posted
The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian
As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:
Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa) Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa) Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa) Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa) And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.
The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Africa is phenotypically and genetically diverse as well as the cradle of anatomically modern humans. I disagree that Africa's populations can be structured into races (phylogenetic sub-species). This is not an Afrocentric notion it is mainstream science. There are no biological human races. Human variation is clinal not racial.
quote:Human races as human variation
Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (approx85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.
Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian
As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:
Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa) Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa) Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa) Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa) And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.
The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.
Even if you TRIED to make an idiotic grouping like this you FAIL because you didn't create a separate cluster for one of THE most divergent groups in Africa : Pygmies!
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ ALL these people are BLACK and ALL indigenous to the African continent. Further, they are all related to each other genetically and culturally.
The nonsensical rhetoric of "cacazoid" is denied by science. Of course the author of this thread would know that if he had the brains!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ ALL these people are BLACK and ALL indigenous to the African continent. Further, they are all related to each other genetically and culturally.
The nonsensical rhetoric of "cacazoid" is denied by science. Of course the author of this thread would know that if he had the brains!
Where is mangina's response to the above?? Oh that's right, his scared-ass scurried away quick.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I suggest you take the following advise from here.
A better suggestion re his 'negrid' and other categories is that he put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. Save the world from another idiot.
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I agree that Africa is phenotypically and genetically diverse as well as the cradle of anatomically modern humans. I disagree that Africa's populations can be structured into races (phylogenetic sub-species). This is not an Afrocentric notion it is mainstream science. There are no biological human races. Human variation is clinal not racial.
quote:Human races as human variation
Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (approx85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient(18), although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.
Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.
posted
"...these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."
posted
What?! That quote definitely does NOT support your racial categories. That quote comes from Tishkoff (2000) which doesn't say anything about modern humans structuring into races. It pretty much reiterates what the American Anthropological Association says about non-African populations being a sub-set of African populations:
These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
How about posting a study that actually provides a scientific basis for these racial categories that you've listed or any racial categories for that matter?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian
As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:
Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa) Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa) Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa) Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa) And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.
The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.
Fine if you want to go by that but let me make one thing clear - Aethiopid - which is what I am - are Black. We are killed by White Supremacist just like Black people. Discriminated against just like Black people. If I say I am Caucasian because of your silly ideas people would laugh at me. No!
I think genetic clines are the only real way of grouping populations and last I look Haplogroup E crosses those nicely defined racial groups you spelled out. Simply doesn't work! Basically need to drop that Caucasoid/Mediterranid stuff which is phenotype crap and deal with real human phylum.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Grasshopper: ^ Mate, long time no speak. Where ya been!
Graduation and a well deserved vacation which I technically am still on.
And you?
Congrats dude, I'm sure you aced the whole thing (don't know how your grading system works over there). I'm stuck in class unfortunately but hopefully some light will appear at the end of the tunnel.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Funny how Marc suffers from the same problem as BRAINSMASHED-- they are totally science illiterate yet post supposed scientific posts or try to make scientific posts all the time!!
by the way,...
ROTFLMAOH @ "Hornoid"
Well what other term can reconcile both 'Aethiopid' and 'Somalid'??! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: ^Maybe he meant he was Horniii
It is interesting to me how you make a joke of Marc--yet everything written by Europeans you accept as the gospel.
This gospel you accept write African people out of history and transmit the same myths concerning the idea that Blacks are primitive, and all civilizations were founded by "caucasoid" people or "black skinned caucasoids". They even propagate the myth that Blacks in Africa, are different from Blacks in Asia . You and your cohort eat this up. Yet when Marc makes a theory you knock it down.
Look at how the films from the bradshaw foundation you promote begin with "primitive" Blacks, and end with high civilization people supposely founded by non-Africans. Luckily our great scholars J.A. Rogers and W.E.B. Dubois, wrote our real history and proved that the first civilizations were founded by Blacks.
Where are the films of the bradshaw foundation highlighting your history as a creator of civilizations instead of primitive? Don't you see how people are taught to look down on Blacks by this media?
You don't even recognize the fact that Europeans and Chinese are writing history to give themselves a voice in the rise of civilization while using the media to denigrate Black people.A media you celebrate and propagate that places you--Black/African people-- in a negative not positive light.
Don't worry I have the answer to all this nonsense. Ignore Afrocentricsmasher, there are many NorthEast Africans in America and definitely NYC. They are on our side and many are more Afrocentric than the average African American.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER: "...these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."
pic debunk 1:
pic debunk 2- Brace 1993
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: What?! That quote definitely does NOT support your racial categories. That quote comes from Tishkoff (2000) which doesn't say anything about modern humans structuring into races. It pretty much reiterates what the American Anthropological Association says about non-African populations being a sub-set of African populations:
These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
How about posting a study that actually provides a scientific basis for these racial categories that you've listed or any racial categories for that matter?
Indeed...
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr Winters wrote:It is interesting to me how you make a joke of Marc--yet everything written by Europeans you accept as the gospel.
My Horniii comment was to Afrocentricsmasher..not to Marc; However I do take more stock in Stephen Oppenheimer's work because he like others is a pioneer in the field...notthing to do with his lack of melanin.I don't know Marc's Creds but if he is in the field and not just a lay person like myself then ok..his opinion carries more weight.
And the documentary has little to do with the rise of civilizations itself and more to to do with populations,migrations and genetics.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
To Brada: Ignore Winters, he's just mad that his cronie Marc is an senile fool who knows not what he writes. Winters also loves to use the logical fallacy of 'ad hominem' in combination with 'poisoning the well'. He thinks that because of the history of racism among white scholars that any study that comes from a white scholar today must be false or faulty. Obviously as a supposed 'scholar' himself he forgot the important scholarly rule of judging the work first before the author. And it's obvious that he's mad that all scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race' (and even black scholars like Keita and others support this) which makes his own racial claims as nonsensical as the white supremacists! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"
You are either lying, misinformed, or are not aware of the facts. In any case, you are simply wrong, Mr. Newly Graduate.
Race is used by scientists and the United States Bureau of the Census. They even have a category for your folks - Filipino. In my category it's simpler with white, Asian, and African. You would be in the Asian category.
From the US Census
The 22nd federal census, in 2000, had a "short form"[8] that asked one ethnic and one race/ancestry question:
1. Is the person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?
* No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino * Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano * Yes, Puerto Rican * Yes, Cuban * Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (write in group)
2. What is the person's race?
* White * Black or African American * American Indian or Alaska Native (write in tribe) * Asian Indian * Chinese * Filipino * Japanese * Korean * Vietnamese * Native Hawaiian * Guamanian or Chamorro * Samoans * Other Pacific Islander (write in race) * Other race (write in race)
This census acknowledged that "race categories include both racial and national-origin groups."
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc,the article you posted is 100% about politics..the politics of who gets what and self-identification.
just an example:In recent years, Prewitt said, new questions about the classification system have been asked, including whether there should be one at all. In 1990, he said the census had four racial categories: white, African-American, Native American, and Asian, with Hispanic denoted an ethnic group, not a racial group. Before the 2000 census, almost without debate, he said, Congress voted to add another racial group: Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders a race all to themselves...do they not differ amongst themselves from a phonotypic stand point...I see no science in the article Marc... Just politics.
I-am not saying that the concept of Race is dead and buried to the avarage lay person...just try cutting funding to certain communites by procaliming race is dead..you be out of office by next election..but that is still not science.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"
You are either lying, misinformed, or are not aware of the facts. In any case, you are simply wrong, Mr. Newly Graduate.
Race is used by scientists and the United States Bureau of the Census. They even have a category for your folks - Filipino. In my category it's simpler with white, Asian, and African. You would be in the Asian category.
The U.S. census is not a scientific institution. Not every scholar agrees that there are no biological races but many geneticists and most anthropologists do:
Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century view of “race” partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters, and confirming data were developed in the decades that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962), using Julian Huxley’s (1938) cline concept, presented data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean, and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human clinal variation one trait at a time.2 The new views were 1960s, and by 1985 anthropology’s core concept of “race” had been rejected by 41% of physical anthropologists and 55% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989:69). A similar survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). During the period 1975–79, twice as many university textbooks of introductory physical anthropology rejected the concept as accepted it (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1982:642), and during the period 1990–99 no text explicitly supported the concept (4 of 20 presented the topic as a debate, and 2 rejected typologies of race).- Lieberman (2001)
As I noted above modern humans do not structure into races. The various observable phenotypes across the globe are not breeding populations. They do not meet the phylogenetic criteria for sub-species. The demographic groups labeled by the U.S. census are socially constructed. They may be relevant to society in a socio-political context but they are not biological races:
'Race' and social construction
'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms.- Keita (2004)Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand there are more "Differences" that we recognize as "Race" WITHIN such groups than IN BETWEEN them. That is why "Negroid" can be broken up into many other sub groups: "Pygmoid, Elongated, "Sudanid" "Nilotic" "Bushman" , "Insert Here" etc.
Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"
That would leave you to break them up even FURTHER. Then you would have like 1 million World wide races. But it still wouldnt work until you have 1 separate race per human.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Dj. As mentioned. You outright lie. You full-well know Dr. Winters uses the work of scientists who are white from your years of attacking him.
Yet, you lie.
Astenb. You write
Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"
You are mixes apples and oranges here. Think of races as brands of cars and sub-races as models.
The large category all types related to it fall under is race and their subdivisions aspects of them.
You and Dj missed this point.
There are three main races (white, Asian, and African) with physical distinctions that scientists and other institutions such as Census use to describe them.
Dj. You are are a pathological liar.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc the problem I see with your posts is that you're naming categories but not providing a biological basis for these races and sub-races you've listed. I've already noted , citing Keita, that the racial schema do not meet the phylogenetic criteria for sub-species.
Race does refer to variation below the species level but it is the way this variation is structured that is at issue. Also the human species is far more variable than the traditional 3 race model. Some scholars have identified as many as 9 - 30 or more different races based on phenotype. Using physical characteristics alone to identify races in an arbitrary method of classification.
The delineation of the physical traits into evolutionarily distinct units is the traditional way to determine race yet many scientists have tried and failed to provide a working timescale for this hypothetical racial divergence.
The genetic data indicates that no racial divergence whatsoever occurred.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Dj. As mentioned. You outright lie. You full-well know Dr. Winters uses the work of scientists who are white from your years of attacking him.
Yet, you lie.
Astenb. You write
Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"
You are mixes apples and oranges here. Think of races as brands of cars and sub-races as models.
The large category all types related to it fall under is race and their subdivisions aspects of them.
You and Dj missed this point.
There are three main races (white, Asian, and African) with physical distinctions that scientists and other institutions such as Census use to describe them.
Dj. You are are a pathological liar.
. .
So you are telling me there are no "White Asians"
Or there are no "Black Asians"
Are we going by Color? phenotype? Culture? Language? Or is it by genetic markers?
What if a person lives in "Asia", has "Asian Language and culture" and has "Asian Genes" yet they look "White" or "African" are they then multiracial? More Variation Less Race
posted
I beg the differ, it seems like the continent of Asia is where all 'races' exist. Asia is far more diverse than Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Morpheus. Certainly yours is a legitimate argument. However, mine is phenotypic not biological, per se.
Astenb. You are correct in noting shades of grey between the big classes: white, Asian, African.
My listing is not complete, not comprehensive. This is because in my view (which I don't expect everyone to accept and expect others to reject) countless new human admixtures have arisen in the last 500 to 1000 years blurring the "original" racial types: i.e. white, Asian, African.
For instance, in 700 AD this is the population you found in parts of Mexico:
But, this phenotype has been gone from the time of Cortes when the Spanish came. Then came the English, Germans, Mongulian tribes down the Pacific Coast originating from Siberia. All these new types mixing creating humans with appearances outside the major categories: white, Asian, African.
These are outside my categorization table.
My great focus is on African contributions before whites began their global migrations disrupting and destroying worldwide African civilization that my research tries to help reconstruct.
FINAL COMMENT: My categorization (not mine. Police classify people by race as do college admissions offices, the Equal Employment Opprotunities Office, hundreds of organizations also including the United Nations) is limited in scope. Valid to a great degree but not 100% and it's not intended to be 100% applicable.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mexico is primarily indigenous or people of native american/amerindian tribes. Most of Mexicans are "indian" people who speak and are culturally spanish. The second largest are the Mestizo (Indigenous(indian) and white); the third largest are mixed spanish, indian, and black, and the smallest groups are the black people and creole (black and spanish or black and indian). I forgot that Mexicans are identified as belonging to the Mongol/Asian race just like all of Native Americans and Amerindians from North, Central, and South America. However, they tend to fall more into the polynesian south Asian type. America still uses the three races: Black, White, and Asian. If you don't fall into any of those that mean you are mix. Hispanic skulls are clearly and normally identified as Native American or "mix" (native american and european).
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Betty. No doubt what you say it true for more-or-less "modern" peoples there. "Modern" being the years following Cortes and Columbus?
Here are faces of those preceding those so-called explorers whose diseases killed millions of the population seen in the page below from the ancient Americas:
Betty. No doubt what you say it true for more-or-less "modern" peoples there. "Modern" being the years following Cortes and Columbus?
Here are faces of those preceding those so-called explorers whose diseases killed millions of the population seen in the page below from the ancient Americas:
I'm very aware of the so-called mesoamerica era fo the "Blacks." Those people didn't make up the majority of the population. They were primarily founded futher south of Mexico. Mexico is and always has been a nation full of indigenous/native tribes. I have a good Mexican friend and he told me that the black people of old Mexico came from Africa when the Indigenous Indians of Mexico sailed there for food. He told me that they came back with food from Africa and African people. As a thank you gift from the Indigenous people they offer peace and harmony for those Africans and they traveled back together.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of those pictures are indigenous tribes of Central America and South America. They look very indigenous American or Amerindian. I do know about the Olmec empire and the 'blacks' of Mexico. The pictures of the Inca are clearly of Amerindian origin. I don't see any African in them.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic