posted
Putting all the meandering response aside. . .
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
was it Garvey who said Africa for Africans those at home and those abroad.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Explorer/KIK: does NOT matter what they look like. Since they don’t belong to African lineage (genetically) then they are not Africans. Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers.
As a longstanding poster here, I can say that for anyone who has read my posts, that this is a simplistic assessment of a variety of issues I've tried to get through. For example, from my standpoint, "they" has to be defined first and foremost, before anyone can reach any meaningful conclusion of a discussion. Furthermore, if the "they" are humans, then technically, as preponderance of tangible genetic material and paleontology show, all humans belong to African lineage genetically. Being one or several steps removed from the most common recent African ancestor does not change this fact. This obviously contradicts your assessment above. Non-Africans are not Africans, not because of the just mentioned fact, but quite simply, because they are not African natives--it is more of socio-political thing than a genetic connection.
Additionally, the continent we call "Asia" is marked by complex demographic events, as is the case for many other landmasses. Some sections of the populations therein descend from more recent episodes than others. Some sections may have recent common ancestry that post-date the proposed successful upper Paleolithic OOA genetic fission of a subset of African gene pool, while others may trace such ancestry to said Paleolithic background. Is the just-mentioned synonymous with "Believe the ancients are the ancestors of the present occupiers."? It is safe to say that while the former doesn't necessary contradict the latter in absolute terms, the former cannot easily be summarized into the latter; for instance, it comes down to the specifics of which populations, which sections within populations, and how ancient is "ancient". There is no single answer to this question.
This still stands:
xyyman, I think you are missing the substance of my questions, in relation to your comment. I'm asking you, why the so-called "negroid" Asians, as you called them, cannot simply be "negroes"? What is the distinction between "negroids" and "negroes"?
Remember, avoidance of answers to questions that seek clarity of one's own terms and stated-position is really a sign of inability to defend oneself. Of course, one is free to care or not care about their own credibility, but don't expect to be taken seriously by others.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
That child has stiff nearly blond hair and obviously white blood. His mother is brown-skinned sitting is squalor, dirt, and poverty in their own native land.
My grandmother on my father's side is black-skinned. My several times great grandfather was a white French doctor. My family is Afro-American and brown-skinned as are most Afro-Americans
Your kind sleeping around with black women created the brown-skinned race as with the aborigines.
You are proud and feel vindicated you can post a few pictures of aborigines?
Vindicated, too, as well, to know that they are outlawed in their own land pushed off their property so whites can live in luxury?
Your kind committed genocide on those of Tasmania and other islands starving the aborigines to death? You are proud some of those who didn't die from gunshot and white diseases are alive and living in poverty?
What a fine person you are that you can post pictures of a brown-skinned people who'd otherwise be black-skinned had your Captain Cook kind not strewn its sperm around and kicked them off their land as happened worldwide wherever your ancestors went.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Marc, your petty appeals to emotionalism and empathy are meaningless. The idea that aborigines have straight hair because of white blood is false. The FACT is that WHITES have straight hair because of their aboriginal ancestors WHO WERE BLACK. But for some reason you don't want to understand that straight hair, blond hair and most other kinds of hair developed FIRST among black populations before anyone else.
And from your own example of your family it is easily shown that the premise is strictly false. Do YOU have straight hair? Does anyone in your family have STRAIGHT HAIR? Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood. These people had straight hair before whites got there, so WHITE BLOOD has nothing to do with it.
Again, you are stuck on going off in MEANINGLESS directions that have NOTHING to do with the fundamental facts of the African origin of humanity. Trying to make up new categories and labels about features and being African are only a DIVERSION from the FUNDAMENTAL FACTS. YOUR definitions and attempts to define populations as being African or not based on features DOES NOTHING to further or help understand THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT of African origins of mankind. IN FACT it actually MUDDIES THE WATER with IRRELEVANT NONSENSE that is strictly of YOUR OWN making and actually creates CONTRADICTIONS that don't make sense.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got to admit . . .nicely put. If these Asian "negroes" can be considered Africans then Europeans must also be considered Africans. Unless the premise is once they leave the tropics (ie morphed) they are no longer africans.
But Doug made a very interesting point. These black/"negro" Asians only disappeared or (assimilated)recently ie less than 1000ya.
So the question again is . . . .what happened? is 1000yrs enough to time for a people to be virtually disappear.
What is the similarity, if any, between northern asians and European Leucoderms.
Maybe Doug is right - they were exterminated. And that is the similarity.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by TheTruthHurts: So Doug M your saying that even if you look African and have dark skin and many other factors that come into effect that make them African.There not African?..
What he is saying is in fact essentially correct, they're non Africans just like Europeans and Native Americans are non Africans yet descend from Africans.
Oceanics I.e., Melanesians and Australians cluster genetically with mainland Asia, before Africans since Oceanic's carry ancestral genes to Asians which became non African after migrating OOA (out of Africa).
Oceanic's then cluster with Africans phenotypically I.e cranio-facial structure because Africa of course is the homeland of anatomically modern humans and hence certain Africans are ancestral to Oceanic's, Asians, and Europeans alike!
Oceanic's cluster phenotypically with Africans because after migrating out of Africa along the coast of south Asia, they (Oceanic's) continued to reside in a tropical environment like Africa and maintained said tropical features as noted resembling the earliest modern humans 60kya from Africa, but just like Europeans they are no longer Africans.
Early Asians, Europeans etc...all resembled Africans as do Oceanic's today, there would not have been much of a difference in the tropical phenotype amongst early humans who left Africa (as noted amongst Oceanic's) if they (early humans) didn't move into northern latitudes.
So if you're going to call Oceanic's African, then Europeans, Native Americans etc....are also Africans, which in all reality is true since all non Africans are basically Africans under the skin, and there would be no non Africans if Africans didn't leave the continent.....
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the african origin of humanity, to the extent that it is true, is meaningless. Populations that evolved in different directions have no connection at all to those roots, too much time has passed.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: the african origin of humanity, to the extent that it is true, is meaningless. Populations that evolved in different directions have no connection at all to those roots, too much time has passed.
That would make sense if you could point to a "NEW" species of Humans that have evolved since then.
But there is no "NEW" species of Humans that have evolved since then, only hybrids (Mixes) of the ORIGINAL Humans.
What does THAT tell you?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the originial was once an ape Mike, what does that tell us? I suppose you could be traced back to a rodent 50 million years ago. The point is the evolution of different groups of people through mutations has left a world that in most respects has little to do with ancient man. The question then becomes if we evolved from africans ....so what. We are not africans today.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
In all of these areas today, we no longer find the woolly haired African. Left in his place are the newcomers who took the land, wealth, committed genocide on some of the population and enslaved the remainder, and carried on their language, culture, religion, and civilization otherwise intact as they found it.
Except they faked things up and re-tooled themselves as civilization's founder.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Got to admit . . .nicely put. If these Asian "negroes" can be considered Africans then Europeans must also be considered Africans.
[Marc writes]
Those who founded world civilizations were woolly-wiry haired and full facial featured. You can add the aborigine with their often wiry hair.
Europeans are not in that group.
Both you and Doug are to be lauded for your sympathies of the aborigine proven by the flickr shots you post; aborigine, slaughtered in past centuries as was the Bushman, forced from their lands and living in abject poverty.
Three cheers for your humanity.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: the originial was once an ape Mike, what does that tell us? I suppose you could be traced back to a rodent 50 million years ago. The point is the evolution of different groups of people through mutations has left a world that in most respects has little to do with ancient man. The question then becomes if we evolved from africans ....so what. We are not africans today.
The mutations that you are talking about took MILLIONS of years. Here we are talking about a MAXIMUM of 50-60,000 years.
To put a finer point on it...
These are Busts of Homo-Sapien-Sapiens from about that time period.
Romania - 35,000 B.C.
Ukraine - 34,000 B.C.
Russia - 26,000 B.C.
Hammer - Please point out the differences between THESE ANCIENT Humans and MODERN Humans.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all meaningless crap. There needs to be a point or at least some sort of thesis question.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^What's meaningless crap? You know, for someone who talks a lot, you never really say anything!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are catching own, brother. Took us a few years to get to this point.
Just saw this. . . .
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan:
. . . . a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. . . . . .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks. Similarly, the civilizations of South Asia and the pacific were also founded by aboriginal blacks NATIVE to those regions. They all had various features even if they were black. Yes, many of them had curly hair but not all of them. But even if they did have curly hair, they were not recent migrants from Africa who went to these areas and suddenly caused civilizations to pop up.
They were populations who were native to those areas and had those features for thousands of years after migrating from Africa.
The civilizations of India were founded by blacks but most of them did not have curly hair. Dravidians are not a curly haired people. Most of the curly haired statues of the Buddha you see in South Asia reflect the negrito type of South Asia that adopted Buddhism from the Dravidian black aboriginal people of India. In fact, the curly haired Buddha is simply reflective of the fact that ANCIENT populations MANY MANY thousands of years ago settled Asia.
Similarly most of the aboriginal populations of the Americas maintained various Aboriginal features reminiscent of the aboriginal types found in Asia, most of whom had straighter hair like the Australian and Pacific aboriginal populations versus the curly negrito type aboriginal hair. But even then too all so-called "negritoes" did not have curly hair either. Many of them also had straighter hair like the Australian aboriginal populations. So again, even though it is true that many black populations have been reduced in Asia in modern times, it is not true that all these people had tight curly hair. And it is definitely not true that they were Africans, curly hair or not.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Mindover, You tell me genius, what is the point?
Point of what? Be specific! What is meaningless? This is what I meant by you talking a lot but never really saying anything...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
As I have said for the third time and now quote my post from the last time you rose the point:
Doug. Of course they are African. In my last post I wrote:
My argument is not with the aborigine. I speak of the full-featured, woolly haired people, that dimension of Africans as my definition is constructed, who stand at the foundation of world cultures.
You want to say they came from Africa and also started culture, then add the aborigine to my list as well.
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks. Similarly, the civilizations of South Asia and the pacific were also founded by aboriginal blacks NATIVE to those regions. They all had various features even if they were black. Yes, many of them had curly hair but not all of them. But even if they did have curly hair, they were not recent migrants from Africa who went to these areas and suddenly caused civilizations to pop up.
Wrong. The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Trying to figure ut where you are going. I see no directikon. Enlighten me.
With grammatical errors such as the ones above, it's really no wonder you're trying to "figure ut" and "see no directikon", of course just as I thought, you have no idea why you even made your comment lol, you post just to post...
The point is to provide clarification in laymen terms for those who have a misunderstanding about anatomically modern human evolution and the OOA event, you yourself are indeed one of these individuals who needs a lesson.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
note on the keyboard that the I and the K are within a finger span. You are ducking and bobbing to keep from answering my question.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: note on the keyboard that the I and the K are within a finger span.
Yea for a fat redneck lol, put the sandwich down!!
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: You are ducking and bobbing to keep from answering my question.
....again the point is to provide clarification in laymen terms for those who have a misunderstanding about anatomically modern human evolution and the OOA event, you yourself are indeed one of these individuals who needs a lesson.
Now, if you were referring to my post directly above your asinine comment well then the point in that was to note just because Australian aborigines have straighter hair doesn't mean whites came and admixed with them (as genetics show this is false as well anyway), and that it's natural because as you see even first generation offspring admixed black and white individuals still have tightly curled hair, while displaying features from both white and black parents, we don't see this with Australian aborigines, who are said to have a more than a few generations ago "white admixture", get it? We see that Australian aborigines look like all other aborigines regardless of straighter or curlier hair, they don't look white, their skin is dark and bodies tropically adapted. As you can see I noted an individual with a white and black parent to make my point...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssssshhhh!!! . . .brothas are talking. Even the half brother KIK got it. "true or false history" relative to ancient artifacts. Are they African?
Shut up please!! Don't de-rail the thread.
As pointed out the only flaw in the all "negroids are negroes" premise is, Europeans will have to be included as Africans. Unless the new posit is " all natives south of the 48th (?) parallel are African". Therefore northern asians and Europeans as excluded as being Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: This is all meaningless crap. There needs to be a point or at least some sort of thesis question.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Europeans are not african, any moron knows that. That you want to go back to adam and eve to amke some kind of point is bizarre. You guys remind me of Little Black Sambo. You keep running in circles making points that have no application to anything. What humans were doing in 50,000 BC has no import whatsoever on the historical era.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Europeans are not african, any moron knows that. That you want to go back to adam and eve to amke some kind of point is bizarre. You guys remind me of Little Black Sambo. You keep running in circles making points that have no application to anything. What humans were doing in 50,000 BC has no import whatsoever on the historical era.
That is so if you mean the current period - of course it very much effected who ended up where; but our endeavor is scholarly investigation, as it has been for a long time. Is it only now, when you feel the facts going against your preconceived notions, that it becomes unimportant?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ TAP. ahem!! listen up! the topic started with the historical era. See St. Tigray's question. The whole premise is about "African" looking artifacts from about 500ad - 2000bc.
Pleeeassseee shut up!!
why don't you post in one of Jimmy Walker's or Derky's thread. We will jon you there later.
This could easily be mistaken for "African". But is it African in the contemporary sense?
As I said there are many who believe Anyone with these features are African regardless to their genetic lineage or place of birth.
The strength of that argument is . . .YES. . . all these people inherited these features from mother Afica.. . so they should be classified as Africans and since the white skin is NOT an African feature then Asian and European leucoderms are not "ancestral" ie Africans.
In other words ALL y-hg lineage may be African, it is the autosomal feature (genetics) that did not originate in Africa makes one NON-FRICAN.
Autosomal gene makes one non-African?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyy, If I had a black woman in my family line 100 years ago I am not african. You guys get too wound up in this stuff. Have a drink and relax a bit. You are trying to create something that does not exist.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, you do understand that the DEFINING White haplogroup "R" is found in Africa - and they ARE Black people.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, stop trying to be Black because you're not. I saw you and aint nobody whiter than you on this planet. You look white, you sound "white" and you act like a cracka ass crackkka.
You are catching own, brother. Took us a few years to get to this point.
Just saw this. . . .
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan:
. . . . a Hg R1b bearing European will first cluster with a Hg R1b bearing Cameroonian, before he clusters with a Hg I bearing European from a Y-DNA standpoint. . . . . .
To be clear, what do you mean by "catching on"; I've been relating this point ever since before you joined the board.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Herodotus view of Eastern Ethiopians...aka Eastern Blacks
VII.70. The Eastern Ethiopians---for two nations of this name served in the army--were marshaled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the Eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world. Their equipment was in most points like that of the Indians, but they wore upon their heads the scalps of horses, with the ears and mane attached; the ears were made to stand upright, and the mane served as a crest. For shields this people made use of the skins of cranes. Dravidians^Eastern Ethiops..see Herodotus
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
Sounds like you are not reading or capable of understanding what I'm saying.
As to the question of your "negro=negroid=black=african", you are clueless yourself about what you mean by these terms, as you have repetitively run away from clarifying your position; after all, you are the one who made a distinction between "negroid" and "negro", and now, in a direct contradiction, you write "negro=negroid=black=african". Why irrational people resort to using terms they don't have the slightest idea about, is any logical person's guess.
quote: I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
...about what?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama! I have mixed race friends who end up looking Indian, some that look White and others that look completely Black. My son is constantly mistaken for an Ethiopian, and myself and his mother are BOTH of West African stock. On that note, not too much of a conclusion should be drawn from that us being from Nigeria, as my Wife's father immigrated to Nigeria from Senegal and my family possibly from Northern Nigerian border only 2 generations ago! But if I was tested genetically, no one would collect this information. If you found my picture on Google under 'Nigerian' you would not have ANY of this information. Mixed race people do not share a single convenient phenotype, many have straight hair, others wavy, others kinky, some are dark, others pale, others brown. In the same way, a google image is TOTALLY useless without supporting literature and anthropological data to enable one to build a picture of the subject illustrated.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Doug's "Indus valley aboriginal blacks" are (by phenotype) Africans, as he knows but his supremacist ego throws up at the thought.
If we were talking about whites in China , or the Philippines, or Zambia, he'd say not a word. But say African and he has a baby:
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks.
[Marc writes]: There you go again freaking out at the use of the phrase "African" for those who are woolly/wiry haired with full facial features. For the zillionth time, this is a physical description, not geographic.
What you call aboriginal blacks is a synonym for Africans as I use it.
Your life is devoted -- as has been your ancestors who committed genocide on Africans worldwide enslaving them and using their natural resources as their own -- to trying to keep the good feeling of being above Africans so you oppose the use of the word for positive things.
Again, three cheers for your devotion to liberating the aborigine though fickr postings.
Although, in their abject poverty, they'd probably much prefer that you kicked your white relatives out of Australia and give them their land back than posting a picture of them sitting naked in dirt and squalor with a near blond-headed boy with brown skin (as opposed to black) showing white genes in the lineage:
Here is a listing of woolly-haired, full-featured peoples, Africans, who began world civilizations.
Let's see your pictures for the founders of civilization in these places.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Thats what really annoys me about the some of the ignorance that passes for scholarship in this group. 90% of the time people post pictures of when they have NO knowledge about the origin's of the people whose pictures they post. They just type a 'keyword' into google images and look for the phenotype that supports their argument. It can't be taken seriously as they have not even had a conversation with the subject so have no idea where the hell they come from or where come from migration-wise, culturally. The other 10% are posts like this that jump to ill-thought erroneous conclusions based on the 1 phenotype that supports their argument: As much as I DON'T agree with the assertion that straight hair comes from European admixture, I equally DO NOT agree with the assertion that ALL mixed race people end up looking phenotypically like 'Kid' or 'Barrack' Obama! I have mixed race friends who end up looking Indian, some that look White and others that look completely Black. My son is constantly mistaken for an Ethiopian, and myself and his mother are BOTH of West African stock. On that note, not too much of a conclusion should be drawn from that us being from Nigeria, as my Wife's father immigrated to Nigeria from Senegal and my family possibly from Northern Nigerian border only 2 generations ago! But if I was tested genetically, no one would collect this information. If you found my picture on Google under 'Nigerian' you would not have ANY of this information. Mixed race people do not share a single convenient phenotype, many have straight hair, others wavy, others kinky, some are dark, others pale, others brown. In the same way, a google image is TOTALLY useless without supporting literature and anthropological data to enable one to build a picture of the subject illustrated.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most blacks I know who have white blood STILL have tight curly hair. I know of NONE that have straight hair due to a white ancestor. Look at Barak Obama, look at any other number of mixed populations and YOU WONT see straight hair as a result of white blood.
Take an example from the light bright and almost white Christopher "Kid" Reid from "Kid and play" surely with Marc's reasoning he should have straighter hair being that he is Jamaican on his fathers side and Irish on his mothers...
Marc why is "Kids" hair tightly curled being that he is a first generation offspring of one white parent and one black?
But to Marc, Christopher "Kid" Reid is more black than the following aborigine because "Kids" hair is tightly curled and the aborigines isn't meanwhile Kid has white blood and the aborigine doesn't...go figure!!
Actually, that google image does prove the point and so do you.
Like you said, it takes more than eyeballing images on the net to make a general statement about the mixing of genes in populations. HENCE the idea that aborigines somehow have straight hair due to white blood when aborigines with almost NO white blood have this feature, is ridiculous.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Doug's "Indus valley aboriginal blacks" are (by phenotype) Africans, as he knows but his supremacist ego throws up at the thought.
If we were talking about whites in China , or the Philippines, or Zambia, he'd say not a word. But say African and he has a baby:
[Dr. Winters writes]: The Indus Valley civilization was founded by Dravidian speaking people who came from Africa. This is supported by the archaeological evidence.
The Dravidians were very recent to India. They were part of the C-Group people.
[Marc writes]: Look at the archeological evidence below and also compare pictures 3 and 4 from Africa and the Indus Valley above where the hair styles are identical:
And again this simply shows the crux of your empty argument. All world civilizations were not founded by Africans. The Indus Valley was founded by natives of that area who were primarily aboriginal blacks.
[Marc writes]: There you go again freaking out at the use of the phrase "African" for those who are woolly/wiry haired with full facial features. For the zillionth time, this is a physical description, not geographic.
What you call aboriginal blacks is a synonym for Africans as I use it.
Your life is devoted -- as has been your ancestors who committed genocide on Africans worldwide enslaving them and using their natural resources as their own -- to trying to keep the good feeling of being above Africans so you oppose the use of the word for positive things.
Again, three cheers for your devotion to liberating the aborigine though fickr postings.
Although, in their abject poverty, they'd probably much prefer that you kicked your white relatives out of Australia and give them their land back than posting a picture of them sitting naked in dirt and squalor with a near blond-headed boy with brown skin (as opposed to black) showing white genes in the lineage:
Here is a listing of woolly-haired, full-featured peoples, Africans, who began world civilizations.
Let's see your pictures for the founders of civilization in these places.
The aboriginal people of the Indus Valley were indigenous people of the Indus Valley and of course they were black, but they were not Africans. Even the blackest Indian in India does not consider themselves African and why should they? Even Indians who have lived in Africa and are dark black don't consider themselves Africans, so why are you talking such nonsense? Aborigines from Australia don't consider themselves African and neither do the negritoes of Asia. Simply put you are making up stuff that has absolutely no merit at all. While some of these people may identify with Africans as black people, they don't identify AS BEING African.
The aboriginal populations of Asia were and are black and share many features with Africans because of their ancient African ancestry. We all agree on that and there is no need to add any additional qualifiers to that in order to make it "more real". The fact of the African origin of humanity is real enough without having to apply the label African to all people OUTSIDE of Africa. If you were able to go to the various southeast Asian civilizations 1000 years ago and ask them who they were, they would NOT say African, FIRST because the word AFRICA did not exist and second because their primary identification would be with the geopolitical entity they were living in.
Heck, for that matter you can just go to the United States and see BLACK DIRECT DESCENDANTS of people from Africa not wanting to call themselves African, yet you want to expand this to people THOUSANDS OF YEARS removed from Africa as a term of common identity?
You don't make any sense.
And on top of that black people did not just get to India suddenly 3-5000 years ago and start civilization. The genes of Indian populations generally go back 30,000 years or more and India is one of the first places populated by people moving OUT of Africa, even before Australia. In a sense the south Indian "Dravidian" type is closely related Australian aboriginal type as branches of the same original out of Africa population that settled Asia.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have(equivalent), makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman quote: Autosomal gene makes one non-African?
Perhaps it would - if there was such a thing.
But I know of no such gene.
As a matter of fact, I know of no gene which cannot be attributed to admixture between Africans.
Need I remind you, that this too.. Is an African!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have, makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
What the hell are you talking about; you are all over the map with no sense of direction. I don't buy into your albino-origin of Europeans type of crap, if that's what you are alluding to. In any case, I have made no reference to skin color in this thread; it's a figment of your imagination. I simply pressed you on your disconcordant claim to disavow race on one hand, and then, accept its use on another. I also asked you to clarify your purported distinction between the so-called "negros" and "negroids". On none of these issues, have you once offered an answer, save to talk about some mythical or another discussion that you and I are supposedly having.
quote: After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
How's what an "original" premise? Do you ever offer anything "original" aside from nonsense?
quote:
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
???? Talk about talking to brick wall!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my interpretation of negro vs negroid. As i said I do NOT adhere to this belief.
negro= conventional view is he has wooly hair, prognathous, black/brown skin, thick lips, flat nose, muscular, round face, less body hair.
negroid = full or thin lips, prognathous, brown skin, curly or straight hair, aquiline nose.
So.. .stop with the games. You should know what the conventional view of what the true negro is. Negroid is anyone who have "many" of these features. Hence terms like negroids for AE. negritos for melanesians or Olmecs. Mediterranean for Greeks and Iberians etc. These people have many of the features of the "true negro".
Since I just answered your question I hope you will now consider me "rational".
Let re-iterate. . .this is NOT my belief.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Putting all the meandering response aside. . .
sounds like you are sagreeing that negro=negroid=black=african.
Sounds like you are not reading or capable of understanding what I'm saying.
As to the question of your "negro=negroid=black=african", you are clueless yourself about what you mean by these terms, as you have repetitively run away from clarifying your position; after all, you are the one who made a distinction between "negroid" and "negro", and now, in a direct contradiction, you write "negro=negroid=black=african". Why irrational people resort to using terms they don't have the slightest idea about, is any logical person's guess.
quote: I have to admit Mike et are really making a stronger case.
...about what?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now you are upset!! What is it with some of you brothas. So . . .emotional.
re-read my post. . . I am mocking the Alibinaos are white nonsense. (holding my head and shaking it).
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Mike
I think Explorer missed the point. Setting aside the Albinos are Whites nonsense. . .
The argument that - the development of Leucoderms occured outside Africa, whether through the SLC45A(?) gene or whatever the northern Asians have, makes one having that gene a non-African - is a plausible.
What the hell are you talking about; you are all over the map with no sense of direction. I don't buy into your albino-origin of Europeans type of crap, if that's what you are alluding to. In any case, I have made no reference to skin color in this thread; it's a figment of your imagination. I simply pressed you on your disconcordant claim to disavow race on one hand, and then, accept its use on another. I also asked you to clarify your purported distinction between the so-called "negros" and "negroids". On none of these issues, have you once offered an answer, save to talk about some mythical or another discussion that you and I are supposedly having.
quote: After all, all or most recognisable phenotypes originated inside Africa.
@ Explorer - how is that for another original premise?
How's what an "original" premise? Do you ever offer anything "original" aside from nonsense?
quote:
Give me the data I will tell you what it means.
???? Talk about talking to brick wall!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
This is my interpretation of negro vs negroid. As i said I do NOT adhere to this belief.
negro= conventional view is he has wooly hair, prognathous, black/brown skin, thick lips, flat nose, muscular, round face, less body hair.
negroid = full or thin lips, prognathous, brown skin, curly or straight hair, aquiline nose.
Firstly, which groups are "negroes" and which are not. Likewise with "negroids"? or Put it another way: which groups are "negroids" that are not "negroes" and vice versa. You implied earlier that "negroes" are limited to Africans, while Asians are "negroids". Do you still hold that view?
Secondly, if YOU don't adhere to the above descriptions, then whose work are you citing above? name the author.
quote: So.. .stop with the games.
More nonsense.
quote:
You should know what the conventional view of what the true negro is.
Well, I am aware of the pseudoscentific notion of a "negro" as a racial entity, but I have not come across your version of what constitutes a "negro" vs. "negroid". Hope that helps demystify your confusion about my standpoint.
quote:
Since I just answered your question I hope you will now consider me "rational".
Let re-iterate. . .this is NOT my belief.
Well, that remains to be seen.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Now you are upset!! What is it with some of you brothas. So . . .emotional.
It is not a matter of being upset. It is a matter of not understanding what you are talking about, since you don't specify what you are answering to or what you are referring to. You say I "missed the mark"; mark of what, and according what I've said?
quote: re-read my post. . . I am mocking the Alibinaos are white nonsense. (holding my head and shaking it).
Okay. But you can see where my confusion of that comes from I hope; since you invoked my name, and started rambling about albinos, which has *nothing* to do with our exchange.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
point is . . .for some negroes=negritos=negroid=black====AFRICAN.
If that is your belief then the answer to the topic starter(st. Tigray) question is YES.
Africans(indegenous) built these statues and monuments approx 1500 years ago in Asia. They were eventually replaced/exterminated by Leucoderms from Northern Asia.
Now the other view is - did Africans from the Africans continent leave Africa and build these monuments. . .according to Dr. Winters YES to Indus and Olmecs. He sites linguistic, archeology and some genetics (C group). there were undoubtedly Africans leaving Africa around that time. See Brada's ics/post.
-------------------- 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 |
[Doug writes]: The aboriginal people of the Indus Valley were indigenous people of the Indus Valley and of course they were black, but they were not Africans.
[Marc writes]: You are a racist. You can't stand the word African used in a context your racist self can't stomach.
Here is the definition of definition:
A definition is a formal passage describing the meaning of a term (a word or phrase). Terms have different meanings in different contexts. A stipulative definition explains the speaker's immediate intentional meaning.
Here is my stipulative explanation of the word "African."
African:A person, such as the aborigine of Australia, with woolly or wiry hair and full facial features who have given the world its civilzations though those coming after while carrying those civilizations on have disenfranchised and subjugated such persons.
You hate that word African, don't you? If you can have your foot on a black neck, then you are happy. You don't want a black man to stare you down or look down upon you.
By my definition, these are Africans worldwide who've engineered civilizations. e.g. the Indus Valley:
Again, you are to be commended for the compassion you've shown recognizing the humanity of the aborigine showing them sitting in squalor.
May you be blessed. But, do something more positive, get your people out of their land. Then you'd be truly blessed.
What do you call whites in France, Mexico, Alaska, Russia? As you don't call Africans African regarding general features, do you call whites aboriginal whites in those places rather than just white Mr. Double standard?
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic