posted
Hussain Bisad, who stands at 7ft 9in tall, says he is now due for the title, overtaking the current holder Tunisian Radhouane Charbib, who stands at 7ft 8.9ins tall. Somali, Massai, Fulani, Tutsi, Dinka, Shilluk are among the tallest people on earth because of their elongated body attribute and milk drinking habit...I went the other day to Amsterdam and I was surprised to see European people with similar height as pastoralist Africans, but it's understandable since their nutrition is based on milk as among cattle herders from Africa...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
He suffers from acromegalic gigantism. A tumor of the pituitary gland that churns out growth hormone whose effect leads to the runaway growth.
It seems as though you are obsessed with the word "elongated". Somalis are not as tall as those you place in the same class and majority are average. And frankly, not the same species, if you know what I mean.
Regards.
Posts: 107 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elongated is actually more about proportions than overall height.
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not.
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males....
this is offset by the limitations in food supply.
West Europeans, who, in the past few generations have had probaby the best and most prolonged periods of ample nutrition and quality child care in the world, have increased in size radically.
Probably the *potentially* tallest peoples in the world are some of the southern Sudanese such as Dinka. But to reach that potential they would need be subject to several generations of very high nutrition, and selective pressure/preference for height.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Elongated is actually more about proportions than overall height.
.... Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males....
I have to agree with the above comments...Elongated are found in dry and hot areas were it is important to raise cattle for survival...a nutrition based on milk will favor taller people like the milk drinking Shilluk, Dinka Somali or Tutsis: Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why are West Asians(Iraq, Iran, Arabia) still quite short even though they have had access to camel and goat milk for thousands of years? And Southern Europeans(Italians, Spaniards, etc. are for the most part quite short). Not to mention East Asians who are also quite short despite a healthy diet for at least the dominant classes(Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, etc)--over hundreds of years.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Note that it is only very recently--and still in restrictively--that females have been allowed to choose male partners. Throughout the world's history it has been dominant males--who often tended to be polygamous[that's why it is evident that genetic evolution was male driven purely on grounds of t he efficient and rapid transmission of adaptive traits]amilies who have chosen marriage partners for their daughters--whom they married/marry off at relatively young ages.
So assorted mating--one of the mechanisms of genetic variability--was not often decided by the individuals directly involved.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to wonder if before food production became prominent that there was anything like chosing a mate the way we do with our serial monogamy ideas and all.
Those 'Earth Mama' icons seem to imply women may have chosen if there ever really was a Great Goddess and associated cultures.
I think males only came to do the chosing once it was really understood that they impregnating the women instead of the stuff the women were telling them, like the holy spirit/wind/waves of the sea, river, or lake made them with child.
But then I really con't know. Maybe all the above is downlevel old school hypothesis and theory.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I have seen many older videos on African traditional customs where women chose the males.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One folk tradition of the switch from matriarchy (mother-rule) to patriarchy (father-rule) I've heard firsthand is Mumbi the last female ruler over the Agikuyu.
She danced naked one full moon night in full view. The menfolk then, knowing their active agency in paternity, conspired to simultaneously impregnate all the women.
Suceeding in that task, months later when the women were all heavy with child and unable to fight the men usurped rulership.
Legend, not history, but relating a truth of their cultural history none the less. Of course no kind of oppressive patriarchy was established. A Kikiyu man knows to go elsewhere than home when shoes not his own are lying at his doors threshold.
posted
The Nuba(?) recently practiced deliberate endogamy where a just nubile girl raises her leg on a champion wrestler who defeated the young men of her own group.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the Geerwol a woDaabe maiden chooses the young man who dances best looks the best and endures a ritual whooping the best.
This is really a tolerated festivity relaxation from the norm of male directed marriage. Geerwol trysts often enough lead to a kind of not highly regarded marriage.
The other Fulani groups frown on this custom and regard woDaabe halPulaaren as tabooed members of the tribe.
posted
Of course none of the above examples are of setting up a household with the intent of family and children, but for sure, children are an outcome of these practices.
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not.
How do you define 'tropical proportions' and how does the "short pygmy" and the so-called "elongated" type all fit into this definition?
quote:rasol:
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males....
Are these based on biological studies?
Yes. CL Brace and others studied limb ratio of shorter African ethnic groups, and found that their proportions were essentially similiar to other tropical Africans.
Elongated in the sense that Hiernaux discusses it, tends to refer to the combination of limb ratio, and gracile [skinny] body build, as well as...secondarily long face and skull.
Pygmy and many West African native peoples are robust [stocky], not gracile, and tend to have round heads instead of long, which factors into Heirnaux's definition.
Lastly their are any number of studies on height and sexual selection among humans and other mammals.
The most obvious evidences of this are sexual dimorphism - different morphology within a species by gender.
Men with their facial hair, women with the large breasts.... likewise men tending to be much taller than women.
It's also a fact that most anthropology shows that people were shorter in the past than they are today.
And Europeans have actually measured substantial increases in population height within the past few generations.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Still some puzzles here:
Why are West Asians(Iraq, Iran, Arabia) still quite short even though they have had access to camel and goat milk for thousands of years?
Not all of them are short. Many Afghans are quite tall. And as noted before the issue isn't only kind of diet but availability of food.... in other words, camel and goat hearders sometimes suffer from famine too.
quote:And Southern Europeans(Italians, Spaniards, etc. are for the most part quite short).
The fact is the height of virtually all Europeans have increased in the past several generations....and this includes Southern Europeans.
quote:Not to mention East Asians
East Asians vary greatly, and are adapted to many different climates and environments, so speaking of East Asians in terms of height, is almost like speaking of "Africans" in terms of height. It just a wild generalisation.
Japanese tend to be short, but this is consistent with Island populations with limited food supply producing shorter versions of their mainland counterparts, and Japanese have grown much faster than most other Asian populations, so that the average Japanese is now significantly taller than the average Viet-namese, and the Japanese are still growing taller.
Many current East Asians have ancestry from Siberia/North East Asia, whose peoples tend to be cold adapted.
Typically they have the shortest arms and legs relative to torso, because that is the best physiogamy for retaining heat, so this factors into the equasion as well.
There isn't as much of a mystery to height or body structure as some make it out to be. Sometimes once these things are needlessly mystified, then racial mythologies are contrived as faux-explanations for faux-mysteries.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not.
How do you define 'tropical proportions' and how does the "short pygmy" and the so-called "elongated" type all fit into this definition?
quote:rasol:
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males....
Are these based on biological studies?
Yes. CL Brace and others studied limb ratio of shorter African ethnic groups, and found that their proportions were essentially similiar to other tropical Africans.
The unanswered question was:
How do you define 'tropical proportions' and how does the "short pygmy" and the so-called "elongated" type all fit into this definition?
^Meaning, lay out the definition of the terms specified, and substantiate how the said groups/types fit into this definition, with data if necessary.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Elongated in the sense that Hiernaux discusses it, tends to refer to the combination of limb ratio, and gracile [skinny] body build, as well as...secondarily long face and skull.
Hiernaux table:
...seems to imply in the table, that 'Nilotes' have these same body characteristics as the so-called "elongated Africans", which he terms separately from "Nilotes" nonetheless, yet he also notes that:
Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa", 1975 p.147
"Compared to the Elongated East Africans, the four Nilotic groups are taller and a narrower head in both absolute and relative terms (their cephalic index is much lower), also a lower and wider nose resulting in a much higher nasal index."
What can we glean from this, in terms of the narrow and longer facial structure? Also, are Nilotes "elongated" or not? If yes, why the need to speak of "Nilotes" and "Elongated Africans" as though the constituents of these typologies are mutually exclusive, while sharing certain body build characteristics, as the table seems to imply?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Pygmy and many West African native peoples are robust [stocky], not gracile, and tend to have round heads instead of long, which factors into Heirnaux's definition.
It is safe to say that most of us are aware of the physical peculiarities of pygmies, and so the unnecessary description which doesn't address the question at hand; however, it is of interest that your characterization of "Pygmy and many West African native peoples" tends to place them in a 'single basket case', in terms of cephalic index and body robusticity, not to mention perhaps alluding to height when you say "stocky"(?) [or are you simply using it here in the context of an alternative term for "robusticity" (?)]. Yet the person you invoked, Hiernaux, produced a table that has the effect of contradicting this characterization. At any rate, you say that your characterization of the said groups factor into Hiernaux's definition: what definition would that be, how do the said diverse groups fit into this definition, and cite it directly if necessary.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Lastly their are any number of studies on height and sexual selection among humans and other mammals.
Specific citations would be helpful in this regard.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
The most obvious evidences of this are sexual dimorphism - different morphology within a species by gender.
Men with their facial hair, women with the large breasts.... likewise men tending to be much taller than women.
I am well aware of sexual dimorphism between males and females in certain morphological and developmental [i.e. certain biological trends in the path towards biological maturity] aspects, but this doesn't tell us much about the scientific merit of this statement from you:
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males.... - by Rasol
I mean, what does this statement have to do with body proportions, particularly in the case of "tropical proportions", as the matter at hand?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
It's also a fact that most anthropology shows that people were shorter in the past than they are today.
Certainly possible, as a trend when comparing stature across certain timeframes, and likely to be the case when comparing statures across contemporary times vs. indicators from specimens from prehistory [wherein we have to rely on limited numbers of specimens]. But has anatomically modern human stature simply progressively increased, without flutuations showing ups and downs throughout history? Again, data on these indicators would be welcoming.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Compared to the Elongated East Africans, the four Nilotic groups are taller and a narrower head in both absolute and relative terms (their cephalic index is much lower), also a lower and wider nose resulting in a much higher nasal index."
What can we glean from this, in terms of the narrow and longer facial structure? Also, are Nilotes "elongated" or not? If yes, why the need to speak of "Nilotes" and "Elongated Africans" as though the constituents of these typologies are mutually exclusive, while sharing certain body build characteristics, as the table seems to imply?
Perhaps the answer is inherent in Heirnaux's catagory Elongated and Nilotes.
He places them in the same catagory denoting affinity. But distinguishes them, denoting particular characteristics of Nilotes, that he also expounds on. Nilotes could then be seen as a kind of Elongated African, just as they are are a kind of East African, or a kind of tropical African. It's not 'either or', and there is nothing in Heirnaux's discription that would the concepts mutually exclusive.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I addressed the question of how anthropologists define this.
I've read *your* claim and not some 'unnamed' anthropologists, according to which I asked the question, and you went onto invoke Hiernaux in what you called "elongated", which too I followed up [above] with excerpts and questions. You aren't saying that you didn't know what you meant by "tropical proportions", when you wrote...
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not. - by Rasol
...are you? This is your claim, not 'unnamed' anthropologists.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Compared to the Elongated East Africans, the four Nilotic groups are taller and a narrower head in both absolute and relative terms (their cephalic index is much lower), also a lower and wider nose resulting in a much higher nasal index."
What can we glean from this, in terms of the narrow and longer facial structure? Also, are Nilotes "elongated" or not? If yes, why the need to speak of "Nilotes" and "Elongated Africans" as though the constituents of these typologies are mutually exclusive, while sharing certain body build characteristics, as the table seems to imply?
Perhaps the answer is inherent in Heirnaux's catagory Elongated and Nilotes.
He places them in the same catagory denoting affinity.
Which would be...?
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
But distinguishes them, denoting particular characteristics of Nilotes, that he also expounds on. Nilotes could then be seen as a kind of Elongated African, just as they are are a kind of East African, or a kind of tropical African. It's not 'either or', and there is nothing in Heirnaux's discription that would the concepts mutually exclusive.
Given what you call 'elongated', and given that Hiernaux's table implies that body build and stature, and head characteristics are shared between what he dubs "Elongated Africans" and "Nilotes", your assessment above is interesting: If as you proclaim, that the 'Nilotes' were seen as "a kind of Elongated African" and "a kind of East African", would that not then invoke "Elongated African" [same with "East African" ] as a generic term, of which "Nilotes" would be a subset? Why single the "Nilotes" out from the generic type? This can be seen in not one occasion, but a few: in the table, "Elongated African" and "Nilotes" are called out discretely, which is reiterated when it came to skin tone, where "Nilotes" were invoked in what was dubbed "dark" skin color and "East Africa" was invoked in what was called "intermediate" skin color. In his mention of the narrower cephalic index of Nilotes and their taller heights, this dichotomy is again invoked, where the "Nilotes" are again said to be compared to "Elongated East Africans", when according to you, in terms of what you've acknowledged, Nilotes share the so-called 'elongated characteristics' and are predominantly "East Africans" as well. What gives, if mutual exclusivity between the said groups isn't being invoked? Nilotes aside, is there no diversity within the "Elongated Africans"? Are we to assume that we are dealing with a strict sense of bi-modal types here, where one group goes by the generic term of "Elongated Africans" and the other "Nilotes", who presumably share body build and stature, and head size characteristics?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:East Asians vary greatly, and are adapted to many different climates and environments, so speaking of East Asians in terms of height, is almost like speaking of "Africans" in terms of height. It just a wild generalisation.
I second that. Living here in Hong Kong, I can tell you from personal experience that while the average East Asian is indeed shorter than the average European, I've met quite a few EA guys who were much taller than me. Before you dismiss me as a runt, I'm about 6 feet tall and most people, whites included, consider me a pretty big guy.
Posts: 7090 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males.... - by Rasol
quote:Mystery solver asks: I mean, what does this statement have to do with body proportions
The whole point is that height is distinct from body proportions. That's why the sentense prior to what you quoted stated:
Elongated is actually more about proportions than overall height.
Effectively you ignored the answer, and then turned around and asked the question that was just answered.
Honestly, sometimes I think you are just interested in arguing [about nothing], rather than addressing what was actually said.
Do you have a point?
If so, can you state it clearly.
I just stated mine above in italics. If you can refute it, please do so. But no more pointless argumenative non-responses [which seem to reflect a desire to argue, frusrated by and inability to refute] or I will simply ignore you.
quote:I've read *your* claim and not some 'unnamed' anthropologist
You read no claim of mine.
The anthropologists I referenced {Heirnaux and Brace} were named.
Rasol said:
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not.
To which I responded:
How do you define 'tropical proportions' and how does the "short pygmy" and the so-called "elongated" type all fit into this definition?
Rasol comes back with:
I don't.
Anthropologists do.
I addressed the question of how anthropologists define this.
To which I responded:
I've read *your* claim and not some 'unnamed' anthropologists, according to which I asked the question, and you went onto invoke Hiernaux in what you called "elongated", which too I followed up [above] with excerpts and questions. You aren't saying that you didn't know what you meant by "tropical proportions", when you wrote...
For example - even the short so called Pygmy still show tropical proportions in limb ratio, whereas even tall Germans do not. - by Rasol
...are you? This is your claim, not 'unnamed' anthropologists.
Are you saying that the above italicized piece is not *your* claim, but "Hiernaux's and Brace's"?
If so, please provide the sources of the citations!
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males.... - by Rasol
quote:Mystery solver asks: I mean, what does this statement have to do with body proportions
The whole point is that height is distinct from body proportions. That's why the sentense prior to what you quoted stated:
Elongated is actually more about proportions than overall height.
Effectively you ignored the answer, and then turned around and asked the question that was just answered.
Honestly, sometimes I think you are just interested in arguing [about nothing], rather than addressing what was actually said.
Do you have a point?
If so, can you state it clearly.
I just stated mine above in italics. If you can refute it, please do so. But no more pointless argumenative non-responses [which seem to reflect a desire to argue, frusrated by and inability to refute] or I will simply ignore you.
thx.
If wish to quote people, at least develop the intellectual capacity to do so in its complete presentation. I know this is a shortcoming that you have to seriously grapple with, because others have noted it too.
Let me help you however:
Rasol said:
The most obvious evidences of this are sexual dimorphism - different morphology within a species by gender.
Men with their facial hair, women with the large breasts.... likewise men tending to be much taller than women.
To which I responded:
I am well aware of sexual dimorphism between males and females in certain morphological and developmental [i.e. certain biological trends in the path towards biological maturity] aspects, but this doesn't tell us much about the scientific merit of this statement from you:
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males.… - by Rasol
I mean, what does this statement have to do with body proportions, particularly in the case of "tropical proportions", as the matter at hand?
^The *primary* question at hand, was the scientific merit of that statement, and then, given that the topic at hand concerns "Elongated", which has to do with body "proportions" as you proclaim to acknowledge, the question is trying to gauging the relevance of the claim.
Yes, I have a point to make:
Do you have any idea what you are talking about, when you use terms like "tropical proportions", "elongated", and make claims like,
Height itself is extremely subject to nutrition because there is tendancy of females to select for tall/big males.… - by Rasol
Judging by your evasive [and childish] comebacks, it would seem that you don't.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All in all, I believe Burhan and Rasol have corrected 'AFRICA's silly assumptions based on his silly obsession.
Heck, one can just look at the guy in the picture and tell that he suffers from giantism and has NOTHING to do with "elongated" type! LOLPosts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on your stupid assumptions, Kagame suffers from the same problem: As an African, I'm familiar with Southern Sudanese, Tutsis and Somalis and they are very tall, especially in Southern Somali with respect to Somalis, which is understandable since Southern Somalis have less non African foreign admixture compare to Northern Somalis...so your limited exposure to Africans in Atlanta is useless in this thread...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No. What is useless is your obsession with phenotypical traits such as facial features and body physiques.
And again your presumption about me is wrong. Unlike YOU, I do not make any generalizations about Africans. I know plenty of Africans in Atlanta by the way, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I can easily identify a person with gigantism in contrast to someone who is just really tall. A person with gigantism is not only extremely tall, but has an usual shaped face and head and his limbs are gangly looking and so his stance awkward.
Thus this guy has gigantism...
While this guy does not
In fact, Kagame is not even that much taller than the white guy.
So the only one with stupid assumptions is as always, YOU. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course no kind of oppressive patriarchy was established. A Kikiyu man knows to go elsewhere than home when shoes not his own are lying at his doors threshold.
quote:originally posted by rasol: East Asians vary greatly, and are adapted to many different climates and environments, so speaking of East Asians in terms of height, is almost like speaking of "Africans" in terms of height. It just a wild generalisation.
Indeed. There is the stereotype that Eastern Asians are short but there are actually populations such as in parts of Tibet and western China that are the among the tallest.
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic