posted
EVERY SITE HAS ITS OWN FLAVOUR. HERE I SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I LEARN FROM THIS OTHER UNUSUAL SITE. OVER THERE, THEY ARE BIG ON THIS SSA THING!
[quote="William"][quote="Jaime"]And sorry William, but while some claims of JA Rogers are valid, others are way over the top. Tunnel vision research.[/quote]
That is essentially what I wrote. Nowhere will you find that I've written that all of his work is to be regarded as correct or valid. The claims he made that were based on eyeballing are certainly to be treated with a raised eyebrow. To be fair, he sometimes quoted others (some of whom were anthropologists) who made similar claims that are just as suspect. This is what I like least about Rogers's work. Other claims, such as the Olmecs having been "Negroid," etc. also don't hold water. But here again, he often quotes others in these cases, and does not merely give his own opinion.
However, the fact remains that generally, the basic data given about sub-Saharan admixture having occurred in various places, notably in Europe and the Middle East, is quite accurate. I also like very much the actual examples he gives of Afro-European mixing.[/quote]
[quote="William"]I browsed through Rogers's books tonight, and even though I have read them a few times, every time I look through them I am in awe that one man researched, wrote, and published all of this himself. He must have been very bright, and he did an excellent job. Of course, as mentioned above, claims made about people based on eyeballing are not very persuasive. To be sure, some other claims about this or that group being "Negroid" seem a bit farfetched as well; but in nearly all of these cases, he cites the work of someone else, usually an anthropologist. He is not merely making this stuff up. So, these beliefs, whatever we may think of them now, were once held by some members of the scientific community or other prominent people. There are numerous quotations. As said before, his examples of Afro-European mixing, and the data given about the absorption of Africans into European and other populations, are interesting in the extreme, and quite accurate. Rogers was remarkable in that he did not believe in the existence of biological races. In his time, belief in same was standard. So, it must be remembered when he uses words such as "Negroid" he is referring to an appearance resembling some Africans, and, incidentally, does not always suggest this sort of appearance is due to direct mixture with sub-Saharans.
I am impressed that Egmond knows of the work of Rogers, and also the work of Snowden, whose two books I also have.[/quote]
quote: I do vaguely recall reading about the pigmentation of the folks of Pays de Vaud and also the region between Cambrai and Tournai. Rogers mentions that some observers have noticed "Negroid" traits in the population of southern France, notably Auvergne and Gascony. He mentions that the last expulsion of the Moors from Spain resulted in the settlement of many in this region of France at the invitation of the King. In Belgium, even prior to the arrival of the Spaniards with their African troops, there was supposedly a "black-skinned race." Rogers quotes a writer who mentioned this.
quote: David McRitchie wrote extensively in the late 1800s about various folks of the British Isles who didn't look European to anthropologists of the day. Some of it, accoring to him and those he quoted, was due to later admixture, and some of it seemed to be due to phenotypes of earlier, non-European-looking Brits not having been completely eradicated. He mentioned Mongolian and "Negroid" faces. He also consulted literature describing earlier people of Britain, including those who invaded it, and found descriptions of swarthy Danes, etc. His conclusion was that Brits can't be considered a "White" folk.
I find this fascinating to research, but am not 100% sure what to make of it all.
quote: Coon also says some of these types (such as the "Mongoloid"-looking or Ainu-like Frenchmen) have been around since early times, probably relics of distant prehistoric Europeans. He seems to feel that some of the non-European-appearing types are from ancient European stock (like the Frenchmen), whereas some result from admixture (like Asiatic-looking Hungarians and other Eastern Euros). He doesn't see any distinct "Negroid" traits in southern Europeans for the most part, though. He does mention the occasional person with frizzly hair as a possible example of minor sub-Saharan admixture, and he says the skull of the Mediterranean "race" has "Negroid" tendencies. But he doesn't agree with authors that claim southern Europeans are significantly admixed with Africans; and genetics supports this. There is admixture, but it would appear that genetically it is too little to really be noticeable.
Guenther, on the other hand, seems to regard all ambiguous types as having non-European admixture.
quote: I assure you that the purpose of this site is not to allow folks to espouse Eurocentric views, Afrocentric views, or any other such views. The purpose is to teach and learn about U.S. racialism. Of course, related subjects are also welcomed and discussed, such as DNA admixture in America, Europe, and elsewhere, and the concept of "race" as it exists in different countries. But if someone is found to advocate Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, or any other "-ism," moderators will step in. That is not tolerated here.
Surely you jest by suggesting our discussion group is a sect with the administrator being a sect leader. I personally take offense to that. The reason why Frank established the rule that unsubstantiated claims are not to be tolerated is to uphold our status as one of the few sites whose data can be trusted. We get many hits from colleges and universities. If we allowed unsupported claims to be made, we would join the ranks of the countless other sites that are run by ideologues of one sort or another.
posted
What do you mean by they're big on the SSA(Sub Sahara) thing?
If only we had a moderator over here, you'd get the suspension you deserve just like you did on Onedroprule.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Who is this poster, knowledge?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which poster? I am referring towards the creator of the thread
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Which poster? I am referring towards the creator of the thread
Im refering to the Edgmound character.....do you know hm/her from another board...it is a little weird...it seems obsessed with race mixing in Europe.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Which poster? I am referring towards the creator of the thread
Im refering to the Edgmound character.....do you know hm/her from another board...it is a little weird...it seems obsessed with race mixing in Europe.
I personally am not a member of ODR.org. But this kid Egmond seems to have posted similarly to what he posts here, in other sites such as ODR, and has received a suspension for not being able to provide substantial evidence for what he says.
Simply I wish the moderator were around to erase pretty much all of his threads and posts, as they're lowering standards of Egyptsearch. Which to me is an "on the low" Euro-centric technique to ruin this site and make future members wary of posting on this forum. The claims Egmond has are outrageous.
WHO NEEDS FRIENDS WITH ENEMIES LIKE YOU, BROADCASTING MY FAME ALL OVER THE WORLD. THEY HAVE AT THE ODR SITE A SYSTEM OF SUSPENSIONS FOR NOT ADHERING TO THEIR THOUSAND RULES: LIKE FIRST YOU GET 24 HOURS, NEXT TWO DAYS, NEXT FOUR DAYS AND SO ON. MY LAST SUSPENSION LASTED A MONTH. NELSON MANDELA SPENT 27 YEARS IN JAIL! WELL AT LEAST I GOT THESE ANTI-RACIALISTS, AS THEY CALL THEMSELVES, TO TALK FOR SIX PAGES ABOUT MY HIGHLY ORIGINAL THESIS. I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF COPIYING WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Which poster? I am referring towards the creator of the thread
Im refering to the Edgmound character.....do you know hm/her from another board...it is a little weird...it seems obsessed with race mixing in Europe.
I personally am not a member of ODR.org. But this kid Egmond seems to have posted similarly to what he posts here, in other sites such as ODR, and has received a suspension for not being able to provide substantial evidence for what he says.
Simply I wish the moderator were around to erase pretty much all of his threads and posts, as they're lowering standards of Egyptsearch. Which to me is an "on the low" Euro-centric technique to ruin this site and make future members wary of posting on this forum. The claims Egmond has are outrageous.
posted
From the odr.site by Salsassin Posted: Wed 29 Nov 2006
FORENSICS AND RACE
quote:: From : Bernard Ortiz de Montellano Sent : Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:13 AM To : Jaime Pretell Subject : forensics and race
Forensics are very weak in identifiying race see: keyword-race;keyword-africa;keyword-forensic
George Armelagos and Dennis P. Van Gerven. 2003. "A Century of Skeletal Biology and Paleopathology: Contrasts, Contradictions, and Conflicts," American Anthropologist 105 (#1): 53-64
"Goodman (1997) demonstrated that the 85-90 percent accuracy claimed by forensic anthropologists is seriously misleading. High levels of accuracy can be achieved only when the skulls meet extremely limiting criteria. For example, Giles and Elliot's (1962) discriminant function formula is based on a reference sample of known composition, and it can indeed achieve a 85-90 percent accuracy. This level of accuracy is reached only when tested against additional specimens from the same reference sample. When applied to independent samples of known composition (the true measure of its success), the method is less than 20 percent accurate (Goodman 1997)-- a figure that hardly inspires confidence in forensic anthropology's ability to race a skull notwithstanding Gill's confidence. Poor performance has not disabused forensic anthropologist [sic] from selling the method. Fordisc 2.0 (Ousley and Jantz 1996) is a computer program designed to diagnose any skull into one of Howell's geographic populations. The program, however, is seriously flawed (Kosiba 2000). When applied to a cranial [sic] from a known African population (Belcher et al. 2002; Leathers et al. 2002), some fifty percent were placed in non-African categories. The failure is interesting if we allow ourselves to think beyond the applied box. The program forced a solution based on a priori racial criteria presumed (as all racial schemes do) to delimit patterns of real human variation. What we see with the African test is the result of an astounding mismatch between actual cranial variation and the variation modeled by racial constructs. As we have known for decades, so-called racial traits are nonconcordant, and the races we get are little more than a function of the trait or traits we use. Sadly the response has ben directed more toward fixing the program rather than fixing the approach. ******* keyword-race;keyword-africa;keyword-forensic
Allan Goodman. 1997. "Bred in the Bone?" The Sciences (march/April): 20-25
p. 22. Like Snow, the authors of forensic texts and review articles typically maintain that the race of a skull can be correctly identified between 85 and 90percent of the time. The scientific reference for these estimates-- if cited as anything other than common knowledge-- is a single groundbreaking study by the physical anthropologists Eugene Giles, at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, and Orville S. Elliot, at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. In the early 1960s Giles and Elliot measured the skulls of modern, adult blacks and whites who had died in Missouri and Ohio, many of them at the turn of the century, as well as Native American skulls from a prehistoric site in Indian Knoll, Kentucky. Using a statistical equation known own as a discriminant function, they then identified a combination of eight measurements that could determine a skull's "race" once its sex was known. When Giles and Elliot applied the formula to additional skulls from the same collections, it a greed with the race assigned to the deceased at death between 80 and 90 percent of the time. To be useful, however, the formula has to work in places other than Missouri, Ohio and prehistoric Kentucky. I have found four retests of the Giles and Elliot method, and their results do not inspire confidence. Two of the retests restricted themselves to native American skulls: in one of them almost two-thirds of the skulls were correctly classified as Native Americans; in the second, only 31 percent were correctly classified. For the other two studies, in which the skulls were of mixed race, skulls were correctly identified as native American just 18.2 percent and 14.3 percent of the time. Thus in three of four tests, the formula proved less accurate than a random assignment of races to skulls-- not even good enough for government work. Contemporary Native American skulls may be particularly hard to classify because the formula is based on a very old sample. But the four retests were carried out on complete crania that had already been sexed, a necessary prerequisite to determining race. Forensic anthropologists often have much less to go on.Moreover, native Americans are easier to classify than Hispanics or Southeast Asians, not to mention infants, children or adolescents of any race. At best, in other words, racial identifications are depressingly inaccurate. At worst, they are completely haphazard. ******** keyword-race;keyword-New World;keyword-craniometry
Ann H. Ross, Douglas H. Ubelaker, and Anthony B. Falsetti. 2003. "Craniometric Variation in the Americas," Human Biology 74: 807-818.
p. 816 .... However, our results, although preliminary and based on some groups with small sample sizes, indicate that there may have been much diversity among Latin American populations and that the Americas were much more heterogeneous than previously thought. Interestingly, the morphological similarities between precontact Mexico and coastal Ecuador from Ayatlan and the dissimilarity to the Howells Peruvian sample seem to contradict conclusions by Ruhlen (1994) and others that south America was populated by a single migration from North America. These results also provide further support for the argument that different populations peopled the New World (Schurr et al 1999; Schurr and Wallace 1991). Since craniofacial morphological similarities to some degree reflect genetic relationships, we can further extrapolate that the morphological similarity between Mexico and coastal Ecuador may have been a result of early demic expansion concurring with the archaeological evidence of contact between Mexico and coastal Ecuador (Ubelaker 1987). In addition, the morphological dissimilarity of the precontact Cuban sample to the other American populations probably suggests a different origin.... However, the most recognized Antillean dispersal hypothesis is a direct jump by agriculturalists from Venezuela followed by dispersal into the Lesser Antilles westward (Keegan 1995; Moreira de Lima 1999). The FST results lend further support for the strong craniometric differentiation among Latin American and Caribbean populations. These FST are much greater than those obtained by Varela and Cocilovo (2002) for the Azapa Valley and coast of Chile and those obtained by Rothhammer et al. (1990) for living Aymara groups in Chile and Bolivia.
posted
THESE ARE THE ODR.ORG RULES ABOUT BLACK AND SSA I WAS TALKING ABOUT. TO ME, THIS SSA CLAIM (ABOUT THIS 'TRUE NEGROES' NONSENSE!)IS EXTREMELY RACIST AND INVENTED SO THEY CAN HAVE IT ALWAYS BOTH WAYS. BECAUSE EVEN PITCH BLACK IS SUDDENLY WHITE. WHEN A GROUP IS IN CONTROL THEY DECIDE WHAT IS WHITE AND WHAT IS BLACK. SO BLACK CAN BE WHITE, BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
3.3.11. black — The word “black” has different meanings that are easily confused. Readers often misunderstand which meaning was intended by the writer, especially since many readers are not native speakers of U.S. English. For example, each of the following sentences uses the word to mean something different: “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” “The untouchables of India are Black.” “Australian Aborigines self-identify as Black.” “Walter White was actually Black even though he looked White.” “Black people around the world, especially in Asia and the Middle East, were exploited and oppressed by European conquest and colonization.”
Two usages are particularly confusing: African-American and Sub-Saharan. Most usages of “Black” on this site refer to the African-American ethnic community as in, “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” To avoid ambiguity use “African American” instead (or A-A for short). Another usage denotes someone of apparently African phenotype or ancestry. As in, “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” To avoid ambiguity use “sub-Saharan ancestry” instead (or SSA for short). The two usages of “Black” in combination make your text virtually unintelligible. If you write, for example “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches and most Brazilians have Black ancestry, ” no one will be able to decipher what you mean. The first clause uses “Black” to mean “African American” (since the vast majority of Brazilians are Catholics), but the second then suggests that most Brazilians have African-American ancestors (obviously a false statement). But if the reader assumes that “Black” means “sub-Saharan,” then the second clause makes sense (most Brazilians really do have some sub-Saharan ancestry) but the first clause is obviously false, since Protestant church-centered neighborhoods are unique to North America. And so, always avoid using “Black,” rather than the site-recommended terms, “African-American (A-A)” or “Sub-Saharan (SSA)” unless you make very clear which meaning you intended. Never strive for deliberate ambiguity. Never refuse to clarify which meaning you intended. And never insist, for example, that Australian Aborigines are “Black” in the same sense that Walter White was “Black.”
3.3.12 mixed (biracial, multiracial, mulatto, etc.) — These terms are often employed with three different meanings: self-identity, DNA, and appearance. Confusion results when members fail to make clear which of those meanings they intend in any given message.
Self-identity mixed — refers to people who, when asked which side of the color line they are on, answer something other than solely “Black” or solely “White.” For example, less than 3 percent of the U.S. population who check off “Black” on the census, also check off something else. So, according to the census, less than three percent of African Americans are self-identity mixed.
Genetically mixed — refers to people whose autosomal DNA shows both subsaharan and European ancestry-informative markers. For example, one-third of the White U.S. population and virtually all African-Americans show markers from both continents. In this sense, virtually all Black Americans and one-third of White Americans are mixed.
Visually mixed — refers to people who, in the eyes of the person writing, “look mixed.” For example, to the person writing these words, Mariah Carey looks unmixed White.
When you use the term “mixed” (biracial, multiracial, mulatto, etc.) please make clear which of those meanings you intend. You will not be challenged if the context makes your meaning clear. For example, most threads in the “Molecular Anthropology” forum deal with genetic admixture while most in the “Issues for Biracial Americans” forum refer to ethno-political self-identity. But you will be warned by a moderator if your meaning is not clear. Finally, your posting privilege will be suspended if you do not clarify which meaning you intend or if you are deliberately ambiguous in this regard.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Which poster? I am referring towards the creator of the thread
Im refering to the Edgmound character.....do you know hm/her from another board...it is a little weird...it seems obsessed with race mixing in Europe.
I personally am not a member of ODR.org. But this kid Egmond seems to have posted similarly to what he posts here, in other sites such as ODR, and has received a suspension for not being able to provide substantial evidence for what he says.
Simply I wish the moderator were around to erase pretty much all of his threads and posts, as they're lowering standards of Egyptsearch. Which to me is an "on the low" Euro-centric technique to ruin this site and make future members wary of posting on this forum. The claims Egmond has are outrageous.
Sad, but true...I mean Egyptsearch used to be a site more dedicated to Africana rather than bogus Afrocentric claims of Black China or in Edmund's case...Black Dutch...etc.
It is also up to us to bring more Educated and informative threads to discuss rather than fight trolls all day.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange for you to tarry at my threat, while you should be posting interesting stuff elsewhere. You guys make me sound powerfull. As far I can see I'm dealing with one-trick-ponies, which are BORING. Anonimous nobodies too. Then stupid, for not noticing that one person, Djehuti, is using twenty nicks on this forum. You are pushing so-called 'science' coming out of the belly of a deceitful, racist, genocidal monster called western civilisation. It's designed to oppress and kill more Black people while keeping them ignorant of their true history. But I would not think of saying that you cannot print what you like. I just don't pay to much attention to your ****. Oke?
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well, as I said: Boring, Stupid Anonimous Nobodies. That's one hell of a feed-back, wouldn't you say? Now go and MAKE it work!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read the ODR rules on the use and meaning of Black (again). They are much, much shorter than a long article of the once Free Dictionary. Important stuff is missing, I feel. Personally I'm from the Sheick Anta Diop School which rejects the SSA division, because of the many arguments which were given. The 'offending' prognatism is found in the whole of Africa. Linguisticly Africa is one culture. Egypts was for African Civilisation what Greece was for Europe. The pharao's and their court looked like Classical Africans. But I accept that scientist differ in conclusion using the same data. Yesterday I looked at Ripley/Coon and saw that the whole of Africa has a uniform skull index, while Europe has several. Why do we not divide the Europeans, but are so adamant about the poor Africans? My greatest question is: Why a 'anti-racialist' site as OneDropRule.org would use this SSA thing. Me?, I loath it!
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: THESE ARE THE ODR.ORG RULES ABOUT BLACK AND SSA I WAS TALKING ABOUT. TO ME, THIS SSA CLAIM (ABOUT THIS 'TRUE NEGROES' NONSENSE!)IS EXTREMELY RACIST AND INVENTED SO THEY CAN HAVE IT ALWAYS BOTH WAYS. BECAUSE EVEN PITCH BLACK IS SUDDENLY WHITE. WHEN A GROUP IS IN CONTROL THEY DECIDE WHAT IS WHITE AND WHAT IS BLACK. SO BLACK CAN BE WHITE, BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS THEM.
3.3.11. black — The word “black” has different meanings that are easily confused. Readers often misunderstand which meaning was intended by the writer, especially since many readers are not native speakers of U.S. English. For example, each of the following sentences uses the word to mean something different: “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” “The untouchables of India are Black.” “Australian Aborigines self-identify as Black.” “Walter White was actually Black even though he looked White.” “Black people around the world, especially in Asia and the Middle East, were exploited and oppressed by European conquest and colonization.”
Two usages are particularly confusing: African-American and Sub-Saharan. Most usages of “Black” on this site refer to the African-American ethnic community as in, “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches.” To avoid ambiguity use “African American” instead (or A-A for short). Another usage denotes someone of apparently African phenotype or ancestry. As in, “Many Brazilians have Black ancestry.” To avoid ambiguity use “sub-Saharan ancestry” instead (or SSA for short). The two usages of “Black” in combination make your text virtually unintelligible. If you write, for example “Black neighborhood traditions center on Protestant churches and most Brazilians have Black ancestry, ” no one will be able to decipher what you mean. The first clause uses “Black” to mean “African American” (since the vast majority of Brazilians are Catholics), but the second then suggests that most Brazilians have African-American ancestors (obviously a false statement). But if the reader assumes that “Black” means “sub-Saharan,” then the second clause makes sense (most Brazilians really do have some sub-Saharan ancestry) but the first clause is obviously false, since Protestant church-centered neighborhoods are unique to North America. And so, always avoid using “Black,” rather than the site-recommended terms, “African-American (A-A)” or “Sub-Saharan (SSA)” unless you make very clear which meaning you intended. Never strive for deliberate ambiguity. Never refuse to clarify which meaning you intended. And never insist, for example, that Australian Aborigines are “Black” in the same sense that Walter White was “Black.”
3.3.12 mixed (biracial, multiracial, mulatto, etc.) — These terms are often employed with three different meanings: self-identity, DNA, and appearance. Confusion results when members fail to make clear which of those meanings they intend in any given message.
Self-identity mixed — refers to people who, when asked which side of the color line they are on, answer something other than solely “Black” or solely “White.” For example, less than 3 percent of the U.S. population who check off “Black” on the census, also check off something else. So, according to the census, less than three percent of African Americans are self-identity mixed.
Genetically mixed — refers to people whose autosomal DNA shows both subsaharan and European ancestry-informative markers. For example, one-third of the White U.S. population and virtually all African-Americans show markers from both continents. In this sense, virtually all Black Americans and one-third of White Americans are mixed.
Visually mixed — refers to people who, in the eyes of the person writing, “look mixed.” For example, to the person writing these words, Mariah Carey looks unmixed White.
When you use the term “mixed” (biracial, multiracial, mulatto, etc.) please make clear which of those meanings you intend. You will not be challenged if the context makes your meaning clear. For example, most threads in the “Molecular Anthropology” forum deal with genetic admixture while most in the “Issues for Biracial Americans” forum refer to ethno-political self-identity. But you will be warned by a moderator if your meaning is not clear. Finally, your posting privilege will be suspended if you do not clarify which meaning you intend or if you are deliberately ambiguous in this regard.
posted
HOW THE RULES ARE ENFORCED BY MR. FRANK W. SWEET AT ODR.ORG
[Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise And Triumph of the One-drop Rule (Paperback) by Frank W. Sweet (Author)]
Posted: Mon 01 Sep 2008 12:01
I sympathize with Codfried's explanation that he is incapable of sticking to a topic, or of starting a new topic whenever his mind wanders. Nevertheless, those are the rules of this site. This thread is now about human adaptation. The next time that Codfried changes the subject without starting a new thread will result in his suspension for one month. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
For injecting value judgement into a non-political forum in violation of rule 1.3, for changing the subject without starting a new thread in violation of rule 3.5 despite repeated warnings, and for expressing an opinion in "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" without having read an introductory textbook on the subject in violation of rule 3.1.3, Codfried's posting privilege is hereby suspended until midnight, October 2, 2008. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
Egmond Codfried wrote: I came to this site today, fully expecting my Surinam Black ass to be terminated.
You are unlikely to be "terminated," but you are very likely to be suspended for one week. See Rule 5.0: The Rules wrote: Regardless of which rule you violate, the process of suspension is the same. A moderator will warn you and try to help you comply. If you persist in violation or defy a moderator your membership level will be dropped to level 2 (no posting privileges except private messages and site management) for a time period that increments by powers of two. In other words, your first suspension will be for for one week, the second for two weeks, the next for one month, then two months, then four months, etc.
The main problem I see is that you have been asked several direct, questions by moderators, but your answers have been mainly introspective non-sequiturs about your own experiences. You are starting to give the site's management team the impression that you cannot (or will not) settle down to factual specifics. Egmond Codfried wrote: Medical science informs us that in twenty percent of all births the man who is named as the biological father is not the biological father of the child.
Source, please. The only study I know that addressed this was by Brian Sykes, who compared Y haplotypes with surnames in the UK. His number was much smaller (around one percent).
Incidentally, I moved this thread from the "History of the U.S. One-Drop Rule" because it is about Europe rather than the U.S. and it is apparently about a tendency for a society to see Whiteness in ambiguity, rather than to see Blackness (which is what the ODR is about). _________________ Frank W. Sweet
Egmond Codfried wrote: the ballyhoo about her unusual looks would be unclear to those who know only these White fakes.
fwsweet wrote: You have yet to provide replicable objective evidence that portraits of Euro aristocracy that do not show subsaharan features are fakes. Until you do (or until you find a source that agrees with you), please stop making this claim. Our readers know that you sincerely believe this. Repeating your belief adds nothing.
Egmond Codfried wrote: How do I find someone to support my claim? Yes, by broadcasting this claim!... [continuing non-sequitur]
The issue was solely your claim that portraits showing European-looking Europeans are faked. Nothing more. You have answered a straighforward request with a non-sequitur for the last time. Your posting priviledge is hereby suspensed until midnight, July 31, 2008. Do not resume posting portraits of European nobility that you see as "Black" when you return or you will immediately be suspended again. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
Egmond Codfried wrote: I typed in Google the word 'Cape Verdians.' You see, I have this thing for portraits and images. Lets take it from here, and not speak of these people as some ghost. They look Black to me, as they should with West Africa lurking nearby. A security person at this library is Cape Verdian, with very light skin but frizzy hair, broad nose and thick, pink lips. He considers himself Black and added "Thank God!'
Codfried's opinion of the looks of Cape Verdeans is irrelevant to their ethno-political self-identity. The ethno-political self-identity of an acquaintance of Codfried's is irrelelvant to the ethno-political self-identity of the Cape Verdeans themselves. Codfried is in violation of rule 2.6 and his posting privilege is hereby suspended until mdnight, October 2, 2008.
Anyone else interested in Americans of Cape Verdean descent should read Marilyn Halter, Between Race and Ethnicity: Cape Verdean American Immigrants, 1860-1965 (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1993) or some other serious study of this fascinating U.S. community before opining on their ethno-political self-identity. As always, criticising their (or anyone's) choice of ethno-political self-identity is grounds for suspension. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
Egmond Codfried wrote: How can I find out why Miller got suspended so I might be informed and learn not to make the same mistake?
He was supended for saying that the members of this site are "redneck mo'fos" or might as well be. When I warned him that this accusation was ad hominem he said that it was not offensive, because some people like to be called "redneck mo'fos". The immediate trigger for his suspension was his violation of rules 2.2 and 4.7. To avoid making the same mistake, if you hurl a personal insult ("redneck mo'fo") at the entire site membership, retract it when warned by a moderator. Do not re-affirm the insult by sayng some people like being called "redneck mo'fo".
The entire exchange leading up to Miller's supension is here. You will find an explanation of what constitutes ad hominem here. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
posted
Some folks on that website are truly ignorant of African physical diversity.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Some folks on that website are truly ignorant of African physical diversity.
I must admit that not everything on this ODR site is bad or strange. And people are free not to join. So I do not say they are bad people, not out to bash them. Just trying to understand ´the other side,´ and why the hell people cannot understand my theories. They do have some ´neutrality´ policy about certain matters which is bothersome. But Mr. Sweet really beliefs in this SSA thing.
Eurocentrism is totally unreasonable but people are indoctrinated to accept this nonsense. Indoctrination goes one the whole day, every day, every where you turn. And they are )made) scared shitless for Black domination, which blocks the mind from seeing certain truths about Black people.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Frank Sweet: The point is that the paintings are as imaginary as paintings of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.
Three warnings:
(1) Use respectful language. The use of "honey" above is a form of ad homnem.
(2) Keep you voice down. The upper-case above is childish.
(3) Stop posting your blue-blood = black-blood speculation anywhere but in the threads designated for this topic. The next time you do it your posting privilege will be suspended without warning. If this is some sort of a contest to see how many threads you can force me to split off by injecting your speculation everywhere, stop it now. _________________ Frank W. Sweet
posted
U.S. GOVERNMENT FORCING BLACK MAN TO BE WHITE: DR. HEFNY HAS TO GIVE UP HIS BLACK IDENTITY AND HERITAGE OR...
HAVE HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER DESTROYED AND HIS RIGHTS SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATED.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: AUGUST 28, 1999
Contact Dr. Hefny:Tel/Fax(313)893-7771 Contact Rev. Dr. Virgil Jones: Tel(313)832-6855 and fax (313)832-3333
[Detroit]
This is regardiing a current important civil rights issues which is well documented and well covered by the media, and which will come before the Congress and the Courts. This issue involves the Nubians who are blacks or Negroes according to the Census Bureau, and according to the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, but who are classified as whites according to various regulations of the U.S. government including the Office of Mangagement and Budget derective No.15 and the office of the EEOC. This issue also involves a Nubian (from Egypt) and a naturalized U.S. citizen, Dr. Mostafa Hefny, whose professional career is being destroyed and his rights systematically violated essentially because he is proud of his black heritage and seeking to be classified as the black man that he is.
The U.S. government racial classification system defies science, logic, and common sense. It misclassifies and violates the constitutional rights and the civil rights of many groups. How can Ayatollah Khomini(the Iranians) be white? This issue has received extensive coverage in the local, national, and international media including coverage in the Detroit local affiliates of ABC, NBC, and CBS, The Detroit News, CNN, and the British newspaper The Telegraph. We will like to send you a copy of our 4-page website and a color photo of Dr. Hefny( who is classified as white) and two African American pastors (who are classified as blacks) so you can see how this classification
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
EGMOND CODFRIED IS AGAIN SUSPENDED FROM ONEDROPRULE.ORG FOR THE 'RIDICULE' OF ITS MEMBERS. IT SEEMS THAT ADRESSING SOMEONE AS 'HONEY' IS CONSIDERED AN AD HOMINEM OFFENCE. THIS SUSPENSION OUGHT TO LAST TWO MONTHS BUT PERHAPS OTHER OR NEW RULES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE. AS A OUTSIDER I HAVE WONDERED IF THIS ODR SITE COULD BE SEEN AS A METAPHOR FOR THE USA. IF PEOPLE COULD NAME THE PROBLEM AT ODR, THEY COULD AT ONCE SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA. READ ALL ABOUT IT!
[Collecting bits and pieces from the street to make one of these for my frontdoor]
Interesting. Knowl. was adamant, until a week ago, that I should be suspended from his ES forum, but is now posting answers in one of the '50' bothersome, 'bogus science' threads I started. What a difference a goddam day makes, aint it?
I like to be judged by my diverse output as I read, converse, think, travel, cook, eat, sport, bike, garden, write, observe, research and make love (also research!); all the time and try to have a fair and informed view of the world. Try to keep away from hate. This is what I consider civilized.
I'm dedicated to see a change and believe that the internet can be a way. But I regret that the internet is taken over by citified trash, diseased minds with a sick need to insult and vent their poison.
It’s surprising that from the thousands of members nearly no one dares to discuss alternative love in a grown up way. On this particular forum I never hear a woman’s voice. And very few non-Americans.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic