs to be clarified].
quote:Vidadavida:
all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society.
Outside the Eurocentric world, who uses the term 'race', or even group people as the Eurocentric world does?
quote:Vidadavida:
In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.
This underlies confusion.
quote:Vidadavida:
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
Relevance?
quote:Vidadavida:
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.
What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?
quote:Vidadavida:
Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.
Share the details of this 'relativity', and how it is challenged by my presentation of race, which also happens to be the biological definition of the term - hence, not really 'mine'?
quote:Vidadavida:
You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Correct. The above constitutes and answer to my question,
It is the very fact that race is a biological construct that is misused socially that makes the notion of human races pseudo-scientific.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.
What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?
Take into consideration, that my well-defined contextualization of race left little room for further questioning, while Vida's take on the term on the other hand, has opened up a can of ever-increasing questions. This is a 'litmus test' between a relatively well 'established' idea and one which isn't.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
There is little interest in this review in "social race", since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, by S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
4. The abscence of 'races' does not mean the abscence of racism, or the structured inequality based on operationalized prejudice used to deprive people who are deemed to be fundamentally biologically different of social and economic justice. The 'no biological race' position does not exclude the idea that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004 Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Actually, Vida's words belie the central argument being made. As a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT "race" is a way of identifying and categorizing people based on arbitrary physical attributes which have NO biological meaning in terms of the taxonomy of the human species. There is only ONE human species biologically and therefore only ONE human race. HOWEVER, humans as social creatures tend to find ways of GROUPING themselves based on all sorts of SOCIALLY defined attributes, skin color, income, color of clothing and so on. NONE OF THESE CHANGE THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE. What WHITES have done is created a SOCIAL STRUCTURE in which WHITE SKIN is exalted ABOVE ALL OTHER OUTWARD FORMS OF HUMAN APPEARANCE, not because it has ANY BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, but because SOCIALLY WHITES CAN NOT ADVANCE WITHOUT IT, ESPECIALLY IF IT REQUIRES FAIR PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WHITE. THAT is a fact and is VALID and is called WHITE SUPREMACY and HAS NO BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OR MEANING OTHER THAN AS A SOCIAL MECHANISM TO GUARANTEE WHITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. THEREFORE, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE TO ASSOCIATE ANCIENT BLACK AFRICANS WITH WHITE SKIN, BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES THEM VALIDITY IN ASSUMING THAT WHITE SKIN IS A SUPERIOR ATTRIBUTE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE, WHICH MAKES THEM SPECIAL.
And I am happy to slap any white supremacist in the face with the facts that WHITES did not build ancient Egypt. WHITE SKIN is not the basis of HUMAN BIOLOGICAL evolution and WHITE SKIN does not make a SUPERIOR FORM OF HUMAN. WHITE SKIN is not INDIGENOUS to Africa in any MAJOR WAY and the ORIGINAL POPULATIONS OF AFRICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD HAD BLACK SKIN. In fact, people have had BLACK SKIN LONGER than there HAVE BEEN WHITES ON THIS PLANET. BLACK SKIN is a FACT of biology and is a FACT of the HISTORY of AFRICAN PEOPLE in ALL PARTS OF AFRICA and North Africa is NO EXCEPTION.
Also, the reason this SOCIAL CONSTRUCT is THROWN AROUND is because it is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE for those who want to believe in WHITE SUPREMACY. Such reasoning goes that since there are no RACES and because there IS NO PROOF that the ancient Egyptians were WHITE, the only thing we can fall back on is what "WHITE FOLKS BELIEVE" and of course WHITES believe in the social construct of WHITES FIRST and everyone else LAST. Therefore, you aren't arguing that RACES do not exist, you are ARGUING THAT WHITES ARE INHERENTLY RACIST, especially in their views of AFRICAN history. But that FLIMSY DEFENSE of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS is just that, a DEFENSE OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and WORLD VIEW designed to KEEP BLACKS "in their place". THIS IS DESIGNED TO EASILY APPEAL to those with a WHITE MAKES RIGHT mentality, which requires NOTHING MORE THAN WHITE APPROVAL and SUPPORT to be accepted, as SCIENTIFIC PROOF is not necessary, sought or addressed. Which boils down to "but WHITE FOLKS SAID that...." as if that MEANS something and constitutes a SOUND ARGUMENT about the scientific validity of RACE in the first place and should be accepted at face value with no further investigation. Unfortunately, everyone is not FOOLED by this, including WHITES and other people who THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
Don't try to claim that all African Americans feel this way. Fanon and others have found that this is a characteristic of "middle class"/uncle tom Blacks around the world.
I believe that Rasol is African. Supercar/Mystery Solver from his style of writing is probably living in England.
Also stop claiming you are African you are European
Another self hating African American statement..how the hell does "middle class" = uncle toms?!?! So all negros are supposed to be broke like you?!?!? DAYUM!!!!!!!!! <-------SEEEEE..and HE calls ME a European man o man!!!!!!
In rich/upper class black organizations like Jack and Jill and Sigma Phi and Links, NMA and NBA I was involved in growing up they always warned us of negros like you. They are called "crabs" i.e the "crab theory" where you try to bring all negroes down to your low level lol, I am glad we are trained well as kids on the top level. So i'll take the "uncle tom" comment as a compliment !!
I guess this is why you try to make Africans Asians and Indians smh..sad.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
Vida says: quote:
"Because race is divided by appearance and not geography and all humans come from a common heredity yet there are still socially constructed race models."
Is this your definition of race, which is clearly invalid in biological terms? In your terms race = phenotype, which is the anti-thesis of biological meanings of either term.
I have posted the definition of race above more than once. If phenotype means the finished product or appearance of an individual then yes I am equating this with race.
I have also posted the definition of race, and it says your definition is wrong. But going by 'your' definition, then also race = finished product? What is so 'finished' about physical appearance only?
When I say finished product I am talking about the organism, why do you not understand this?
quote:
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
No one in any of the African slave trades took blood tests to check "race" they were taken based on appearance.
Relevance to the 'substance' of race?
Race is based on appearance how are you not seeing the relevance of the statement?
quote: quote:
Vidadavida: quote:
^If so, how many human races are there, according to this definition?
That is up to each individuals perception because "society" does not equal "solely what Vidadavida thinks"
So in essence, you are saying that your use of the word has no 'definition'?
Oh, yes I just didn't think you would take my definition hence the reason I posted the definition from the source...sorry about that assumption. I use the 8 race model myself that I posted above. It's how we make sense of the world and reason due to "reduction".
For instance: 100 kids 65 white, 5 vedoids, 13 black, 12 hispanic, 5 mongoloid/asia go on a field trip and the teacher asks the bus driver where is "mary". The bus driver says which one of these 100 kids is "mary"? The teacher says the "black" one..based on how our brains intuit logic the 100 children have now been reduced to only 13!!! Now the next descriptions will be like height, hair style, clothing, etc.. This is how the brain functions it's not WRONG.
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
Some divide into three 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid
Some four 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid
Some five 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid
Some six 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental native americans
What about the great degree of phenotypic variations within the groups you just mentioned? Based on your 'race = phenotype', shouldn't each of these variant groups be in their own 'race', rather than lumped with others?
GOOD POINT!!! Now you are thinking; and guess what? They already are! This is where ethnic groups come in and why Somali pieces of trash all hate each other lol. *shrugs*
Some eight 1. Negroid 2. Mongoloid 3. Caucasoid 4. Austric/Australoid 5. Vedoid 6. Oxidental 7. Semetic middle eastern 8. Hispanic latin/native hybrids in the Americas
Again, there are no phenotypic variants within these groups? [/QUOTE]
Yes as stated above.
quote: quote:
Vidadavida:
Regardless of how unscientific, unspecific, inconsistent these labels maybe to the said human; this is how humans make sense of the world reason, logic in classifying difference which culturally are called races/ethnic groups. I didn't start this so do not put the blame on me.
Well, humans have the tendency to find social kinship and thence, the grouping, but who's to say that this is 'race'? Misuse of 'race' in human grouping, is a Eurocentric concept.
Well this is more African American self hatred by assuming that only the great white man can logically see differences in human beings and not the primative African smh but, I understand the problem finally. What you and Rasol are saying is that by me using the word "race" I can not apply that to humans based on the word prima facie.
You are holding to the biological definition and orgin of the word used for "species" while I am using the word in cultural context both being actual valid points. The problem with this is that he fact remains that even if the word "race" is being misused the denotation of it in it's use is not the same as it is being used in biology.
For example...Christmas in the West..the first image that pops in people's mind is Santa Clause and Christmas trees and presents...not some kike on a stick. What you are saying is that I am wrong for linking the cultural denotation of Christmas with Santa and not it's true denotation with Jesus.
I understand, but that is not going to stop people from taking their kids to sit on Santa's lap in the mall. Now that I understand you two can you try to understand me with my analogy?
quote: quote:
Vidadavida : quote:
Mystery Solver:
Vida also says:
"And I have said ad naseum that race is a social construct and NOT biological. The problem is you hold everything to biological constructs and that is biased and the concept of race was NEVER biological to begin with so this is a non-sequitor."
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Well that is fine, but this is based on your perception of misusage. Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions. Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.
quote:Good point actually , but biologically "race" is used for animal taxonyms and socially used for human beings.
Race applies to all organisms, including humans. You have just failed to show us that human 'races', as opposed to the human 'race', exists.
I understand finally what you are saying and I concur with your problems with the "word" prima facie, but denotations and inference of words are actually more applicable by human beings in society..just thought you might want to know this. People use the word "race" and are not indicating that there are different species of humans.
quote: quote:
Vidadavida:
You are saying only one is valid and I am saying both are *shrugs*.
How can you say both are valid, when 'race' is a clearly defined biological construct, a definition which you've abandoned, but claim that another without 'definition' is just as valid as the former?
No no, the ORIGIN of the word race is biological, but socially it has taken on a new definition.
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation reys Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
^^^^There is nothing biological about this definition. You can't pick and choose which to use when both are used!!!
quote: quote:
Vidadavida:
I am not an advocate for race
Then why do you advocate the term, as one without a definition?
I'm an advocate for race, just not the way you use it [which still needs to be clarified].
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
^^^^please stop ignoring this, that is rude.
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society.
Outside the Eurocentric world, who uses the term 'race', or even group people as the Eurocentric world does?
Well if it wasn't for the Eurocentric world we wouldn't be on a computer talking about this dude..Black people and white people are very much used in non-westernized countries as well as asians did you not know this? Kokujin means nigger in Japanese. *shrugs*
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.
This underlies confusion.
Only to African Americans that hate being black because I have no problem with it and am very proud
quote: quote:
Vidadavida:
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
Relevance?
For someone to abhore the usage or misusage of a word based on it's definition or denotation has a personal problem with concept of that word.
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative mine or constative yours philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.
What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?
It is normative because you are saying it is falsifiable based on your criteria of what definition should be properly used.
I will be more specific with the fact that when I said you say race doesn't exist, I mean concerning human beings...excuuuuse me.
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be.
Share the details of this 'relativity', and how it is challenged by my presentation of race, which also happens to be the biological definition of the term - hence, not really 'mine'?
This is moving the goal post. The debate is that race exists in a social human construct and now you are talking about species. Stop it with the biological non sequitors. I have posted to social construct definition from Webster's dictionary over five fucking times!!!!! Biology has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT WORD!!!!!!!!!
quote:quote:
Vidadavida:
You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
Coherency please?
Yes, I would like some because how can "racism" exist without "race"..that is incoherent to me.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Also stop claiming you are African you are European.
^ Agreed. Passive aggressive Eurocentrist troll.
I forced the issue with this person precisely to expose this.
The tactic of making Eurocentric assertions via supposedly innocent rheotorical questions is characteristic of down-low Eurocentrism.
Notice Djehuti's question was never answered.....
Based on the context of the word Eurocentric that you are using here, what exactly does that word mean? I am confused in how you are using this so called derrogatory term.
I am not going to answer an Asian about how blacks/Africans/Negros look or our culture. You African Americans can go on disrespecting your ancestors if you want to by accepting Asians to critique your culture, but I wont participate. I don't see blacks on an Asian forum talking about chink features considering they all look the same to me and I would never argue with one on their own phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL And just exactly what is this "rod" you speak of? Any examples??
Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.
Race is a biological construct; the definition has already been provided. Actually it is a biological construct, misused socially in the Eurocentric world.
Correct. The above constitutes and answer to my question,
It is the very fact that race is a biological construct that is misused socially that makes the notion of human races pseudo-scientific.
Another non-sequitor as well as a lie because I never said human races were a science nor did I imply that all humans in society are scientists and live their life quantifying nature based on scientific criterion.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver: quote:
Vidadavida:
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist.
What is 'normative' about your use of 'race', which lacks definition, as opposed to my well-defined presentation of the term? and in what way does my definition of the term, suggest that race doesn't exist?
Take into consideration, that my well-defined contextualization of race left little room for further questioning, while Vida's take on the term on the other hand, has opened up a can of ever-increasing questions. This is a 'litmus test' between a relatively well 'established' idea and one which isn't.
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida I am not an advocate for race; all I am saying is that race is a fact of life for human beings in society. In the same token even though I am not an advocate of race I also don't run from the terms and would NOT want to be categorized with Caucasians or Mongoloids or any other.
This is the difference between the African mindset and the African American mindset. We are not ashamed of being black/negroid and the African American due to whatever pressures they may face ARE.
There is little interest in this review in "social race", since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, by S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:
It is impossible for words like "racism" and "racialism" to exist in normative(mine) or constative(yours) philosophical models in a debate and "race" not to exist. Even the theory of relativety is being challenged by your constative model of what race ought not to be. You can't have a word that exists that is relative to a word that doesn't.
4. The abscence of 'races' does not mean the abscence of racism, or the structured inequality based on operationalized prejudice used to deprive people who are deemed to be fundamentally biologically different of social and economic justice. The 'no biological race' position does not exclude the idea that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004
Ok, now is your time to show your example of white and black and how it differs in Brazil and the United states. Also, no one said anything about these terms being used as relative to the culture using them. That doesn't refute anything I have said. No biological race still doesn't do away with racism? Why? And when you tell me why there is racism and racialism in your response, I will there retort with "that would be what people socially call race" appearances.
You wasted your time with your post, but at least you were civil and I respect that.
quote:, Vida's words belie the central argument being made. As a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT "race" is a way of identifying and categorizing people based on arbitrary physical attributes which have NO biological meaning in terms of the taxonomy of the human species.
WHEW!!! Finally someone understands ME!!!! I am going to start calling you "Doug M Christ" lmao!!
quote: There is only ONE human species biologically and therefore only ONE human race. HOWEVER, humans as social creatures tend to find ways of GROUPING themselves based on all sorts of SOCIALLY defined attributes, skin color , income, color of clothing and so on. NONE OF THESE CHANGE THE BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RACE
quote:What WHITES have done is created a SOCIAL STRUCTURE in which WHITE SKIN is exalted ABOVE ALL OTHER OUTWARD FORMS OF HUMAN APPEARANCE, not because it has ANY BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE, but because SOCIALLY WHITES CAN NOT ADVANCE WITHOUT IT, ESPECIALLY IF IT REQUIRES FAIR PLAY WITH OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT WHITE. THAT is a fact and is VALID and is called WHITE SUPREMACY and HAS NO BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OR MEANING OTHER THAN AS A SOCIAL MECHANISM TO GUARANTEE WHITES ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SOCIAL ORDER. THEREFORE, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THEY HAVE TO ASSOCIATE ANCIENT BLACK AFRICANS WITH WHITE SKIN, BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES THEM VALIDITY IN ASSUMING THAT WHITE SKIN IS A SUPERIOR ATTRIBUTE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN RACE, WHICH MAKES THEM SPECIAL.
Absolutely brilliant, but based on the quacks and integrationalist Afrocentrics on this board this statement would be null and void because there are no black and white races
quote: Also, the reason this SOCIAL CONSTRUCT is THROWN AROUND is because it is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE for those who want to believe in WHITE SUPREMACY
I disagree, what is wrong with blacks using social racial terms considering I just used it and most of the people use it i.e (blacks)?
quote:Such reasoning goes that since there are no RACES and because there IS NO PROOF that the ancient Egyptians were WHITE, the only thing we can fall back on is what "WHITE FOLKS BELIEVE" and of course WHITES believe in the social construct of WHITES FIRST and everyone else LAST. Therefore, you aren't arguing that RACES do not exist, you are ARGUING THAT WHITES ARE INHERENTLY RACIST, especially in their views of AFRICAN history. But that FLIMSY DEFENSE of SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS is just that, a DEFENSE OF A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and WORLD VIEW designed to KEEP BLACKS "in their place". THIS IS DESIGNED TO EASILY APPEAL to those with a WHITE MAKES RIGHT mentality, which requires NOTHING MORE THAN WHITE APPROVAL and SUPPORT to be accepted, as SCIENTIFIC PROOF is not necessary, sought or addressed. Which boils down to "but WHITE FOLKS SAID that...." as if that MEANS something and constitutes a SOUND ARGUMENT about the scientific validity of RACE in the first place and should be accepted at face value with no further investigation. Unfortunately, everyone is not FOOLED by this, including WHITES and other people who THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
^^^What the hell are you talking about?!?!? LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I'm really laughing). Please pretty please explain what the hell you are talking about here...break it down brotha
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I must have missed it and still don't see it.
Please cut and paste your previously posted evidence..... re:
quote:Good question. This poster should present specific evidence against AE being Black, if he has any.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, I misread what you said in my last response because this is going back to the original point I was making to the poster.
I said that I am not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians are black and the study is too ambiguous because the people on this board say there is no such thing as race in humans (i.e blacks). They also say genetics are not races (i.e blacks). They also say that craniometry and osteology do note entail race (i.e blacks). So I am left with a big "I don't know what the Egyptians were" and all I can say is that they were Egyptians, not black and not white just like C.L Brace said *shrugs*.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.
Coherency please?
quote: Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.
lol. The above is a flawed analogy.
Democracy and Capitalism are political constructs that can be shown to exist as such.
Guns are weapons and can be shown to exist as such.
Race is biological construct.
You have already admitted that humans cannot be divided into races biologically.
Therefore human races *do not* exist.
That race is asserted sociologically is completely irrelevant to this, and in fact is precisely what defines race as pseudo-science.
Pseudo-science is that for which scientific claims are made, but in fact can in no way be sustained.
The appropriate analogy is to witchcraft, and UFO's which are also sociologically phenomenon for which false and therefore pseudo-scientific claims are made.
To state that something exists 'sociologically' is actually saying next to nothing.
Any idea that is spoken exists sociologically the moment it is uttered.
2x2=5 exists sociologically the moment I say it.
However as mathamatics, it merely constitutes a false claim. As a math theorem 2x2=5 is invalid, and so is race invalid as applied to humans.
This takes us back to one of 'now many' questions that you just keep dodging.
If you admit that race is biologically invalid in humans, then it follows that by defintion you cannot use biology to assess race in humans.
This is the reality that I denoted in my 1st reply to this thread. To refute this reality - you must show that biological race exists in humans.
Babblings about social-taxons [which by definition can be whatever you want them to be - or not] is really just red herring meant to distract from your inability to prove that race, a biological construct actually exists.
Bottom line:
When you admit that race does not exist biologically - you falsify your own thesis, and your argument comes to and end, 'social-distractions' notwithstanding.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I misread what you said in my last response because this is going back to the original point I was making to the poster.
I doubt it, since I asked you the same question several times, which you still have not answered.
quote:I said that I am not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians are black
Actually you said you have evidence that they are not. We are asking you for "your evidence."
If you don't have any, just admit it.
quote:and the study is too ambiguous
What study are you referring to? Your comments are ambiguous.
quote: because the people on this board say there is no such thing as race in humans (i.e blacks)
Coherency please. This statement is based on the assumption that black is a race.
Please explain your position.
Are you saying that race exists and black is a race?
Are you saying that if race does not exist then there are no blacks?
Please explain exactly why black and race are the same thing?
quote:They also say genetics are not races (i.e blacks)
ie - You repeat the same unthinking assumptions.
For clarity:
Geneticists do indeed claim that races do not exist.
Spencer Wells: Biologically race has no meaning.
They do not claim that Blacks do not exist.
CL Brace: "African entails Black, but Black does not entail African".
Geneticists do indeed claim that skin color is not racial.
Jablonski: Skin color is of no value in assessing the phylogenetic relationships between human groups
They do *not* claim that skin color is not genetic.
Harding: By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein
quote:They also say that craniometry and osteology do note entail race (i.e blacks).
ie - ad nauseum fallacy as black is a reference to dark skin color and not and osteology or craniometry.
quote: So I am left with a big "I don't know
That's because you intentionally make no sense, so as to achieve your 'I don't know'.
Meanwhile you were asked to present evidence that Km.t were not black.
You did not.
Therefore isn't it fair for us to conclude that you don't have any?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] [QUOTE] Misusage and usage are both the same thing because they are positive actions.
Coherency please?
Sure, Using a gun = shooting an animal with a gun...misusing a gun = shooting a person with a gun..both positive actions, meaning they don't contradict each other. Using a knife and misusing a knife <--how does either statement contradict each other?
quote:
quote: Democracy is misused, Capitalism is misused, Money and Guns are misused. That doesn't mean they don't all exist dude lol.
lol. The above is a flawed analogy.
Democracy and Capitalism are political constructs that can be shown to exist as such.
Guns are weapons and can be shown to exist as such.
NO NO NO lol this is based on YOUR CRITERIA sir do not project your "flawed rationale" on to me. I know those things exist and so does race.
quote:Race is biological construct.
You have already admitted that humans cannot be divided into races biologically.
Race is a biological AND social construct as per the definition that I refuse to post for the 7th time.
quote:Therefore human races *do not* exist.
Biologically no, I agree. Socially yes, this is where we disagree (I guess). *shrugs*
quote: That race is asserted sociologically is completely irrelevant to this, and in fact is precisely what defines race as pseudo-science.
It is totally relevent considering when Egyptologists called Egyptians white they weren't talking about thier "biology" and I am not chasing your imposed "psuedo-science" non-sequitor anymore.
quote:Pseudo-science is that for which scientific claims are made, but in fact can in no way be sustained.
Coherency? Where is this word "scientific" coming from? Strawman? Non-Sequitor? Red Herring even? Hmmm 'tis strange
quote: The appropriate analogy is to witchcraft, and UFO's which are also sociologically phenomenon for which false and therefore pseudo-scientific claims are made.
UFO = Unidentified flying objects...how are they false? Witchcraft is alchemy and physics..how is this false?
quote: To state that something exists 'sociologically' is actually saying next to nothing.
Ok, then explain the "mind" the "ego" the "super-ego" the "id" "morals" "faith" "God" "Jesus" Man I can go on and on with this cuzz You apparently don't know anything about Sociology which is why you don't seem to be able to communicate well with others that disagree with you.
quote:Any idea that is spoken exists sociologically the moment it is uttered.
2x2=5 exists sociologically the moment I say it.
However as mathamatics, it merely constitutes a false claim. As a math theorem 2x2=5 is invalid, and so is race invalid as applied to humans.
Wow, I am shocked at your ability to epistemologically assert a pretty "descent" analogy(you a smart motha fucka thats right - Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction LOL!).
Now the reason it fails is because 2x2=5 can't be applied to where race socially is based on description(appearance) forensic medicine, census bureaus, birth certificates, research statistics, the evening news when Tyrone(black male) jumped his bond lmao --- which entails application!!!! I admit Rasol you are kind of like a robot to me which is cool for information but I am impressed by your analogy good job dude.
quote:This takes us back to one of 'now many' questions that you just keep dodging.
If you admit that race is biologically invalid in humans, then it follows that by defintion you cannot use biology to assess race in humans .
The last non sequitor I will even respond to
quote:This is the reality that I denoted in my 1st reply to this thread. To refute this reality - you must show that biological race exists in humans.
^^^^Amazing!!!! Smh, Begging the Question, Non-Sequitor, Red Herring, Strawman, Moving the Goal Posts and Ad Hoc.
Wow Rasol; if this last statement was a burger at TGIF's it would cost $17.00 with unlimited toppings, they would call it the "bankrupt burger".
quote:Babblings about social-taxons [which by definition can be whatever you want them to be - or not] is really just red herring meant to distract from your inability to prove that race, a biological construct actually exists.
Another moving of the goal posts Bottom line:
quote:When you admit that race does not exist biologically - you falsify your own thesis , and your argument comes to and end, 'social-distractions' notwithstanding.
Another LIE!!!! Rasol you aren't as good of a debator as I thought you were I am disappointed. Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I misread what you said in my last response because this is going back to the original point I was making to the poster.
I doubt it, since I asked you the same question several times, which you still have not answered.
I can't answer the question because there is no such thing as race according to you. So NO Egyptians weren't black because black doesnt exist in humans ACCORDING TO YOU!!!!!
quote:
quote:I said that I am not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians are black
Actually you said you have evidence that they are not. We are asking you for "your evidence."
If you don't have any, just admit it.
LIE, now show me where I said this, waiting.....
quote:
quote:and the study is too ambiguous
What study are you referring to? Your comments are ambiguous.
True, let me be more specific I apologize, the study of the race of Ancient Egyptians(which of course, now doesn't exist). Ancient Egyptians Archeology, Osteology, Craniometry, Anthropology.
quote:
quote: because the people on this board say there is no such thing as race in humans (i.e blacks)
Coherency please. This statement is based on the assumption that black is a race.
It is, because it comes from the word "negro" which is an anthropological term that you personally do not like and deem invalid.
Negroid= black, Caucasian = White, Mongoloid = Asian....this is how they are used and you can deny this all you want, it doesn't change anything I have said.
quote: Please explain your position.
Are you saying that race exists and black is a race?
Yes I am saying that race exists socially and black is but one of these socially classified races.
quote:Are you saying that if race does not exist then there are no blacks?
No, I am iterating your implicit rationale.
quote:Please explain exactly why black and race are the same thing?
Race is a social construct based on grouping individuals based on appearance. An attribute of people's appearance would be skin color i.e "black".
Furthermore considering most people called black(social race category) aren't black skinned how would you explain why "Will Smith" is called black and doesn't have "black skin"?
quote:
quote:They also say genetics are not races (i.e blacks)
ie - You repeat the same unthinking assumptions.
For clarity:
Geneticists do indeed claim that races do not exist.
Spencer Wells: Biologically race has no meaning.
They do not claim that Blacks do not exist.
CL Brace: "African entails Black, but Black does not entail African".
Geneticists do indeed claim that skin color is not racial.
Jablonski: Skin color is of no value in assessing the phylogenetic relationships between human groups
They do *not* claim that skin color is not genetic.
Harding: By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein
Interesting, now can you show me a geneticist that says Egyptians are "black" or "black skinned" and what color category to these geneticists say are general AFricans considering they mostly aren't "black skinned"?
I love the semantics in this though. For some reason you have revealed that geneticists use the term "black" to equate skin color, but have a fascade of being abhorant to racial epithets?!?!? Yet the origin of Race in the west was based on.....skin color?!?!?! *scratching head*
quote:
quote:They also say that craniometry and osteology do note entail race (i.e blacks).
ie - ad nauseum fallacy as black is a reference to dark skin color and not and osteology or craniometry.
Dark skin color?!?! Black means Black not "dark" and I addressed my association with black and race above so I need not respond to this.
quote:
quote: So I am left with a big "I don't know
That's because you intentionally make no sense, so as to achieve your 'I don't know'.
I make perfect sense you just don't like the "sense" I am making.
quote:Meanwhile you were asked to present evidence that Km.t were not black.
You did not.
You are making the positive claim so that would be up to YOU. Discovery and National Geographic would tend to disagree with them being black so again based on your lack of authority the burden of proof is on you and I am ALL EARS>>>>
quote:Therefore isn't it fair for us to conclude that you don't have any?
Another Lie considering I never said they were anything hence the "I don't know" which isn't a claim either way. Your bully tactics and putting words in people's mouths will only work with the feeble African American negro, the mulatto, the white man..it is not going to work with me I am from a different stock of negro that you heave never witnessed before Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vida doesnt see how he is twisting himself into a knot.
We say there are no races.
He says there are since we say the Egyptians were mostly blacks.
We say black is not a race.
He says, yes it is, especially since Europeans see the Egyptians as white, which means that they werent black, which proves that there is a such thing as race.
Vida, skin color is a fact of biology. Skin color is not race. The FACT that SOME people view skin color as a SIGNIFICANT aspect of human biology for the purposes of DEFINING and CATEGORIZING humans for SOCIAL, POLITICAL and ECONOMIC purposes does not change the fact that SKIN COLOR does not equal RACE.
It doesnt get any simpler than that.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Perhaps it would be best if you went to T-rex's thread: Does Race Exist?Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Now YOU tell me what is childish?!?!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
because I have no problem with it and am very proud ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic