quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: You know what I think is going to happen? Eurocentric will be so desperate, so very desperate to claim black discoveries that when the find they have no juice to go on anymore they will either start to claim elongated african blacks as whites like the mediteranean whites, try to divide blacks more so sub sahara blacks will somehow be a completely different RACE from Northern blacks.
Suddenly whites who are one of the least diverse groups in the world will make up 1/3 of the world population and span all across northern europe into the middle east and into africa as all whites but the MOST diverse group, blacks, will be designated as only one small group of people known as the "true blacks" called the "sub saharans" only found in WEST africa!
I think the reason actually for them saying race doesn't exist though I see the practicality is it, is that they are having hard time hanging unto things like "white egypt" without blurring the lines a bit.
RIDICULOUS.
But it has already been done and is continuing to be done. That is what the article represents.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. SerenoPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HistoryFacelift: You know what I think is going to happen? Eurocentric will be so desperate, so very desperate to claim black discoveries that when the find they have no juice to go on anymore they will either start to claim elongated african blacks as whites like the mediteranean whites, try to divide blacks more so sub sahara blacks will somehow be a completely different RACE from Northern blacks.
Suddenly whites who are one of the least diverse groups in the world will make up 1/3 of the world population and span all across northern europe into the middle east and into africa as all whites but the MOST diverse group, blacks, will be designated as only one small group of people known as the "true blacks" called the "sub saharans" only found in WEST africa!
I think the reason actually for them saying race doesn't exist though I see the practicality is it, is that they are having hard time hanging unto things like "white egypt" without blurring the lines a bit.
RIDICULOUS.
But it has already been done and is continuing to be done. That is what the article represents.
SO STUPID. How can one of the LEAST diverse groups in the world claim the features of multiple groups of people spanning past Europe INTO Africa AND the Middle East?????
Does no one use logic anymore??
I cannot wait until the DNA testing, when they see it proves they are African maybe they will try to make some excuse that it is a "LOST EUROPEAN LINEAGE" that may have been intermixed with Africans OR not publish the results at all because like Egypt their findings could change all documented history as we know it.
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Understood. Thanks for being kind instead of resorting to insults.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
It seems you assumed that I knew what features of the skull were considered "Mediterranean" in the first place. I do not.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
No. The point is to show you that "Mediterranean" as a single distinct population DOES NOT EXIST!! Peoples from North Africans, East Africans, Southwest Asians, and South Asians have in the past been all classified as "Mediterranean". Ironically, the features they used the most are features associated with black Africans. Hence Sergi's "brown mediterranean race" is nothing more than an expansian of Africans into Southwest Asia and Europe during Neolithic times!!
Understood. Thanks for being kind instead of resorting to insults.
^ Dude. You need to recommend the Book to me, where you guys learnt your manipulation techniques. I must learn.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boofer, sorry if some folks were rude to you I too am guilty of being rude to new people in the forum but it's only because of the irritation that some new trolls in here have been causing.
But concerning craniofacial features here's the deal:
First, cranio-facial features are the most diverse trait occuring among the human species, and that such features not only vary between different populations but even among members of the same population.
One of the fallacies of 'racial' typology and classification is that one set of features is assigned to a certain racial group even though such features are only not unique to that group but occur widely in other groups. (Just one of the things that prove 'racial' groups do not exist).
Since the human species originated in Africa, it not surprising that populations indigenous to Africa possess the greatest genetic diversity. As such, why is it hard to comprehend that they possess among the greatest phenotypic diversity as well.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti (various times before):
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) 1975 The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong, - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Tutsi (Central African)
Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called “super-negroid” indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
Also, just because someone happens to have the same features as those you consider ‘true blacks (negroes)’ does not mean they are even African. As seen by this Andamanese person below.
Southeast Asian
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Which is why talk of "Mediterranean" features is silly.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So going by these outdated notions of anthropology, the African supermodel below would be "Mediterranean" also!
Getting back to the subject of Egypt, note how her appearance is strikingly similar to that of the reconstruction of the royal mummy identified by Fletcher to be Nefertiti.
So you could easily see how Westerners have for decades been getting away with calling the Egyptians "mediterranean" as if that means they were not black Africans. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
* Since the human species originated in Africa, it not surprising that populations indigenous to Africa possess the greatest genetic diversity. As such, why is it hard to comprehend that they possess among the greatest phenotypic diversity as well.
Exactly what I keep saying, WHAT THE HELL????? You don't lump together groups of Middle East and North Africa as part of an extensive white race when the white race is one of the LEAST genetically diverse populations on this Earth! You lump them with BLACK AFRICANS that are THE most diverse population on this Earth! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] So going by these outdated notions of anthropology, the African supermodel below would be "Mediterranean" also!
EXACTLY. It seems continuous Eurocentric fallacies they desperately dish out to claim history, which feeds their biased supremacist egos are dragging them further and further SOUTH into the black Africa by the skin of their lying teeth to call the very people they believe incapable as one of their own!
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
What Ethiopians are there that look like white people? LOL
Seriously, what planet do you live on?
Is it planet "Beatdown"? Because its amazing how often that you spout off white propaganda that you mindlessly repeat from your white owners.
Po Doug, he's always caterwauling about the y man, but he's the first to buy into his racial pseudoscience because he suffers from an immense inferiority complex.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote:Knowledgeiskey, what is the significance of your post? Are you simply showing me "black" Africans that have Mediterranean skulls?
Actually, if you did read what I posted. You would've realized, I was showing how Africans are falsely classified as Mediterranean. The skull possesses a prominent occipital bun and is prognathous among others.. Is this somehow Mediterranean to you? If so, which group, please elaborate... nitwit??
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
what is an occipital bun?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Originally posted by Boofer
quote: Is it so unlikely that these might be people from the North (ie Mediterraneans)? North Africa has "Mediterranean" looking people. It's almost as if everyone is opposed to the mere possibility that these folks could be of Mediterranean origin.
However, I understand why you guys question their terminology, as I've heard of other "black" African's having "caucasoid" skulls. I'm interested in seeing how these "Mediterranean" skulls supposedly differ (or relate) from nearby modern day populations (including the Fula and the Tuareg).
In my honest opinion, I would guess that the modern day populations have origins in both of these distinct groups. I wouldn't doubt that there was a Mediterranean influence considering the Tuareg, who are a berber group.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
See what happens again, since you didn't read the thread, your question was already answered.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
This shyt is a hoax and made-up. I saw an interview with that idiot on PBS and something just don't seem right. I don't know how they go out searching for dinosaur bones and trip across a graveyard and become experts at human archeology. Why it always take some outsider to find such things. Why the indigenous and natives never tripped across such thing. Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans. This bullshyt is nothing other than "lest continue to prove that ancient egyptians are not a 'negroid' race."
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans.
Where did get that idea Betty? The skull below is the one with so called surprising Mediterranean features, but note the prognathous characteristics. Many skulls are erroneously classified as Mediterranean because they don't want to admit the skulls found in the Mediterranean in Europe and the near East that they are actually African. So the falsely applied made up Mediterranean skull becomes implicated.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
[/qb][/QUOTE]See what happens again, since you didn't read the thread, your question was already answered. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
quote: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game.
Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's Mediterranean and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's Mediterranean. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the interview with the idiot that found the bones on PBS. The two skulls he had looked very fresh and new. It looked like some substance was applied to the skulls to try to give it an ancient, "graveyard" look. The man was saying that one of the skulls (the one with the aquiline features) became the ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the broad features went to west africa and other parts of africa. I want to know how long this was in the making. They've been putting together some sophisicated looking skeletons. It's funny that they found the grave yard in the exact spot where they was looking for dinosaur bones. Are they still looking for dinosaur bones or are they going to get back to it later.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
Excellently said.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups. They [national geographics, smithsonian, and the other higer educational cronies] are out to prove a 'true negro' race and a black race that is not negro. Why don't they focus on the true whites (Nordics/germanics/scandinavians) and the mixed race whites (Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Italians, Armenians, etc...). Not that I believe these white people are non-white, but we can use the same analogy agaisnt them.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game.
Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's Mediterranean and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's Mediterranean. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
^ Good thoughts.
I would caution though that any term 'Mediterranean', when used to discuss paleolithic skeleton from Rift Valley Kenya, or Central African Tutsi is intentionally misleading.
Mediterranean is also misleading as culture construct - what languages are Mediterranean? Italian? Hebrew? Italian and Hebrew, Latin and Semitic, are now related?
Knowledge718 is right. The Mediterranean of course exists.....it's a sea, and nothing more.
No people, languages or skeletype originate there.
When it is conflated into and anthropology or race, or culture, then something is askew.
Danya Reynolds has it exactly right.
The purpose of Mediterranean 'anthropology' is to hide the impact of Africa, on Europe and SouthWest Asia.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
It's not just Ethiopians - more and more I'm noticing certain features that seem to be more common in African Americans or as common in them compared to Euro/white Americans.
And then, when I look at West Africans and see the same in them it suggests to me that these aren't 'white' or 'mixed' traits. These rather just go un noticed or less noticed as we mentally pass them off by assuming "it's just an exception to a rule" and then ignoring it (that's the way bias works) because our learned racialised worldview engenders bias and [which is psychological].
There are many distinct looks I am noticing
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
On point!!
Greeks and other Mid Easterners do have Mediterranean features and ancestry from North Africans ya know. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The purpose of Mediterranean 'anthropology' is to hide the impact of Africa, on Europe and SouthWest Asia.
^^^^^Exactly
Originally posted by Knowledge
quote:Indeed, and the way I see it, is basically for the simple fact the same skulls being found in Africa's 'Mediterranean' and now Niger are the same type of skulls that are found in Europe's 'Mediterranean'. Therefore for them now to admit that these are actual African people, they would also be admitting the skulls found in Greece and Italy etc.. Are actually African. These are death blows to the Euro-centric ideology, and they know it.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): rofl @ "planet beatdown", but:
Doug wrote
quote: But the funny thing is I have even confused African features for white. One day, not too long ago, I was walking up to a group of black young adults in a parking lot and I coulda sworn there was a white girl in the middle of them. When I got closer I realized she was completely black African Ethiopian with so-called "white" features. I had to laugh at myself.
It's not just Ethiopians - more and more I'm noticing certain features that seem to be more common in African Americans or as common in them compared to Euro/white Americans.
And then, when I look at West Africans and see the same in them it suggests to me that these aren't 'white' or 'mixed' traits. These rather just go un noticed or less noticed as we mentally pass them off by assuming "it's just an exception to a rule" and then ignoring it (that's the way bias works) because our learned racialised worldview engenders bias and [which is psychological].
There are many distinct looks I am noticing
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When using the word Mediterranean we must remember and begin to emphasize the fact that Mediterranean does not exclude Africa.
Extreme North Africa is the southern littoral of the Mediterranean Sea. Assuming Mediterranean to be only Italy and Greece is the Medicentrics' game. I refuse to play by their rules. There are too many Med types to use the word in any kind of homologous fashion. But since it's not going to be abandoned I will make the rules and define it to my purposes instead of being ruled and leting others set their definition for me to kowtow to.
On point!!
Greeks and other Mid Easterners do have Mediterranean features and ancestry from North Africans ya know.
Yes. I have come to the point that most whites I see today look more like white skinned blacks than anything else, as the features originate among blacks and the only differences are the skin complexion.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol caterwauled: ----------------------------------- When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions. -----------------------------------
Look at this fool. : )
He can't make up his mind. In one sentence its "Heeeee'ssss intelligent and briiiiiiliaaant" then in the next its "they be racists".
Oh the minds of keyboard scholars. LOL
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Thank you! At least someone get what I am saying. Something about is just fishy. It is not that there are only 'TWO' distinct skulls that were found; it is that the 'TWO' skulls shows features that are commonly argued of a "true negro" or "black African" and "not-a-true-negro" or "black African". And of course, the "not-a-true-negro" skull has a possibility of being the ancestors of the Egyptians and modern day North African and the "true Negro" skull have a possiblity of being the ancestors of the rest of Africa. Give me a break. They just can't believe Egyptians were indeed a black African race. They are just being persistent.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, that is the interview. It wasn't a long interview only about 7-10 minutes. He brought the TWO skulls to show that the Sahara had TWO distinct populations. This is why I am so skeptical. Why is there only 'TWO' distinct populations? As large as the Sahara is there had to be more than just "two" distinct groups.
You are right on this point.
All outdated theories of cranial race rely on the same fallacy.
Almost anywhere in modern Africa it is possible to find skulls with markededly different appearances, even within individual ethnic groups.
When race-craniometrists find such skulls they envariably treat them as if they are exemplifiers of juxtaposed 'races', when they may just be a part of natural variations within regions.
This sets up the bases for the kind of tortured tautology that Howells engaged in, when he suggested that 'early african crania were not *african*'.
When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
Thank you! At least someone get what I am saying. Something about is just fishy. It is not that there are only 'TWO' distinct skulls that were found; it is that the 'TWO' skulls shows features that are commonly argued of a "true negro" or "black African" and "not-a-true-negro" or "black African". And of course, the "not-a-true-negro" skull has a possibility of being the ancestors of the Egyptians and modern day North African and the "true Negro" skull have a possiblity of being the ancestors of the rest of Africa. Give me a break. They just can't believe Egyptians were indeed a black African race. They are just being persistent.
Yea, but Betty all Paul Sereno mentioned is he wanted to know who these people were, I.e, the ancestors of the Tauregs, Berbers, Egyptians etc... he didn't actually say they were their ancestors. But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse, and a way to hide the African influence in Southern Europe and West Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Basically, they are saying that the skull with the 'aquiline' features were ancestors of the egyptians and middle easterners and the skull with the 'broad' features are ancestors of the west africans.
Where did get that idea Betty? The skull below is the one with so called surprising Mediterranean features, but note the prognathous characteristics. Many skulls are erroneously classified as Mediterranean because they don't want to admit the skulls found in the Mediterranean in Europe and the near East that they are actually African. So the falsely applied made up Mediterranean skull becomes implicated.
Also Notice the Occipital region
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
The occipital bone, a saucer-shaped membrane bone situated at the back and lower part of the cranium, is trapezoid in shape and curved on itself. It is pierced by a large oval aperture, the foramen magnum, through which the cranial cavity communicates with the vertebral canal.
The male cranium below is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame.
Queen Ahmes-Nefertary
The Elder Lady(First identified as Queen Tiye) possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
Thutmose II displays the globular cranium common among more recent Nubians.
[/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
----------------------------- But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse -----------------------------
LOL! This is from someone who posted that Africans don't vary in skin complexions.
And here he is trying to pull a front job, when in fact he recites Eurocentric beliefs in every other post.
People it would be wise to take what this guy writes with a grain of salt AAAANNNNNND pepper. LOL.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:
----------------------------- But as I did reply to you, you have to understand to the simple laymen who believes everything they read and here, wouldn't know this Mediterranean implication is actually a Euro-centric ruse -----------------------------
LOL! This is from someone who posted that Africans don't vary in skin complexions.
People it would be wise to take what this guy writes with a grain of salt AAAANNNNNND pepper. LOL.
When did I say Africans don't vary in skin color? Stop your lying troll nonsense. Actually it's the total opposite and I argue against people (LIKE YOU)who actually do believe all Africans are one complexion.
quote: And here he is trying to pull a front job, when in fact he recites Eurocentric beliefs in every other post.
Name one Euro-centric thing I believe?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Knowledge" you missed my point. I never said he said that one of the skulls ARE the ancestors of the Egyptians, so-called berber, tuareg. I watch the interview and [he] pretended to use uncertainty to confuse people into believing [they] are unaware of such differences so [they] must find out more information about the so-called skulls. The agenda is already laid out. He already knows what the outcome and analyses will be. My question is... what is so odd about two skulls incongruent with one another. Why do that pull such amazement? Why do the skulls 'suppose' to look or be the same? Why shouldn't anyone find different skulls that comprise of different facial features? What is so interesting about that? Why does it need studies? Certain regions or land areas in Europe houses different groups with different phenotype. Why can't it be possible in Africa? If it is possible, why do it wound up with a "true negro" and "not-negro" concept?
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ I understood what you were saying, and this erroneous distinction is made simply to hide the African influence in the near east and Southern Europe, because as mentioned, there is no homogeneous Mediterranean group of people, it's all a ruse. They try to explain the elongation of the skull and certain features as "Caucasoid" which to anyone who knows better, will know it's nonsense.
This has already been discussed here so we know the deal when they speak of erroneous "Caucasoid" pre-historic Africans, which is an oxymoron in itself, which was dealt with accordingly and debunked a long time ago on ES.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: ----------------------------------- When intelligent persons like Howells make disingenuous arguments they are relying on lazy-thinking audiences, who don't recognize contradictions, and won't ask intelligent questions.
-----------------------------------
quote:Gargoyle write: He can't make up his mind. In one sentence its "Heeeee'ssss intelligent and briiiiiiliaaant" then in the next its "they be racists".
^ Gargoyle be stupid.
Intelligent thangs be goin right over his head.
When he try to think...he getta headache.
Then he start mewlin' like and old women haven menapause. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
He's got a real racial obsession with Africans doesn't he? I guess when you're a phillopeeeeno its better than obsessing his own worthless people. LOL
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
why bump stuff without adding a comment or saying why you are bumping it?
I say this because when I see people do it, it almost never rekindles the thread. It's more like "I don't like the current threads, let me put up some old threads I do like".
or
"this old thread on this topic was good, I don't like the new one, let's go dig up an old thread and continue our 2008 opinions"
The thing is, it doesn't work Nobody replies unless you bring some new information to the old thread Otherwise it's - been there done that
Djehuti often refers to old threads but he does so in current threads of the same topic by putting up the URLS of the old threads in a post in the new thread. "we already discussed that here...." he usually says
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Lioness. Why bump this ancient thread for no reason? In fact Im now entertaining locking it.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bumped it because the topic is something we continually rehash here over and over. If topics were addressed in running threads or those threads referred to instead of new ones it would be a different issue.
And it puts these newer threads in context of stuff that has gone before, given that they aren't "new" topics.
But I forgot there is a policy thread on this forum and bumping old threads was called out there.... my mistake.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic