posted
I have seen C.L Brace quoted a lot on this board and I just read something on Wikipedia saying that last year 2007 that there is not connection of Ancient Egypt to Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:A 2007 study which examined craniometric variation among ancient Egyptians of the predynastic and early dynastic periods found high levels of diversity but concluded that the formation of the Egyptian state was predominantly indigenous in development, with some, but limited migration from elsewhere.[22] A craniofacial study by C. Loring Brace et al. concluded that; "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population" and that they show ties with North African, Somalian, European European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations Indian populations, but not with Sub-Saharan Africans or populations from other continents.
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I have seen C.L Brace quoted a lot on this board and I just read something on Wikipedia saying that last year 2007 that there is not connection of Ancient Egypt to Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:A 2007 study which examined craniometric variation among ancient Egyptians of the predynastic and early dynastic periods found high levels of diversity but concluded that the formation of the Egyptian state was predominantly indigenous in development, with some, but limited migration from elsewhere.[22] A craniofacial study by C. Loring Brace et al. concluded that; "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population" and that they show ties with North African, Somalian, European European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations Indian populations, but not with Sub-Saharan Africans or populations from other continents.
^^ Neither. He's a scientist. Brace's research on the affinities between AE and Sub-Saharan Africans demonstrates that model design is extremly important when analysis biological affinity. Brace selected African populations that represent one extreme of the Sub-Saharan phenotype and then attempted to portray this one sub-set as reflective of the range of indigenous diversity found in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It's also another post from Wolofi where he manages to falsely attribute ad hoc comments of unknown origin to scientists who said no such thing.
From the web-article Wolofi sites:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed
quote:and that they show ties with North African, Somalian, European European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations Indian populations, but not with Sub-Saharan Africans or populations from other continents.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ It's also another post from Wolofi where he manages to falsely attribute ad hoc comments of unknown origin to scientists who said no such thing.
From the web-article Wolofi sites:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed
^ That's why.
Indeed. I helped re-write that stupid article to its present state after seeing the horrible condition it was in previously (believe me, it was MUCH worse than this). In reality, most of the objective information still seen came from me and a few other guardians and contributors, while the contradictory and conflicting info mostly came from biased Eurocentrics and even some modern Egyptians bent on distorting any information that was found to reaffirm the African identity of AE. I discontinued with my contributions to that artcle long ago. Anyone can edit wikipedia. Wikipedia is not reliable for this very reason, there are too many personality wars and novice interpretations of said data. I suggest not citing it, like, ever unless one can cite the actual sources that go along with the statement, and if they're able to demonstrate that the citations reflect a scientific consensus.
@ Wolofi Btw, Brace' study has been thouroughly scrutinized on here before, as well as by Prof. Keita and others.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Rather than chase and intentionally misleading article by and unknown and unnaccountable author around, for all of its errors of omission and commission, it's better to discuss actual studies.
^ Anyone who wants to discuss Brace actual work, it's pros and cons should do so, based on his actual work.
Actually I don't expect much comment on it, since I notice a pattern where superfluous troll writings get much comment, and actual studies receive little feedback.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol - The reason that you will get little feedback, is because it agrees with what we have been saying. We already knew that the Black African Khoisan (Grimaldi) was the first human in Europe (from 45,000 B.C.). We already knew that later arriving Africans brought agriculture. We already knew that Europeans attributing advancements to the Humanoid Cro-Magnon was silly, (only an idiot would believe that Cro-Magnon built stone Henge), and now they find out that Cro-Magnon wasn't even White.
We already knew that Caucasians are recent arrivals in Europe, thought perhaps not as recent as some suggest, 1,200 B.C. for me. So what is there to argue about? Brace is just a Johnny-come-lately, no doubt because he had no choice.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol - The reason that you will get little feedback, is because it agrees with what we have been saying.
No, that would be a reason for more feedback not less.
It has more to do with the work and mental effort required to read and understand and actual study, as opposed to linking to flame-bait noisemaking on the internet, or making silly photoshop images to promote a fantasy-anthropology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We already knew that the Black African Khoisan (Grimaldi) was the first human in Europe (from 45,000 B.C.).
This is mouthful of mush, so let's clean it up.
- We know that all humans orignate in Africa. [a geography]
- We know that all humans were originally Black. [a skin color phenotype]
- We know that this therefore includes the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Australians and Native Americans, Indians and Pacific Islanders... and is not particular to Europe.
- We do not know that Grimaldi spoke "khoisan" -> a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi.
One of the reasons folks like Marc and sometimes yourself, go so badly awry, is that you mix and match murky concepts, based upon dubious, and outdated assumptions [such as the assumptions that there exists 'race' khoisan, when in fact, khoisan is a language, not a race]
^ Finally, this has very little to do with Brace study [which is why you don't bother citing Brace, but simply leap in head first with ad-hoc, off-topic, unsubstantiated "observations".... as usual.]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We already knew that later arriving Africans brought agriculture.
Via the Levantine, in the Neolithic, yes, I agree, and this is what the Brace study, obfuscating title notwithstanding, is actually about.
quote: We already knew that Europeans attributing advancements to the Humanoid Cro-Magnon was silly, and now they find out that Cro-Magnon wasn't even White.
Absolutely. Here we agree.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We already knew that Caucasians are recent arrivals in Europe, thought perhaps not as recent as some suggest, 1,200 B.C. for me. So what is there to argue about? Brace is just a Johnny-come-lately, no doubt because he had no choice.
^ This is a fake statement which you falsely attribute to Brace.
Disagree?
Please quote the passage from Brace study referencing.... 'caucasians'.
Brace study states that modern Europeans are largely descedant from the Peoleolithic populations, and -not- "newcomers" as you falsely claim.
I can quote where Brace says this in his study, so if you can't find it in your reading,, just ask.
And since Brace does not discuss 'khoisan' and 'caucasian', then we should not distort his study with these references.
Bottom line:
- Deal with what he says, whether you agree or disagree.
- Don't make up stuff he didnt' say and attribute it to him.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Sorry Rasol - I naturally assumed that you knew something of the subject matter, therefore I didn't bother to go into lengthy explanations.
BTW, who did YOU think he was talking about when he mentioned the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors, etc. Just curious.
I am editing this post, because it occurred to me that perhaps you are not the only one who is unfamiliar with Grimaldi Man, (the first Human in Europe). Thought I don't have the time to go into it, this site has a very good page on Grimaldi.
quote:BTW, who did YOU think he was talking about when he mentioned the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors, etc. Just curious.
He was talking about these peoples:
The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
^ Try dealing with what is actually said, rather than creative misinterpretation.
Answer a yes or no question, I dare you.
Do you *understand* the meaning of the bold faced text?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I have seen C.L Brace quoted a lot on this board and I just read something on Wikipedia saying that last year 2007 that there is not connection of Ancient Egypt to Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:A 2007 study which examined craniometric variation among ancient Egyptians of the predynastic and early dynastic periods found high levels of diversity but concluded that the formation of the Egyptian state was predominantly indigenous in development, with some, but limited migration from elsewhere.[22] A craniofacial study by C. Loring Brace et al. concluded that; "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population" and that they show ties with North African, Somalian, European European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations Indian populations, but not with Sub-Saharan Africans or populations from other continents.
LOL C.L. Brace. Chimu/Salassin's favorite source. He’s a favorite of the “no race” hypocrites who are too embarrassed by discredited Hamitc theory, so they use him instead to “prove” ancient Egypt wasn’t a black civilization. He has even been quoted on stormfront, which should give an idea of what his conclusions are.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: He has even been quoted on stormfront , which should give an idea of what his conclusions are.
^ Question. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
His conclusions are simply an updated version of the Hamitic theory which advances the agenda of the people from Stormfornt.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: He has even been quoted on stormfront , which should give an idea of what his conclusions are.
^ Question. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
His conclusions are simply an updated version of the Hamitic theory which advances the agenda of the people from Stormfornt.
For once the Bass agrees, the Bass has very similar feelings about some of Brace's work.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: He has even been quoted on stormfront , which should give an idea of what his conclusions are.
^ Question. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
His conclusions are simply an updated version of the Hamitic theory which advances the agenda of the people from Stormfornt.
For once the Bass agrees, the Bass has very similar feelings about some of Brace's work.
Ok, so let's discuss his work.
What aspect of the 2005 study supports the Hamitic hypothesis? [i'm not talking about the 1999 study, which, you, I and Evergreen have all debunked many times on ES.]
Recall that you yourself wrote Brace, and his reply seemed to be in refutation of Hamitic hypothesis.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: He has even been quoted on stormfront , which should give an idea of what his conclusions are.
^ Question. What logical fallacy did you just commit?
His conclusions are simply an updated version of the Hamitic theory which advances the agenda of the people from Stormfornt.
For once the Bass agrees, the Bass has very similar feelings about some of Brace's work.
Ok, so let's discuss his work.
What aspect of the 2005 study supports the Hamitic hypothesis? [i'm not talking about the 1999 study, which, you, I and Evergreen have all debunked many times on ES.]
Recall that you yourself wrote Brace, and his reply seemed to be in refutation of Hamitic hypothesis.
The Bass' reference was to his 1999 study indeed, which he still feels is a hugely incredible piece of work, despite the objections the Bass raised about it to him. His continued flawed use of "Sub-Saharan" which excludes the Horn, is indeed reminsicent of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Its simply a backdoor way of separating "True Negroes"[broad trend] from Elongated Africans. The Bass finds agreement with Brace in that he says that the Elongated phenotype is the result of indigenous processes in Africa, but the continual use of sub-saharan from East Africans is problematic in that Brace gives the false impression that the two are little related to each other.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample."
Come on now rasol, this is plain wrong, Somalis *ARE* sub-saharans so how can they "may have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component"? the same distinction Brace is making is akin the the distinction that C.G. seligman made when separating "True Negroes" from "Hamitic Caucasoids" with black skin. Clearly Brace hasn't moved beyond the stereotyped concept of "True Negroes"
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Brace study in question comes from his 1993 paper, "Clines and Clusters Versus “Race:” A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile,".. It can be accessed on Myra's site, here . It is more than disingenuous in how it excludes both "Nubian" and "Somali" populations from his so-called "African" cluster, while basing the said cluster from only a few samples of some of the most isolated, Niger-Congo speakers, supposedly representatives of the ideal African physiognomy.
Keita had this to say in response:
quote:One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity.
I believe it's also been noted by Zakrzewsi that the E series (the one which clusters closest to Europeans) isn't even a typical Egyptian series and comes at a period in Egypt's history where there was documented immigration from foreigners. Of course Rasol cites Brace' 2005 study which shows SOME objective improvement though I agree that Brace 1993 is probably the most often cited study by Eurocentrics, regardless of its noted distortions and contradictions.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Just look at this excerpt:
"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample."
Come on now rasol, this is plain wrong, Somalis *ARE* sub-saharans so how can they "may have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component"? the same distinction Brace is making is akin the the distinction that C.G. seligman made when separating "True Negroes" from "Hamitic Caucasoids" with black skin. Clearly Brace hasn't moved beyond the stereotyped concept of "True Negroes"
I'm basically a novice, but...
I caught that too!! It's what I was referring to a couple weeks back when I said I had some questions about some studies. (There was really nothing to question here, just something to abject to, the questions were about something else).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: Just look at this excerpt:
"As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample."
quote:Come on now rasol, this is plain wrong, Somalis *ARE* sub-saharans so how can they "may have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component"?
Of course I agree, and disagree completely with Brace here.
quote:The same distinction Brace is making is akin the the distinction that C.G. seligman made when separating "True Negroes" from "Hamitic Caucasoids" with black skin.
^ That's a huge leap from what Brace actually said. Why don't you post the reply from Brace that he wrote to you, when you asked him his opinion on the origin of Somali?
Then tell us if you think Brace would agree with your caricuture of his position.
Indeed, write him, again, and ask if that's a fair description of his views.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: The Brace study in question comes from his 1993 paper, "Clines and Clusters Versus “Race:” A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile,"..
^ That's exactly the case.
This paper is 15 years old and has been refuted many times on ES before [by myself and others].
Yet the parent post citation misleadingly implies this comes from a recent [2007] study.
Your approach of reiterating that this study has been debunked before is spot on.
It's equally important to note that Brace himself has either revised his view on this matter, or 'contradicted' himself with his more recent comments.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Bass finds agreement with Brace in that he says that the Elongated phenotype is the result of indigenous processes in Africa
^ Exactly. It is important also to make clear that this is his actual position, before examining the 'very real' flaws in his views elsewhere.
quote: but the continual use of sub-saharan from East Africans is problematic in that Brace gives the false impression that the two are little related to each other.
Yes I completely agree here. You know my view on sub-sahara as a total race-ruse.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it makes sense but you have to break it down and read between the lines. Lets start here
quote:A 2007 study which examined craniometric variation among ancient Egyptians of the predynastic and early dynastic periods found high levels of diversity but concluded that the formation of the Egyptian state was predominantly indigenous in development, with some, but limited migration from elsewhere.
This is a true statement that we have been saying the whole time. Now for the next part you have to read between the lines.
quote:A craniofacial study by C. Loring Brace et al. concluded that; The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population"
Now ask yourself which particular "Late Dynasties" are they talking about. Im sure i could guess..... The last step is to identify exactly which populations he states are "Sub Saharan" Regardless of what he chooses it is still a false classification because he does NOT include Horn Africans which of course do live below the Sahara. As if the Sahara is a barrier to even begin with. They probably use a west African or a Pygmy, as usual.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course I agree, and disagree completely with Brace here.
What is there to agree with? Somalis are sub-Saharan to begin with so how can they "may have a hint of Sub-Saharan African component"? Its evident that his conception of "sub-Saharan African" is flawed and or problematic.
quote: That's a huge leap from what Brace actually said. Why don't you post the reply from Brace that he wrote to you, when you asked him his opinion on the origin of Somali?
The Bass posted his reply before and if Brace really believed that Somalis are just as "sub-Saharan African" as "Niger-Congo" speakers due to their indigenous in equatorial Africa[the same as sub-saharan Africa] why is he still repeatedly making Somalis separate from "sub-Saharans" in his published studies? Its quite obvious that by separating Somalis from "sub-Saharans" he's making the same distinction that old anthropologists made between "True Negroes/Congoids" and blackskinned so called "non-Negroid, Hamitic Caucasoids".
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Of course I agree, and disagree completely with Brace here.
What is there to agree with? Somalis are sub-Saharan to begin with so how can they "may have a hint of Sub-Saharan African component"? Its evident that his conception of "sub-Saharan African" is flawed and or problematic.
quote: That's a huge leap from what Brace actually said. Why don't you post the reply from Brace that he wrote to you, when you asked him his opinion on the origin of Somali?
The Bass posted his reply before and if Brace really believed that Somalis are just as "sub-Saharan African" as "Niger-Congo" speakers due to their indigenous in equatorial Africa[the same as sub-saharan Africa] why is he still repeatedly making Somalis separate from "sub-Saharans" in his published studies? Its quite obvious that by separating Somalis from "sub-Saharans" he's making the same distinction that old anthropologists made between "True Negroes/Congoids" and blackskinned so called "non-Negroid, Hamitic Caucasoids".
I agree with The Brass (even with his use of the misleading term “sub Sahara”) I don't see how it is "caricature" of Brace’s position. He’s basically playing the same game. It's like Bernal and is new book Black Athena Writes Back, or something… in it he says pretty much the same thing in reference to the "blackness” of the ancient Egyptians. Manu Ampin has a good essay on him in Egypt Child of Africa. I think deep down these whites know the truth but can’t come full circle for fear of the political implications. So they tip toe around the truth.
The Bass, what Brace say to you in the email?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol – Now that I have a few moments spare time, I though that I would do as you ask, and break Braces study down for you.
But before doing that, I would like to correct you on a few things. Rasol wrote - We know that this therefore includes the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Australians and Native Americans, Indians and Pacific Islanders... and is not particular to Europe.
Answer> Wrong: The ancestors of Caucasians and Mongols, as well as the evolutionary process, which created them, are completely unknown. Modern science cannot even agree on where they come from; this more out of racial mischief rather than ignorance. As a matter of fact: If I repeated the NOI position i.e. They are White Devils from outer space (or something like that), you would NOT be able to disprove it.
Rasol wrote - We do not know that Grimaldi spoke "khoisan" -> a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi.
Here you prove yourself a complete ***** First: what is this stupidness with language, it’s tiresome. I spoke of a people.
Secondly: That Grimaldi was a Khoisan, has for over a hundred years been incontrovertible. Even your favorite source for unreliable information Wiki, has this definition.
Wiki - Khoisan - The Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and later European colonization.
Did you catch that last part: “and later European colonization”.
Now please go back and re-read Braces B.S. study, try to figure the rest out for yourself.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol – Now that I have a few moments spare time, I though that I would do as you ask, and break Braces study down for you.
Excellent, what I have tried to do in this thread is generate a detailed examination of Brace work, instead of a biting at strawmen from stormfront, wiki, etc..
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But before doing that, I would like to correct you on a few things.
^ Again, rather than address Brace, you stall, delay and digress, as usual.
This has been the problem with your superficial discourse from the start.
Nontheless.
quote:Rasol wrote - We know that this therefore includes the ancestors of Europeans, Asians, Australians and Native Americans, Indians and Pacific Islanders... and is not particular to Europe.
quote:Answer> Wrong: The ancestors of Caucasians and Mongols, as well as the evolutionary process, which created them, are completely unknown.
^ This statement is utterly ridiculous. Rather than indulge it, I will ask you to name a single anthropologist who will agree with this view.
When you give no answer - you never have answers - then you confirm your penchant for empty prattle, and nothing more.
quote:Rasol wrote - We do not know that Grimaldi spoke "khoisan" -> a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi
.
quote:Mike wrote: Here you prove yourself a complete ***** First: what is this stupidness with language.
You mean the "stupid" defintion of Khosian from
Webster?
Main Entry: Khoi·san Listen to the pronunciation of Khoisan Pronunciation: \ˈkȯi-ˌsän, -ˈsän\ Function: noun Etymology: Khoikhoi + San Date: 1930
1 : a group of African peoples speaking Khoisan languages 2 : a family of African languages comprising principally Khoikhoi and the Bushman languages.
Or are you refering to the "stupid" definition of Khoisan from Random House?
Khoi·san /ˈkɔɪsɑn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationi-sahn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi.
quote:Mike wrote: It's tiresome
Yes, yes I know, facts usually are "tiresome", to people who place too much effort into disregarding them.
You must be 'exhausted' then. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike cites Wiki: The Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and later European colonization.
This wiki article defines Khoisan as and ethnic group of people speaking Khoisan languages.
That's perfectly fine.
Nowhere does this article say anything about Grimaldi being ethnically Khoisan, as defined by speaking Khoisan languages.
quote:Did you catch that last part: “and later European colonization”.
lol. European colonisation refers to the Dutch Boer and English ethnic groups colonising South Africa, not Grimaldi Khoisan 'colonising Europe'.
You obviously have problems with reading so let me help you:
Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa, before....
a)the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and
b) later European colonization.
^ In the future, please read more carefully before haphazardly citing.
quote:[if Brace really believed that Somalis are just as "sub-Saharan African" as "Niger-Congo" speakers due to their indigenous in equatorial Africa[the same as sub-saharan Africa] why is he still repeatedly making Somalis separate from "sub-Saharans"
In my opinion sub-sahara itself is a misleading term and a stand-in for the concept of 'true negro'.
As with 'true negro', the issue is not that Somali or Fulani [whom Brace likened them to in his reply to you] are or are not 'sub saharan', but that sub saharan itself is mischief making concept in anthropology.
I agree with Keita who provides the proper rejoinder:
Sub-saharan does not delimit authentically African
^ The goal should not beto consign Africans into 'sub-sahara', but to affirm that all of Africa...is equally African.
Keita understand this.
It's a subtle difference in strategy, one of which rejects the root premises of racist conception 'sub-sahara', and the other accepts it, and tries somehow to work 'within it'. [a mistake in my opinion]
Remember:
Nubia, is not in sub-saharan Africa.
Neither is Egypt.
btw: Good comments Charlie and akoben08, at least we are discussing Brace, which is what I wanted.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol - Where I come from, your name is spelled I-D-I-O-T. And it would take another one, to continue the conversation.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
...The Republic of ZRCL, Zero-Reading-Comprehension-Land(?)
quote:Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa, before....
a)the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and
b) later European colonization.
^ In the future, please read more carefully before haphazardly citing.
Go back to school kid, and learn how to read. Until then, just be quiet and listen while adults talk.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brace also found that the Natufians were closer to his "Sub-saharan" africans than any other samples he collected, so i doubt he had ulterior motives (as being a racist with agenda), he simply published the results of his findings. Had he been a white-supremacist then he could have easily chosen to not include the Natufians in his publication (who afterall introduced sedentary culture to Anatolia and southern Europe). Also, when he found that the bronze age Europeans did not cluster with modern Europeans he immediatly made a new publication(which automatically debunkes stormfront's "White ancient egyptian" claim in reference of brace for 10+ years) why would a white-supremacist do that and mess up stormfronts and the likes white-supremacist agenda?
I agree with Bass that his use of "sub-saharan" african is a political-correctness way of saying "negroid", however i don't think he had other alternitives to chose in between, it's a much better choice than "negroid" which has a negative connotation due to recent racial history. Therefore it shouldnt be taken litteraly as being in reference of geography which i doubt he even attempts to hide.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Brace also found that the Natufians were closer to his "Sub-saharan" africans than any other samples he collected, so i doubt he had ulterior motives (as being a racist with agenda), he simply published the results of his findings. Had he been a white-supremacist then he could have easily chosen to not include the Natufians in his publication (who afterall introduced sedentary culture to Anatolia and southern Europe). Also, when he found that the bronze age Europeans did not cluster with modern Europeans (which automatically debunkes stormfront's "White ancient egyptian" claim in reference of brace) he immediatly made a new publication, why would a white-supremacist do that, and mess up stormfronts and the likes white-supremacist agenda?
I agree with Bass that his use of "sub-saharan" african is a political-correctness way of saying "negroid", however i don't think he had other alternitives to chose in between, it's a much better choice than "negroid" which has a negative connotation due to recent racial history. Therefore it shouldnt be taken litteraly as being in reference of geography which i doubt he even attempts to hide.
Thanks for the clarification. I think my problem is that I am a little behind on his data. I am still seeing the "clusters and clines" Brace. I know that even and "updated" Bernal still adheres to debunked classifications and generalizations, still presents "west Africans" as a model in order to say that only certain dynastys can "usefully be called black".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Whatever his agenda or methods, he came up with the correct conclusions, so he must be given credit for that.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol wrote - We do not know that Grimaldi spoke "khoisan" -> a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi
.
quote:Mike wrote: Here you prove yourself a complete ***** First: what is this stupidness with language.
You mean the "stupid" defintion of Khosian from
Webster?
Main Entry: Khoi·san Listen to the pronunciation of Khoisan Pronunciation: \ˈkȯi-ˌsän, -ˈsän\ Function: noun Etymology: Khoikhoi + San Date: 1930
1 : a group of African peoples speaking Khoisan languages 2 : a family of African languages comprising principally Khoikhoi and the Bushman languages.
Or are you refering to the "stupid" definition of Khoisan from Random House?
Khoi·san /ˈkɔɪsɑn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationi-sahn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi.
quote:Mike wrote: It's tiresome
Yes, yes I know, facts usually are "tiresome", to people who place too much effort into disregarding them.
You must be 'exhausted' then.
LOL
Mike, how are you going to recovery from this one?
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:and that they show ties with North African, Somalian, European European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations Indian populations, but not with Sub-Saharan Africans or populations from other continents.
^that's f* ing retarded.
You are saying that Brace did not say this?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol wrote - We do not know that Grimaldi spoke "khoisan" -> a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi
.
quote:Mike wrote: Here you prove yourself a complete ***** First: what is this stupidness with language.
You mean the "stupid" defintion of Khosian from
Webster?
Main Entry: Khoi·san Listen to the pronunciation of Khoisan Pronunciation: \ˈkȯi-ˌsän, -ˈsän\ Function: noun Etymology: Khoikhoi + San Date: 1930
1 : a group of African peoples speaking Khoisan languages 2 : a family of African languages comprising principally Khoikhoi and the Bushman languages.
Or are you refering to the "stupid" definition of Khoisan from Random House?
Khoi·san /ˈkɔɪsɑn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationi-sahn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a family of languages found chiefly in southern Africa and including the languages of the San and the Khoikhoi.
quote:Mike wrote: It's tiresome
Yes, yes I know, facts usually are "tiresome", to people who place too much effort into disregarding them.
quote:Topic: Brace The Hammer Avatar Image Member Member # 13495 Icon 1 posted 06 May, 2008 08:49 PM Profile for The Hammer Wolofi, Brace is not friend or foe of any idea. He is a scholar and that means does not care if AE's were white, black or green. The idea of building a case to promote some idea has nothing to do with scholarship. The truth is there is very little, if any support for the idea of a black Egypt outside of message boards like this. In fact, in most ancient history classes the race of ancient Egyptians is never mentioned. Posts: 913 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
Who is this dude? He sent me a private message out of the blue and I definitely don't know him.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Topic: Brace The Hammer Avatar Image Member Member # 13495 Icon 1 posted 06 May, 2008 08:49 PM Profile for The Hammer Wolofi, Brace is not friend or foe of any idea. He is a scholar and that means does not care if AE's were white, black or green. The idea of building a case to promote some idea has nothing to do with scholarship. The truth is there is very little, if any support for the idea of a black Egypt outside of message boards like this. In fact, in most ancient history classes the race of ancient Egyptians is never mentioned. Posts: 913 | From: The spirit of Horemheb lives within us all | Registered: May 2007
Who is this dude? He sent me a private message out of the blue and I definitely don't know him.
Ive seen him when I search for past threads in here. He's probably Salassin. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
SEEKING wrote: Mike, how are you going to recovery from this one?
Rasol doesn't really bother me. I know that he is really not that obtuse, so obviously it's purposeful. The problem is, if his function is to keep threads going, then he really should try to be a bit more creative and thoughtful.
If on the other hand, his function is to protect the secret of Caucasians, (their history), by obscuring discourse on the subject, then he is doing a really good job. Sad to say, there are many Negroes who are befuddled by the back and forth. The post above, like all great lies, has an element of truth in it.
Quote: Brace is not friend or foe of any idea. He is a scholar and that means does not care if AE's were white, black or green. The idea of building a case to promote some idea has nothing to do with scholarship. The truth is there is very little, if any support for the idea of a black Egypt outside of message boards like this. In fact, in most ancient history classes the race of ancient Egyptians is never mentioned.
How many people do you know, who can break that down and recognize the insidious lies? Likewise note Braces study: how many people do you know, who understand that when he says the Epipaleolithic; which is a term used for the hunter-gatherer cultures that existed after the end of the last Ice Age, before the Neolithic, that he is talking about Grimaldi.
Or understand the following terms?
The Neolithic - New Stone Age (8,500 B.C. in the Levant) – (4,500 B.C. in Europe)
Bronze Age – (3,000 B.C. Levant) (2,000 B.C. Europe)
In situ is a Latin phrase meaning in the place.
Late Pleistocene (130 B.C. - 8,000 B.C.)
The Natufian culture existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant. It was a Mesolithic culture, but unusual in that it established permanent settlements even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufians are likely to have been the ancestors of the builders of the first Neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest in the world.
Demic diffusion is a demographic term referring to a migratory model developed by Cavalli-Sforza , that consists of population diffusion into and across an area previously uninhabited by that group, possibly, but not necessarily, displacing, replacing, or intermixing with a pre-existing population (e.g. as has been suggested for the spread of agriculture across Neolithic Europe, and what occurred with the European colonization of the Americas).
So you see, he could afford to tell the truth, most Negroes have no idea of what he is talking about.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic