posted
Why can't niggers just admit that Ethiopians are a race of mongrels?
All of the available genetic/anthropological evidence clearly demonstrates that Ethiopians, Somalis etc. are a race of mongrels or at best, actually constitute a separate Aethiopid race.
So why do niggercentrics always freak out when people say that North eastern Africans are mongrels?
The only reason why niggercentrics wish to deny the fact that Ethiopians are partially Eurasian in racial stock is because Ethiopians and others with a substantial Eurasian genetic component are the only North eastern Africans to cluster with Egyptians, albeit not as closely as Mediterranean Caucasoids. By denying that Ethiopians are partially Eurasian/Caucasoid in terms of racial admixture, the niggercentrics can claim that the Caucasoid features of the Egyptians falls within "the range of African variation." This is why niggercentrics always get mad when people say that Ethiopians are mongrels, because connecting themselves in some shape or form with Egypt, no matter how remote, is the only shot at greatness they will ever really have in their miserable lives. The fact that Ethiopians are partially or even mostly Caucasoid in terms of underlying genetic structure clearly indicates that Egyptians are definitely not negroes.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethiopians and other north east AFricans are approximately 40% E3a. And ZERO R1b, R1a and hg-I.
So what the fucghk are you talking about. Some Egyptians carry Hg-R but in small number because of RECENT European migration. Wish you will learn to fucgking read and analyze. Why don't you get the fucgk outta here if you have ZERO critical thinking skills.
Stop eyeballing pics of East Africans and talking junk and making assumptions.
Can't you fuckging understand which comes first. . . the chicken or the egg.
fucgking cockroach!!!
If you have to critique make fucgking sense!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
We know that you are copying your posts from MediterraneanPride and Gynophobic on Arguewitheveryone. My suspicion is that you are really RealOne who I busted for copying posts from Gyno. Then this account mysteriously pops up claiming it is ok for people to copy their posts.
Yet the real Gyno vehemently denies being you. Do you know how pathetic that makes you look?
The Tishkoff study you cited does not say that Ethiopians are Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids. It says they are intermediate between other Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians but intermediate does not mean hybrid. Eurasians populations are a sub-set of Northeast Africans who traveled out of Africa.
Africa is the birthplace of the human species and hosts the most genetically diverse populations in the world which includes a variety of physical characteristics.
The narrow noses and faces of tropical Northeast Africans are an adaptation to a hot-dry climate. This isn't simply an Afrocentric position this is mainstream biological anthropology.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years.- Brace (1993)
And under what racial classification system do hybrid populations become separate races (which imply "pure" evolutionary distinct sub-species)?
The Eurocentrists are going to have to do better than trying to White Wash African populations to take Egypt out of Africa.
Not only do their physical characteristics cluster with tropical Northeast Africans but their language and culture indicate a tropical Northeast African origin. This is also supported by archeological evidence.
You can keep copying from those idiots on that other board Brainsmashed but the only thing getting smashed is your arguments.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol.. Beautiful quote from Brace. Their own guy whom they love, debunks the "white Ethiopians" aka the "Wandering Caucasoids"!
wandering caucasoids!
You have told him the facts again and again- that the "intermediate" position of Ethiopians have nothing to do with race.
And even using his own racial model Cavalli-Sforza makes the Ethiopians 60% Afrian derived. So the main weight is with Africans. He debunked himself with his own scholars he frequently quotes. And notice how he shifts. He started out calling the Ethiopians "white Mediteraneans" then totally defeated on that argument, he changed his tune to now call them "mongrels" but mostly white.
But even this dodge won't help cover his tracks. He debunks his "white Ethiopian" claims with his own diagram. The closest match to the Ethiopians is other dark-skinned tropically adapted peoples like Somalis who are "sub-Saharans" and Papuans/Melanesian types. Also closer than Europeans or Middle Easterners are other tropical peoples like South African Nama. He debunked himself with his own reference!
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever way it lies africans have a far greater connection to egypt being on the african continent than anyone from the historically barbaric northwest europe or the british isles.ZERO R1b, R1a and hg-I being a very strong indicator of that.
-------------------- When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you. -African Proverb Posts: 70 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Modern Egyptians carry I think R1a and other Asiatic lineages.
These probably came around when Greece was ruling Egypt.
As for whether "Ancient" Egyptians were more African then of course they were becuase they are linked to East Africans like the Ethiopians, Somalis etc.
Trying to take Egypt out of Africa, means you have to take these other regions out of Africa also, which is why we have people jump through hoops to claim that Ethiopians are somehow "Black Skinned Whites" its real pathetic for people to think that anyone would take them seriously after making statements like that.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what imbecile don't get. The cockroach has no critical thnking ability. It is simple logic.
ZERO R1a, R1b and hg-I means that ZERO Europeans were present in the Horn area. That means the "Caucasiod" features he is eyeballing and attributing to admixture is NOT from nordic or ANY europeans. There are NO white European lineage present in the Area. Which means NO white men were there in prehistory or dynastic times.
To complicate his "theory" - about 40% of East Africans(and a smaller quantity in Egyptians) are the dreaded E3a west african lineage. That means MY forefathers lineage are present in East Africa.
MY relatives are East Africans. And despites what they "look" like the male lineage are NOT European.
As I said many times the only logical steps are for Euro Racist to claim E3b, which is difficult to do. Or seperate E3a and E3b. But E31b1b got smacked down with the premise. . . . next!
@ the racist show some intellectual muscle and stop with these childish eyeballing arguments. And please read the studies you are posting before you post them.
You are becoming a nuisance.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
We know that you are copying your posts from MediterraneanPride and Gynophobic on Arguewitheveryone. My suspicion is that you are really RealOne who I busted for copying posts from Gyno. Then this account mysteriously pops up claiming it is ok for people to copy their posts.
Yet the real Gyno vehemently denies being you. Do you know how pathetic that makes you look?
yo. Yall canst beez hurtin us like dat wurd we build does pyrmaids n sheet. Dah black man inbented dah moon an dah stars an sheeeet.
quote:
The Tishkoff study you cited does not say that Ethiopians are Negroid-Caucasoid hybrids. It says they are intermediate between other Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians but intermediate does not mean hybrid. Eurasians populations are a sub-set of Northeast Africans who traveled out of Africa.
Africa is the birthplace of the human species and hosts the most genetically diverse populations in the world which includes a variety of physical characteristics.
The narrow noses and faces of tropical Northeast Africans are an adaptation to a hot-dry climate. This isn't simply an Afrocentric position this is mainstream biological anthropology.
An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. - Brace (1993)
The racial features of North eastern African populations may be an in situ response to their physical environment, but none of this changes the fact that Somalis and other Horn of Africa populations cluster more with Europeans and other Caucasoids than sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Brace et. al. (1993):
When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin...
As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa...
Given the fact that Brace has already stated on numerous occasions that the ancient Egyptians have nothing in common with sub-Saharan Negroes, I find your continued use of this author to be quite dishonest, to say the least.
The Ethiopian population in general, including the Oromo, Falasha, and Afar, consist of racially admixed Caucasoid-Negroids. Wilson et. al. (2001) writes:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somalis and horner populations would cluster with semites and meds because those horners are the proto-caucasoid the "original model" from which the progessive features derive.
Plenty of europeans like the balts,estonians et al dont bare resemblence to horners and would'nt fit the caucasoid model.It doesn't make them non european.
Cranofacial scores do not a culture make. I have alot of black ancestry [four mulatto grandparents] and have no indicators of african ancestry in terms of phenotype but my dna would testify it.I consider many of my aptitudes and cultural legacies to be African.But you imply that if a person has a caucasoid craniofacial configuration this accounts for nought.Is that your argument?
Posts: 70 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The racial features of North eastern African populations may be an in situ response to their physical environment, but none of this changes the fact that Somalis and other Horn of Africa populations cluster more with Europeans and other Caucasoids than sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Brace et. al. (1993):
--------
Now we are getting someplace. At least you are catching on and starting to build sensible argument.
These autosomal features has nothing to do with admixing with Europeans. No white man was fucgking East African women to give their decendants these "features". The evidence ? No R1a, R1b or hg-I present on the area. Once you understand that we are getting someplace.
Your next point: Do they cluster with Europeans more than other Africans to the west can now be discussed. If your point is the kids are closer to the parent than the parent to their siblings can now be discussed.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: According to Brace et. al. (1993):
When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin...
As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa...
Brace 93 found his Somali cluster by manipulating the measurement indices to shift them towards a 'Caukkazoid" range. When the TOTAL picture is viewed, Somalis are firmly an African population, by both cranio studies and DNA studies.
YOU FAIL 1- Hanihara's more recent cranio study found Somalis to group with sub-Saharans - closer with them than Europeans or Middle Easterners
YOU FAIL 2- DNA analysis from 2 studies groups Somalis closer to other Africans than to Europeans or Middle Easterners.
Given the fact that Brace has already stated on numerous occasions that the ancient Egyptians have nothing in common with sub-Saharan Negroes, I find your continued use of this author to be quite dishonest, to say the least.
Brace 93 debunks the dishonest white "white Ethiopian" or should we say, like Brace "wandering Caucasoids" theory below. Your own favorite author undermines your claims: "An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years." --C.L Brace, 1993 Clines...
YOU FAIL 3- In this Brace was correct. Certain other aspects of his methods and claims however have been debunked.
The Ethiopian population in general, including the Oromo, Falasha, and Afar, consist of racially admixed Caucasoid-Negroids. Wilson et. al. (2001) writes:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....
YOU FAIL 4- Wilson's limited study achieves its results by skewed sampling methods, such as under-representing the Oromo to cast the results in a Middle Eastern direction. Nordic Ethiopians fool? Bwa haha ahaha ahhahahahaha...
And in any event, your own diagram of 'White Ethiopians" aka BRace's "wandering Caucasoids" undermines your claim. You proferredit with fanfare, but your own reference shows the Ethiopians grouping closer to other dark-skinned tropically adapted peoples than Europeans or Middle easterners. Youshot yourself in the foot again, with your own reference.
YOU FAIL 5- in search of wandering Caucasoids...
ON 5 COUNTS YOU FAIL..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: yo. Yall canst beez hurtin us like dat wurd we build does pyrmaids n sheet. Dah black man inbented dah moon an dah stars an sheeeet.
Is that a confession, Brainsmashed?
quote:The racial features of North eastern African populations may be an in situ response to their physical environment, but none of this changes the fact that Somalis and other Horn of Africa populations cluster more with Europeans and other Caucasoids than sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Brace et. al. (1993):
When the nonadaptive aspects of craniofacial configuration are the basis for assessment, the Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin... As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa...
Given the fact that Brace has already stated on numerous occasions that the ancient Egyptians have nothing in common with sub-Saharan Negroes, I find your continued use of this author to be quite dishonest, to say the least.
I guess your brain is too smashed to write your own posts but I'll deal with MediterraneanPride's garbage anyway.
First of all stating that the craniofacial features are an in situ adaptation to the Northeast African environment contradictions the idea that that they inherited these traits from admixture with "wandering Caucasoids" which makes you stupid for copying this.
Furthermore we are well aware of Brace's conclusions in 1993. We know what he got right and we know what he got wrong. The problem with the conclusions of the 1993 study are that he treats West/Central Africans like the only true Sub-Saharan group and assumes that Neolithic Europeans are craniofacially identical to modern Europeans, a mistake he corrected in his 2005 study.....
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.- Keita (2005)
In the 2005 study he does note a population relationship between modern Somali and Ancient Egyptians confirming that tropical East African biological affinities of Ancient Egyptians noted by other scholars:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.- Keita & Boyce (Egypt in Africa)
quote:The Ethiopian population in general, including the Oromo, Falasha, and Afar, consist of racially admixed Caucasoid-Negroids. Wilson et. al. (2001) writes:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....
The study does not say that Ethiopians are admixed Negroid-Caucasoids. It simply says that they cluster partially with West Eurasians which can easily be explained by the fact that West Eurasians are sub-sets of Northeast African populations. Once again this geneticist adheres to the "True Negro" model defining "Black" as only Sub-Saharan Africans such as the Bantu and people of African descent from the Diaspora. Africa is very genetically diverse. Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan Africans as well with a unique population history being that all non-Africans descend from Northeast African migrants who traveled out of Africa.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Morpheus: First of all stating that the craniofacial features are an in situ adaptation to the Northeast African environment contradicts the idea that that they inherited these traits from admixture with "wandering Caucasoids"..
Furthermore we are well aware of Brace's conclusions in 1993. We know what he got right and we know what he got wrong. The problem with the conclusions of the 1993 study are that he treats West/Central Africans like the only true Sub-Saharan group and assumes that Neolithic Europeans are craniofacially identical to modern Europeans, a mistake he corrected in his 2005 study.....
Great concise critique of Brace 93..
In the 2005 study he does note a population relationship between modern Somali and Ancient Egyptians confirming that tropical East African biological affinities of Ancient Egyptians noted by other scholars:
Perceptive analysis. Now that you mention it, Somalis are incorporated in his "Northeast African" category. Going back to look at the text again- quote:
"Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers), and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.”
They are obscured there but represent yet another spike in the "wandering Caucasoids" model.
quote:The Ethiopian population in general, including the Oromo, Falasha, and Afar, consist of racially admixed Caucasoid-Negroids. Wilson et. al. (2001) writes:
The [Wilson] study does not say that Ethiopians are admixed Negroid-Caucasoids. It simply says that they cluster partially with West Eurasians which can easily be explained by the fact that West Eurasians are sub-sets of Northeast African populations. Once again this geneticist adheres to the "True Negro" model defining "Black" as only Sub-Saharan Africans such as the Bantu and people of African descent from the Diaspora. Africa is very genetically diverse. Ethiopians are Sub-Saharan Africans as well with a unique population history being that all non-Africans descend from Northeast African migrants who traveled out of Africa.
--------------------------
Indeed.. and Wilson's sampling methods cause a good portion of the Ethiopian population to be underrepresented. When a BALANCED analysis is done as with Tishkoff above, Ethiopians cluster more and first with other Africans like Somalians, or dark-skinned tropically adapted types than with Europeans or Near Easterners..
What is amusing about the "wandering Caucasoids" model is that those who keep presenting 'evidence' in support, keep being undermined by their own references.
Gaily skip the wandering Caucasoids....Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of this means anything. According the the 1998 research of Passarino et. al., the Oromo and the Amhara are genetically indistinguishable and are therefore intermediate between non-African and sub-Saharan African populations:
Since the analyses of the two groups did not show important differences, the data from both the Ethiopian groups have been pooled.
Ethiopians in general, including Ethiopian Jews, are a genetically intermediate population centrally located between Negroids and Caucasoids; in other words, the fact that Ethiopian Jews are of indigenous genetic origin does not change the fact that they are a non-Negroid population.
You obviously have poor reading comprehension skills, you piece of filth, because the aforementioned passage clearly demonstrates that North eastern Africans are genetically distinct from sub-Saharan Negroids. The Tishkoff et. al. study (2000) clearly demonstrates that not only have North eastern Africans divergedd biologically from sub-Saharan Negroids early in their population history, but that North eastern Africans are an intermediate population that is genetically distinct from sub-Saharan Negroids. Tishkoff et. al. (2000) state:
The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African—that is, the Ethiopian and Somali—populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.
Somalians and Ethiopians are genetically intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
As I have explained before, I don't care about your personal opinions, but I do care about what the scientific research has to say on the subject of population genetic structure as it varies from region to region. As far as I'm concerned, all of the available research clearly indicates that Ethiopians are a race of mongrels. According to the researchers Risch et. al. (2002):
For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians. [...] The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians.
gger, sometimes I wonder if you really know how to read. Here is the abstract from the Brace et. al. 1993 study (again!):
The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.
The Egyptians are most related to North Africans and Europeans and absolutely not to sub-Saharan Negroids. The fact that Egyptians do not cluster with sub-Saharan Negroids means that they are of obvious non-Negroid origin. Moreover, Somalis are a non-Negroid population as well.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: Here is a more representative selection of the Ethiopian population, clearly showing that the vast majority of Ethiopians are half-white, half-negro mongrels:
Even Haile Selassie (pictured above) never identified himself as a negro, despite the ridiculous claims of Rastafarians. He always spoke of himself as a Semite.
More evidence that Ethiopians are mongrels:
The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African—that is, the Ethiopian and Somali—populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.
(S. A. Tishkoff et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 67:901-925, 2000)
LOL Typical and predictable idiotic response to hold up Amhara and selective pictures of the lightest kind as representative of all Ethiopians let alone Somalians! LMAO
Sorry RealLoser, but we explained to you a dozen times already that Amhara are only a small minority of Ethiopians with Oromo being the largest, and the J prersent in Amhara do NOT come from 'whites'!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BRAINSMASHED: East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
Nope. You keep distorting the original scientific finding that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other Africans are related to Eurasians. Why? Because Eurasians descend from East Africans, you moron! And East Africans are just a subset of Sub-Saharan Africans themselves!
East Africans may have more relation to Eurasians than Africans do from other parts of the continent but that doesn't mean that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than they are to other Africans moron! Why? Because East Africans STAYED in Africa and still share genetic continuity with other Africans! A perfect example is the PN2 clade with E lineages. HgE is the major paternal lineage found in both Ethiopia and Somalia but NOT in Eurasians, fool!
Neither does Eurasian ancestry explain features like long faces, narrow noses, or thin lips!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975
"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"
West African
^ I suppose the West African man and his people above are part-caucasoid even though they carry E3a lineages at almost 100%?! Face it, you're a LYING LOSER! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey RealLoser. Instead of copying and pasting other peoples works without having a clue as to what they mean, how about addressing our points here, here, and here.
What's the matter? You too afraid of being humiliated?? TOO LATE! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BRAINSMASHED: [qb] East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
Nope. You keep distorting the original scientific finding that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other Africans are related to Eurasians. Why? Because Eurasians descend from East Africans, you moron! And East Africans are just a subset of Sub-Saharan Africans themselves!
East Africans may have more relation to Eurasians than Africans do from other parts of the continent but that doesn't mean that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than they are to other Africans moron! Why? Because East Africans STAYED in Africa and still share genetic continuity with other Africans! A perfect example is the PN2 clade with E lineages. HgE is the major paternal lineage found in both Ethiopia and Somalia but NOT in Eurasians, fool!
Correct,exactly Djehuti.East Africans/Horners are not "black/well tanned" europeans and semites, europeans and semites are depigmented/admixed horners.They were here first remember.
Europeans 'giving' East Africans their progessive features.What a joke. Posts: 70 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What the idiot fails to realize is that such features he deems "cacasoid" such as long narrow noses, thin lips, etc. are found among other populations in Africa besides East Africa. As I just showed, there are West Africans with such features including wavy hair, and there are central Africans as well.
The point is 'cacasoid' does NOT exist and East Africans are not as mixed as he exaggerates since they carry overwhelmingly African lineages. The only Ethiopians who carry substatial Eurasian lineages are Abyssinians like Amhara and Tigre and even then, the majority (60%) of their lineages are still African in origin! Somalis have even less Eurasian lineages. Either way, Eurasian does not mean 'white'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BRAINSMASHED: East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
Nope. You keep distorting the original scientific finding that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other Africans are related to Eurasians. Why? Because Eurasians descend from East Africans, you moron! And East Africans are just a subset of Sub-Saharan Africans themselves!
East Africans may have more relation to Eurasians than Africans do from other parts of the continent but that doesn't mean that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than they are to other Africans moron! Why? Because East Africans STAYED in Africa and still share genetic continuity with other Africans! A perfect example is the PN2 clade with E lineages. HgE is the major paternal lineage found in both Ethiopia and Somalia but NOT in Eurasians, fool!
Neither does Eurasian ancestry explain features like long faces, narrow noses, or thin lips!
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975
"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"
West African
^ I suppose the West African man and his people above are part-caucasoid even though they carry E3a lineages at almost 100%?! Face it, you're a LYING LOSER!
he Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100.
Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians.
Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes.
Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Brainsmashed! Look! I can copy and paste too!
Abstract
Jensen's elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class. The numerous correlations evoked in support of g arise from this. His 'genetic' arguments are based on a highly simplistic, and outmoded, model of genes. And his model of "race" is based on evolutionary misconceptions.
1. In this book Jensen (1998, 1999) pursues his well-known arguments about g, a 'general, cognitive factor'. But it isn't difficult to show that what is cognitive is not general, and what is general is not cognitive. Scores on standardised psychometric tests intercorrelate partly because they have been subjected to considerable construction engineering on the basis of common criteria. Jensen himself has noted how 'every item is carefully edited and selected on the basis of technical procedures known as "item analysis", based on tryouts of the items on large samples and the test's target population' (1980:145). Even so, because item designs tend to be intuitive, and the criteria for item selection statistical and pragmatic, rather than theoretical, there is sill much puzzlement about what the common factor actually is. Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard.
2. For example, a prominent line of study in recent years has shown how different patterns of cognition arise, not from individual computations, but from an internalisation of the cultural 'tools' (patterns of activity, knowledge and reasoning) dominant in the social world in which people grow up and/or currently operate. 'The structure of thought depends upon the structure of the dominant types of activity in different cultures' (Luria 1976: xiv-xv). Because test constructors come from a narrow social group, it follows that test items will contain information structures which will match the background knowledge of some children more than that of others. This cognitive match/mismatch will apply even more critically to non-verbal items than to verbal items.
3. Take, for example, the Raven's test which Jensen says is almost a pure measure of g. According to Carpenter et al (1990: 408), after an examination of Raven's personal notes, 'the description of the abilities that Raven intended to measure are primarily characteristics of the problems, not specifications of the requisite cognitive processes... he used his intuition and clinical experience... without regard to any underlying processing theory'.
4. Inevitably, Raven's 'intuition' will have included his own cultural tools, and illustrating their incursion in the test is not too difficult. Much of middle class culture is based on the manipulation of symbols (e.g. words, numbers) in two-dimensional array on paper. Typical cultural tools are record cards, tables with rows and columns of totals and subtotals, timetables, and so on. These nearly all require the reading of symbols from top left to bottom right, the induction of additions, subtractions and substitutions across columns and down rows, and the deduction of new information from them. These are precisely the kinds of manipulations (or 'rules') that found their way into Raven's items.
5. So although the symbols are experience-free, the rules governing their changes across the matrix are certainly not, and they are more likely to be already represented in the minds of children from middle class homes that in others. Performance on the Raven's is not a question of inducing novel rules from meaningless symbols, but ones which are culturally rooted; each item presents a recognition problem before it is a reasoning problem. The latter is easy when the former has been achieved.
6. This has been shown in a vast variety of tasks in which subjects can map the covariation relations in the task onto relations in their background knowledge (reviewed in Richardson 1999). These include the Wason selection task; computerised 'games' governed by complex 'rules'; pragmatic reasoning schemes; analogical reasoning tasks; class-inclusion and scientific reasoning tasks; categorisation tasks; and modified Raven's matrices. All of this explains why the Raven's (and other non-verbal tests), often referred to as culture-free etc., are, in fact, the most enculturated of all tests.
7. So relative acquisition of relevant background knowledge (which will be closely associated with social class) is one source of the elusive common factor in psychometric tests. But there are other, non-cognitive, sources. Jensen seems to have little appreciation of the stressful effects of negative social evaluation and systematic prejudice which many children experience every day (in which even superficial factors like language dialect, facial appearance, and self-presentation all play a major part). These have powerful effects on self concepts and self-evaluations. Bandura et al (1996) have shown how poor cognitive self-efficacy beliefs acquired by parents become (socially) inherited by their children, resulting in significant depressions of self-expectations in most intellectual tasks. Here, g is not a general ability variable, but one of 'self-belief'.
8. Reduced exposure to middle-class cultural tools and poor cognitive self-efficacy beliefs will inevitably result in reduced self-confidence and anxiety in testing situations. There is a well-known association between IQ test performance and test-anxiety. In his meta-analysis of 562 studies, Hembree (1988) found that High Task Anxiety (HTA) subjects hold themselves in low esteem, fear exposure to negative evaluation, experience greater emotional reaction to testing situations, and more encoding difficulty and other cognitive interference when tested. It will not do for Jensen to attempt to dismiss the role of task-anxiety by reference to the old Yerkes-Dodson Law (which is about drive) and a study involving a small group of university students!
9. In sum, the 'common factor' which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership. This is what is being distilled when g is statistically 'extracted' from performances. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the 'Flynn effect,' (Fkynn 1999) which simply corresponds with the swelling of the middle classes and greater exposure to middle-class cultural tools. It is also supported by the fact that the Flynn effect is more prominent with non-verbal than with verbal test items - i.e. with the (covertly) more enculturated forms.
II. OTHER CORRELATES OF G
10. Once we see g as a variable of class-cultural characteristics, instead of a mystical biological power, the many other correlations which Jensen reports are demystified. We also see the diverse ways in which correlations can be interpreted. It is not the least bit surprising that g also correlates with head size, brain size, stature, general health, and so on, which, through nutritional, endocrinal, and other aspects of social privilege/exclusion, are also correlates of social class.
11. Jensen relies heavily on the (weak) associations between performances on Elementary Cognitive Tasks and IQ. But such performance will be much influenced by task-anxiety, as numerous studies on speeded tasks have shown (Hembre 1988). Since HTA produces more erratic reaction times, this would explain why the biggest correlate of g is not mean (or median) speed of response, but response variation. It also explains the lack of correlation between Nerve Conduction Velocity (however crudely measured) and RT.
12. Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large 'knock-on' effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.
13. When we turn to job performance the picture becomes very murky, not least because of serious methodological problems and contradictory findings. The 'job performance' measure used in nearly all studies is that of supervisor ratings. But supervisors can be rather subjective, use widely different criteria, with 'halo', age-related, and other effects. In the Schmidt et al (1986) study, supervisor ratings had very low correlations (around 0.3) both with subjects' job knowledge and actual work samples! The (weak) associations between statistically abstracted g and job performance may, again, stem from differences in self-concept, self-confidence, anxiety etc., rather than from an 'ability' variable. This interpretation is supported by reports that, when workers have been in the job for some time, performance is completely uncorrelated with IQ (Hulin et al 1990). Jensen dismisses that idea, citing a meta-analysis by Schmidt et al (1986). But that study was conducted on military personnel, in which, as the authors themselves suggest, job performance involves 'standard operating procedures' routinized by 'thorough, detailed training programs'. Besides, the Manual to the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPT) Test (which Jensen sees as a test of 'pure' g ) warns us that 'the predictive validity of the RPM... to success within an occupation... is relatively low' (Raven et al 1993, 41).
14. Although a multitude of imponderables remain in correlational data of this kind, it seems reasonable to suggest that IQ predicts little that isn't already built into the test directly or indirectly by virtue of its being a surrogate for social class. It should also be obvious that people who, from a very early age, have reduced self-expectations and self-esteem, and fewer chances of self-fulfilment, are also, in the long run, going to exhibit more social pathology.
III. GENES AND G
15. It is very worrying to find a simplistic 'Mendelian' model of independent and additive genes still being urged upon us by Jensen. The 'genetic beanbag' view is clung to because it furnishes the only paradigm in which Jensen and coworkers can work 'genetically'. In particular, it furnishes the famous 'expected' correlations for relatives (e.g. monozygotic versus dizygotic twins) which form the basis of 'heritability' estimates, even though doubts about the model for complex characters have frequently been expressed (see e.g. Barton & Turelli 1989).
16. Indeed, recent molecular biology has shown better than ever how genes for evolved characters have become intricately tied in with adaptable regulatory systems across the genome as a whole. Under these regulations, variable alleles can be utilised for common ends, or common alleles utilised for divergent ends, as developmental needs dictate. Up to 90% of genes are regulatory in function, and not structural alleles at all (Jensen's claim that humans have 100,000 polymorphic genes seems ridiculous). Phenomena such as canalization, divergent epigenesis, exon-shuffling (which modifies gene-products to suit current developmental needs), and even developmental modification of gene-structures themselves, now make a nonsense of the idea of a one-to-one relationship between incremental accumulations of 'good' or 'bad' genes, and increments in a phenotype (see e.g. Rollo 1995). This makes the objective of most twin and adoption studies surrounding IQ a red herring, because it is attempting to 'prove' a genetic model that no one can seriously believe in.
17. Jensen argues that g has evolved as a 'fitness' character. Yet it is the logic of natural selection that fitness characters come to display little if any genetic variation. This has been repeatedly confirmed in artificial selection experiments, and in the wild. The self-defeating logic of Jensen's argument is obvious. Indeed, I find it amazing that, at the end of the twentieth century, complex, sophisticated edifices like this are being constructed on such patently erroneous foundations.
IV. RACE
18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive 'races' exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.
19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were 'flung out' onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general - in the physical world as well as the social.
20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection - one which can 'model' the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable y line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are 'quite literally superficial... the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups ("races") distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence'.
21. Owens & King also point out that 'Of course prejudice does not require a rational basis, let alone an evolutionary one, but the myth of major genetic differences across "races" is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence' (453). This culmination of Jensen's thesis, then, is as hollow as the conceptual foundations on which it based. It really is time this negative and fatalistic model of humanity was put behind us once and for all.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
of course africans would have a lower IQ scores we have only been literate for the past 200 years! it would be like testing the IQs of europeans during the 'dark ages'.It took tribal europeans 1000 years to become literate through christianity,it will probably take africans even less time to also become literate through christianity.
If you want to thank someone for your ability to read this post thank the monks who taught your barbarian ancestors the same way missionaries taught africans.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry Humanity, but your premise of Africans being literate only in the last 200 years is false as Africans possessed writing far longer than that!
Also, IQ has NOTHING to do with literacy so much as other factors of intellect which can be culturally biased. A perfect example of this is the fact that black immigrants directly from Africa not only score among the highest in IQ both in North America and Europe but outperform whites also. White losers like Realwap love to point to American-born blacks as scoring relatively lower in IQ tests and not doing well academically as whites but fail to talk about blacks who come straight out of Africa! Nor does he address that in Europe blacks even outperform Asians! All of this was discussed time, and time, and time again!! And as long as racist white idiots visit this forum, I'm sure it will come up again! Take a look here and here!
Lastly, the fact that the idiot doesn't even bother to address our replies but goes off into red-herring nonsense about blacks having low IQs speaks volumes about his own IQ!
Seriously RealIdiot, if you have no answers to all our evidence refuting your lies about northeast Africans being mixed, there is no need to run off and get debunked on another issue.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the majority of modern africans [im talking abt my own ancestors here] did not beome literate until colonisation.Literacy completely rewires the brain,especially the left emisphere responsible for reasoning.I am not talking abt those africans who belonged to the various ancient empires that have since crumbled who were literate long before europeans e.g Kush etc.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you say is true as to the majority of MODERN Africans, but it is also true of large numbers of modern Europeans as well, particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe depending on the time frame you pick, and literacy and learning was already well established in West Africa of course prior to colonialism.
As for IQ gaps, they are not anything special. The roughly 15 point average gap in black-white IQ is seen among whites, such as between northern Italians and southern Italians, and between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, and between groups like the Irish and the English. In other words, IQ gaps as measured by test scores are nothing unusual within and between groups (Sowell 1995, race and Culture).
3-- In addition, finer breakdown of IQ scores reveals several interesting patterns, undermining the much ballyhooed emphasis on "gaps. Several white sub-groups for example turn in quite unimpressive perfomances."
QUOTE:
There are other groups to whom none of these factors apply--and who still have had test score differences as great as those between black and white children in the Jim Crow South. Japanese and Mexican immigrants began arriving in California at about the same time and initially worked in very similar occupations as agricultural laborers. Yet a study of a school district in which their children attended the same schools and sat side-by-side in the same classrooms found IQ differences as great as those between blacks and whites attending schools on opposite sides of town in the Jim Crow South. International studies have found different groups of illiterates--people with no educational differences because they had no education--with mental test differences larger than those between blacks and whites in the United States. Nor is this necessarily a matter of genetics. During the First World War, black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania scored higher on mental tests than did white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi.5
What is "the" reason? There may not be any such thing as "the" reason. There are so many cultural, social, economic, and other factors interacting that there was never any reason to expect equal results in the first place. That is why plausible simplicities must be subjected to factual scrutiny.
Back in 1899, when the schools of Washington, D.C. were racially segregated and discrimination was rampant, there were four academic high schools in the city--three white and one black. When standardized tests were given that year, the black academic high school scored higher than two of the three white academic high schools.6 Today, nearly a century later, even setting such a goal would be considered hopelessly utopian. Nor was this a fluke. That same high school was scoring at or above the national average on IQ tests during the 1930s and 1940s.7 Yet its physical plant was inadequate and its average class size was higher than that in the city's white high schools. --Thomas Sowell. (1998). Race, Culture, and Equality.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....
Are you some kind of moron? All of the latest research has confirmed the findings of Brace et. al. (1993) over and over again: that the ancient Egyptians have absolutely nothing in common with sub-Saharan Negroids:
The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
E3a is geographically restricted to sub-Saharan Africa, being found only amongst negroes, whereas E3b is found only amongst Caucasoids and their racial hybrids.
Provide scientific research for your statements or keep your lips welded shut. North eastern Africans are not only intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids, but they are also substantially Caucasoid in terms of genetic structure. According to the researchers Risch et. al. (2002):
Consistent with previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters representing the major continental (racial) divisions described above as African, Caucasian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians.
Actually, Ethiopians and Somalis consider them selves Semites.
In fact, they totally despise the pure Blacks, and actively enslave them
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it is true among europeans ,russians for example did not become literate until the 10th century,along with alot of baltic/northern europe and schools in Russia were only introduced fairly recently.
Alphabet based Literacy is the result of christianity - in europe as in africa.I'm only suggesting that it is unfair to expect the african population to have the same 'wiring' as people who have been reading for longer due to christians getting there earlier.It is not meant as insult in any way.Alphabet based Literacy is a new Phenomenon in human history. E.g I am dyslexic perhaps because I have an older brain,in dyslexics the hemispheres are equal suggesting a "pre literate brain" in modern people the left hemisphere is larger than the right,this is due to literacy because the left hemisphere is used for reading.
IQ tests ,which I don't support as measurement for intellectual capacity anyway mean absolutely nothing to me.The pre-literate brain which was more image based,metaphoric and symbolic is as powerful as the literate one.All human beings are deeply variegated and multifaceted you can't generalise them by tests.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: What you say is true as to the majority of MODERN Africans, but it is also true of large numbers of modern Europeans as well, particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe depending on the time frame you pick, and literacy and learning was already well established in West Africa of course prior to colonialism. --Thomas Sowell. (1998). Race, Culture, and Equality.
posted
Horners do not consider themselves to be middle eastern semites.Any dislike of other africans is often due to modern colonialism.The semitic languages show their greatest variety in Ethiopia which suggests that that is their origin point[language homeland] but almost no horners [ethiopians and somalis] even realise this.That is probably the only reason they would believe themselves to be "semetic".
Do you have any original thoughts and ideas of your own or do you just paste directly from textbooks? Time spent deriding africans would be better spent studying your own ancient history.
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: According to Wilson et. al. (2001):
Actually, Ethiopians and Somalis consider them selves Semites.
In fact, they totally despise the pure Blacks, and actively enslave them
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: [QB] No major study has ever debunked the conclusions reached by Brace et. al.'s 1993 paper.
From C.L. Brace 1993- he said some true things.. "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics."
"An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
and some shaky things - long since debunked..
and he made some corrections in 2005 with a more balanced and accurate study..
You lose again.
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
You Euro Dummies always want to post this picture but dont even know how to read it. If what you say is true that that would mean: Paupa New Guinea, Micronesians, Melanesians, Ami, Atayal, AND CHINESE are all a mixture of "Ethiopians" and "Caucasoids" because they plot in between them in the picture. Use some common sense.
ALSO when searching an old thread i found this Gem by Rasol:
quote: Correcting an unsound thesis: It is an elementary mistake of biology to define a general ancestor by a specific descendant. An ancestral-group may have many descendants, not just one. Europeans are not the only non-African descendants of East Africans.....all non Africans are, including Melanesians:
East Africans are genetically intermediate between Melanesians and West Africans.
In spite of similar physical appearance, according to Sforza-Cavalli Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale, Melanesians and West Africans...are two of the most genetically distant groups on the planet.
Does this tell us that East Africans may be classified as proto-Melanesian?
Does this demonstrate that East Africans are a hybrid between two racial groups, Melanesian and West African?
Does this demonstrate the concept of racial groups in any way?
No. It merely demonstrates that all peoples ultimately originate in East Africa, and so contain essentially a sub-set of African diversity.
LOL
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
You Euro Dummies always want to post this picture but dont even know how to read it. If what you say is true that that would mean: Paupa New Guinea, Micronesians, Melanesians, Ami, Atayal, AND CHINESE are all a mixture of "Ethiopians" and "Caucasoids" because they plot in between them in the picture. Use some common sense.
Great point. Logic was never their strongpoint. So now in addition to "Norweigian Ethiopians" we have "Chinese mixes" too? lol... From whence this mythical "mix"? Hordes of Mongols sweeping into East Africa?
ALSO when searching an old thread i found this Gem by Rasol:
quote: Correcting an unsound thesis: It is an elementary mistake of biology to define a general ancestor by a specific descendant. An ancestral-group may have many descendants, not just one. Europeans are not the only non-African descendants of East Africans.....all non Africans are, including Melanesians:
East Africans are genetically intermediate between Melanesians and West Africans.
In spite of similar physical appearance, according to Sforza-Cavalli Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale, Melanesians and West Africans...are two of the most genetically distant groups on the planet.
Does this tell us that East Africans may be classified as proto-Melanesian?
Does this demonstrate that East Africans are a hybrid between two racial groups, Melanesian and West African?
Does this demonstrate the concept of racial groups in any way?
No. It merely demonstrates that all peoples ultimately originate in East Africa, and so contain essentially a sub-set of African diversity.
LOL
Stop it.. lol... such impeccable logic will drive them back to the simpler fare of "Mein Kampf" and sheep entrails... Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by qoucela: Cro-Magnons were not you. Somalis and Fulanis are not you - and neither were THEIR ANCESTORS the ancient Egyptians and Bronze Age North African "Mediterranean" relatives.
How do you know whom the who is? This is the internet and people with all kinds of ancestry. I for one have Oromo ancestry and Fulani.
Actually, Osirion, I think I was talking to the maker of this post. But since you asked, I think you should understand that if we are going to talk about some black people having a "substantial" proportion of non-African blood, the same thing can obviously be said of the African Americans. Yet know one has a problem considering them black.
Ethiopians, Oromo, Watusi and Fulani don't get their narrow and elongated features from intermixture with Eurasians. On the other hand large numbers of African Americans do.
European people that are spreading "Negrophobic" myths have never been able to accept that Watusi, Rendili, Fulani, Oromo and the like represent an African type that evolved separately from them. That is what early studies by Cavalli Sforza and these other geneticists who lack appreciation for ancient history, African linguistic studies, physical anthropology and culture are missing.
Also, if anything - today's Eurasians(light skinned Near Easterners and the like) are the ones that have a substantial amount of African impress as seen in the genes, dialects and the fact that many areas now occupied by Eurasiatics were historically documented as being almost exclusively black African in appearance. Yet one doesn't see as many genetic studies being interpreted with this in mind as should be the case - mainly because of the lack of knowledge outside of the field of genetics.
Although genetics is a relatively young and at times misleading science there are many geneticists that can be trusted and seem to have gotten their historical mindset on track and those are the ones that should repeatedly analysed - not those stuck in the hamitocentric past, as found in racist postings such as this.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by humanityb: the majority of modern africans [im talking abt my own ancestors here] did not beome literate until colonisation.Literacy completely rewires the brain,especially the left emisphere responsible for reasoning.I am not talking abt those africans who belonged to the various ancient empires that have since crumbled who were literate long before europeans e.g Kush etc.
Most peoples in the world were not literate Gilgamesh, including Europeans. Africans, including West Africans had in fact been in literate societies long before colonization as you mentioned.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a very good post Djehuti I hope people will actually read it and grasp the concept.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by BRAINSMASHED: East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.
Nope. You keep distorting the original scientific finding that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other Africans are related to Eurasians. Why? Because Eurasians descend from East Africans, you moron! And East Africans are just a subset of Sub-Saharan Africans themselves!
quote:Originally posted by humanityb: the majority of modern africans [im talking abt my own ancestors here] did not beome literate until colonisation.Literacy completely rewires the brain,especially the left emisphere responsible for reasoning.I am not talking abt those africans who belonged to the various ancient empires that have since crumbled who were literate long before europeans e.g Kush etc.
Most peoples in the world were not literate Gilgamesh, including Europeans. Africans, including West Africans had in fact been in literate societies long before colonization as you mentioned.
Most of the Euro-centric trolls do not even seem illiterate. That tells us a lot about banking on the term "literacy".
To make matter worse, they seem to have terrible difficulty comprehending the studies, leave alone correcting citing studies on controversial issues, and providing a strict definition. You can't debate when definitions of the opposition is standardized, while those held by you have the most loose definition.
Questions:
1. What the hell is a Caucasian? Please define the term. Provide academic data to back that definition.
2. How the hell does blatantly obvious African admixture in Southern Europe make this race "white"? For instance, there is a high presence of African ancestry paternally and the high prevalence of the West African sickle cell form.
3. What the hell is a sub-Saharan Africa? In the most mainstream sense of the term, East Africans ARE sub-Saharan Africans. Please provide evidence suggesting that this population is somehow different even though identical E3a-populations such as the Hausa-Fulanis and Tutsis exist.
4. How is the J haplogroup a "Caucasian" gene when most detailing that population were of a "West African form"? When was this Y-chromosome mutation homogeneous? Consider that North Asians were isolated prior to Neolithic. That explains why even R-carrying peoples of India mainly feature dark skin.
5. How about understanding that Brace's 1993 study is superseded by more recent ones?
6. If the 1993 study is going to be used, why not post the used methodology of Brace's study? The questions that would appear includes:
a. Are the pre-historic Mediterraneans identical to the modern European form?
b. How in the world do the Neolithic populations of Anatolia cluster closer to West Africans? This population is ancestral to the dominant stock within Anatolia and Levant.
These founding populations of the Natufian culture included J-carrying humans. That population are the likely the ones who brought the J mutation back into Africa. So from what is being suggested is that:
West-African-looking population indigenous to Africa
+
J-carrying pop clustering heavily to West Africans
=
Half-white Africans.
In conclusion, that tells us that there is something wrong with the methodology used. It's likely that the less West African populations within East Africa resemble prehistoric Europeans because both are of a similar form. That is why "Modern Europeans" are less "European" than the Basque population. O_O
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure who Bob's questions were addressing but I think I can respond to a few of them.
He wrote "The questions that would appear includes:
a. Are the pre-historic Mediterraneans identical to the modern European form? "
Brace's most modern studies - like those of earlier anthropologists - have shown that the pre-historic Mediterraneans were closely related to so-called black African hamites i. e. occupants of the Horn of Africa and other gracile dolichocephalic Negroids. The 2005 study was, "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): 242–247.
Bob asked - "b. How in the world do the Neolithic populations of Anatolia cluster closer to West Africans? This population is ancestral to the dominant stock within Anatolia and Levant."
Correction - This population is NOT "ancestral to the dominant stock" of modern Anatolia and Levant.
Early dolichocephalic or ultra-longheaded Proto-Mediterraneans i.e. the Afro-Mediterraneans are NOT near relatives of modern Eurasiatics! The early dolichocephalic types of the Mediterrean have little to do with the predominant stock of modern Anatolia and Levant which often posseses traits diametrically opposite in some sense. Besides being near white in color, hairsute and stockier in build, modern Eurasiatics in the Mediterranean are mainly brachycephalic to extremely brachycephalic (or round headed), and thus have nothing to do with black or African-related people that were the predominant types there in Anatolia as late as 4000 years ago or well into the Bronze Age.
Bernal was made to write in one of his volumes, "The significance of Africans in these cultures and early development of agriculture in southwest Asia and Anatolia can be seen from 'African' skeletal traits and painted images both among Mediterranean Natufians and early farmers (at Chatal Huyuk and Nea Nikomedia.” Black Athena p. 65
Furthermore, Neolithic populations of Anatolia clustered more with East African like North Africans of the early Mediterranean. Natufians clustered to some extent with certain West African groups.
Non- black populations ancestral to modern peoples of the Near East came to increase in the late Bronze Age, "Examination of the skulls which have been found on several sites in Anatolia shows that in the third millennium the population was preponderantly long-headed or dolichocephalic, with only a small admixture of brachycephalic types. In the second millennium the proportion of brachycephalic skulls increases to about 50 percent."” (6) Gurney, O.R.; The Hittites, Penguin Books, 1990, First Ed. 1952 p. 284
Important to remember as well was modern East Africans and neolithic dolichocephalic Europeans, i.e. proto-Mediteraneans, whom earlier anthropologists could not distinguish from Somali, Abyssinians and Beja, also had a cluster of traits similar and in some cases identical cultural and burial customs and traits.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
its real pathetic for people to think that anyone would take them seriously after making statements like that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
gger, sometimes I wonder if you really know how to read. Here is the abstract from the Brace et. al. 1993 study (again!):
Printer-friendly view of this topic