"There seems to be a growing consensus or idea in the literature of anthropology that there is no such thing as race. Continuing, Dr. Finch noted that. One consequence of this thinking is the idea that Black people in India, Asia and the Pacific Islands who have almost the identical physical characteristics as Africans--that is, black skins, kinky hair, full lips, broad noses, etc.--are said to be totally unrelated to Africans...
"Dr. Diop, speaking deliberately and uncompromisingly, pointed out that:
A racial classification is given to a group of individuals who share a certain number of anthropological traits, which is necessary so that they not be confused with others. There are two aspects which must be distinguished, the phenotypical and genotypical. I have frequently elaborated on these two aspects. If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is. But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, `We don't even know what a race is.' It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated"
New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa
Replacement theory 'demolished' February 2, 2006, Washington University, St. Louis
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war. *Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
*Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred. Alan Templeton
Alan Templeton
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
By Tony Fitzpatrick
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ what a joke. There isn't an agreed upon phenotype that determines blackness.
There is a concept of Negroid but then many orientals have these features.
Simply can't use phenotype or genetics to classify people.
This guy is just as Cacuasian as any European in features but is politically a Black man:
This has been explained to you over and over again.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am quoting Runoko Rashidi's opinion not necessarily my own. Now I have also added a differnt point of view article from below Rashidi's remarks.
Diop's view:
^^^^^ Narmer (or Menes), typical Negro, first Pharaoh of Egypt, who unified Upper and Lower Egypt for the first time. He is assuredly neither Aryan, Indo European, nor Semitic, but unquestionably Black -Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization p 13, fig.5
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
what was it you were saying in some thread about you thinking straight haired people might have been first?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, One may not want to use the word "race" but it is obvious that there are identifiable population groups. An East Asian--no matter what his/her individual phenotypical traits are--or a South Asian--no matter what he/she looks like--are easily spotted in Africa except in South Africa or Madagascar. What sets the black/African apart, curiously enough, is just a single trait: the hair. That's always the give away. In many cases, black/African can create ambiguity when they straighten their hair skilfully.
In general, Nature creates differentiation within and between species, sub-species and their constituent groups. In the case of humans the implications of such are of little significance though, since phenotype does not track culture. What I mean is that if you raise a Mike Tyson clone to be King of England, he will do the job easily-accent, fox-hunting and all.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
what was it you were saying in some thread about you thinking straight haired people might have been first?
The gene that causes hair to be straight in orientals is older than the OOA migration.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
what was it you were saying in some thread about you thinking straight haired people might have been first?
The gene that causes hair to be straight in orientals is older than the OOA migration.
You had seemed to say before that ther is no such thing as racial phenotype, now you're using the word "oriental" I wonder how that is defined then? Anyway, I thought the East Asians were part of the OOA Migration. What would be before, I don't know what you mean
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we should do away with the word 'race' and substitute it with 'breed." This will satisfy both camps.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, `We don't even know what a race is.' It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated"
And that ought to be tacked onto some members foreheads until it soaks in.
Too bad some here can't understand this welcome and thought-provoking analysis. Once analyzed further it may open a gaping wound to some members psyches.
Those are basically my thoughts from long before Egyptsearch even hit the scene.
Good stuff.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course there is such a thing as features that are not African, granted that African diversity encompasses much of that found outside of the continent. The Pinocchio-like tip of the nose that is frequently found in northern west Eurasians is generally rare, if not absent, in autochthonous African populations. The level of loss of epidermal pigmentation in northern Europe is essentially not African, as a natural selection feature as opposed to a genetic mishap. Likewise, certain hair textures found in Europe are rare to absent in Africa. The orbital ridges that are prominent in Australian populations, once a frequent trait in Africa, is no longer prominent on the continent. These are merely a few examples that immediately pop into mind.
Visual aids...
A common example of this is the nose job done on the facial reconstruction of Tut:
It appears that there was an attempt to "Europeanize" Tut's nose, but it came out in a peculiar way instead. Tut's contemporaneous sculptures don't feature such nose tips on his busts.
^This last one perhaps does a good job of showing the contrasts. The female's nose is by no means flat, but next to the male's, the tip of her nose points out relatively lesser than the "white" male counterpart. Note the differences in nostrils too. The male's is longer and the opening of the nostrils are relatively narrower than that of the female, while the latter's nostril [its outlines] appear relatively more flared or emphasized. So by "Pinocchio"-like nose tip, I'm referring to these type of side-profile outward projections of the nose, and the relatively "sharper" or "pointier" tip (often slanting downwards), usually in accompaniment by narrower (in tandem with understated nostril lines) long nostril openings, which appear as though someone is pressing on the nostrils.
Ps: Observe the tips of the nose and the nostrils...
posted
New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa
Replacement theory 'demolished' February 2, 2006, Washington University, St. Louis
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war. *Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
*Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred. Alan Templeton
Alan Templeton
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
By Tony Fitzpatrick ----------------
Interestingly, the supposedly existing "Eurasian" populations are themselves derived from earlier African migration waves and themselves looked like Africans during the key Neolithic period, and even relatively recently as late as the Iranian Bronze Age depending on the "Eurasians" in question and time periods studied.
posted
zarahan, I'm not sure if you agreed with Templeton or the writer of this article's conclusions or not. Usually disagreeing with OOA supports a multiregional model. The multi regional model is not the mainstream and regardless of being true or not it can more easily be used to support ideas about racial differences. I'm not sure what is described is a multiregional model but is clearly not an African replacement OOA model. Here we see the author coming to an unexpected conclusion that leads to what he believes an "intertwined"racial relationship. I wasn't sure what to make of this study which challenges the OOA model. At the same time the conclusion they draw from it is not the typical one. One can only speculate the complexion of early Eurasians. The earliest must have been dark brown skinned. Yet in a matter of just several thousands years their skin would turn lighter in certain latitudes. You also can have changes in facial features. So when back migrations are discussed no one really knows what the people looked like at that particular point in time when they migrated. For example if you look at a dark skinned population migrating into Asia 100,000 years ago or even on half of that 50,000 it only takes 6-9,000 years for their skin to lighten significantly at certain latitudes. Let's give it even more leeway, say 12,000 years to change. So we start at the 50,000 years ago point, take away 12K for skin lightening there is still a long 38,000 year period in which a back migration may have occurred.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
what was it you were saying in some thread about you thinking straight haired people might have been first?
The gene that causes hair to be straight in orientals is older than the OOA migration.
You had seemed to say before that ther is no such thing as racial phenotype, now you're using the word "oriental" I wonder how that is defined then? Anyway, I thought the East Asians were part of the OOA Migration. What would be before, I don't know what you mean
Multiple OOA migration events. Simple question was on when did people exhibit straight hair. My answer was that it appears that Africans had straight hair before they left. Not going to go further than what I have research on that can back me up.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ like I said, there is a concept of Negroid but Orientals also have these features. Is the person above Oriental? The answer is unequivocally no since we are talking about NE Africa. NE Africa has had a Black African presence since the birth of mankind. So when we find Oriental looking people in NE Africa we are dealing with Black Africans which Negroid features. Negroid features are not exclusive to Black Africans nor does it describe all Black Africans.
what was it you were saying in some thread about you thinking straight haired people might have been first?
The gene that causes hair to be straight in orientals is older than the OOA migration.
You had seemed to say before that ther is no such thing as racial phenotype, now you're using the word "oriental" I wonder how that is defined then? Anyway, I thought the East Asians were part of the OOA Migration. What would be before, I don't know what you mean
The Orient is a place and the people living there are called Oriental. This is not a race.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: But what counts in reality is the phenotype. It is the physical appearance which counts. This black, even if on the level of his cells he is closer than Peter Botha, when he is in South Africa he will live in Soweto. Throughout history, it has always been the phenotype which has been at issue; we mustn't lose sight of this fact. The phenotype is a reality, physical appearance is a reality. Now, every time these relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is made to undermine the cultural consciousness of Africans by telling them, `We don't even know what a race is.' It is the phenotype which as given us so much difficulty throughout history, so it is this which must be considered in these relations. It exists, is a reality and cannot be repudiated"
And that ought to be tacked onto some members foreheads until it soaks in.
Too bad some here can't understand this welcome and thought-provoking analysis. Once analyzed further it may open a gaping wound to some members psyches.
Those are basically my thoughts from long before Egyptsearch even hit the scene.
Good stuff.
INTERESTING view.Just saying.I know some are not going to like it but i have I still have sympathy for this view.
THERE are others THAT BELIEVE THAT native americans should still be considered east asian or not thier own group while others believe they are thier own population group.
THERE are those folks who still believe that there are only three, instead of five population groups and are not convince that native americans and asian blacks are thier own group by dna, and basic a phenotype is the most important.
MANY STILL STILL BELIEVE THAT, East asian,africoid and white ARE THE ONLY POPULATION GROUPS, and everything else is just a one big politically correct snow job or con job.THESE groups are still called races by many,just saying,and i did not say i said they were,just saying what most folks still believe.
I HAVE READ SOMEWHERE that there are a few whites that have more black dna than white dna but they would never be considered black if you look at thier basic phenotype and i read thier are a few blacks that have more white dna then black but they are still black or afrocoid in basic look looks and are considered still black.
This is something to consider WHEN you START MESSING AROUND WITH DNA.
In other words for many do not i think dna is not the main factor,it's a factor or factor if used in combination to consider who is who,but phenotype is just has important,or more so.
I THINK phenotype is the most important factor and i think most folks on earth believe that still regardless of what the dna says .Most folks arestill no aware of this dna stuff and if the y do i believe most would not really care or they would view that has minor comapared to phenotype or if not minor not has important has phenotype.
Nobody look at dna see what you are ANYWAY,they look at basic phenotype.I THINK SOMETIMES certain folks get carried away with dna and do not use common sense.
I have been thinking about this lately when i went to do more research because have not done this before to this extent.
Just being honest what I think about this so far,that's all,BECAUSE ALL MY LIFE i viewed asian blacks has basically african even if they are native to asia too and for me it's only been recently to find out they should not be considered africoid,JUST because some nerd or nerds said they are not has african in dna has we thought, so just ignore THE basic phenotype OR MAKE THAT THAT THE MINOR PART knowning that if any asian black were living in a arab country they would be still treated like africans and still view has such.
What the asian black is going to say,wait don't hurt me,i am not has african in dna like that dinka here in egypt. believe me that asian black would be treated basically has a african and more so if they are not arabized.
JUST SAYING.
"Dr. Diop, speaking deliberately and uncompromisingly, pointed out that:
quote- A racial classification is given to a group of individuals who share a certain number of anthropological traits, which is necessary so that they not be confused with others. There are two aspects which must be distinguished, the phenotypical and genotypical. I have frequently elaborated on these two aspects. If we speak only of the genotype, I can find a black who, at the level of his chromosomes, is closer to a Swede than Peter Botha is.
posted
Kenndo says, ''INTERESTING view.Just saying.I know some are not going to like it but i have I still have sympathy for this view.''
I'll take it to my grave.
''MANY STILL STILL BELIEVE THAT, East asian,africoid and white ARE THE ONLY POPULATION GROUPS, and everything else is just a one big politically correct snow job or con job.''
I affix myself to this group as well. It just makes sense to me. I admit right up front I base that on nothing other than what Diop says it is and that is phenotype IS the issue with most groups, especially white folks.
To me the genetic data only serves to show how the world's populations have come to be the way they are. Also, to me, this view doesn't include genetic drift, population bottlenecks, latitude explanations and no such other way of trying to make this work scientifically. They are all mathematical models repeated so often in the scientific community that it has become an unwarranted ''fact,'' established without empiricism. I'm saying they just don't know for sure how it came to be this way. And even if some scientists think it may be bs they won't go public wih it for fear of being ostracized from the ''peer review'' scientific community.
''Most folks arestill no aware of this dna stuff and if the y do i believe most would not really care or they would view that has minor comapared to phenotype or if not minor not has important has phenotype.''
Right. They couldn't care less what the genetic data says and I agree with that. It is phenotype plain and simple. It's no mystery that some people in the U.S., mainly white it seems, will disavow anything that has black African blood. These same white folks will be fond of saying ''I am part Cherokee'' or some other branch of ''native'' Americans, not realizing that those Cherokees may be mixed up with their darker-skinned native brethren.
What I find amazing is some on this site are actually proud of the scientific findings that say no races yet none of them will tackle what Diop is stating. It's almost as if they are pleading with the white boys and girls to make them see we are the same as them and hoping, since the similiarity is revealed, that the white folks will magically embrace this relatedness and enthusiastically proclaim ''Well we are the same and now you can marry my blonde, blue-eyed daughter.''
BS. It ain't gonna work. It never has and never will--all because of phenotypic expression.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was interested to see what others had to say and i found this.
Posted By: Pianke Nubiyang That's as far as I understand this issue, based on the works of a few geneticists and anthropologists whose works I have studied.
AS FAR AS "RACE" IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT IT: 1. THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE AND RESEMBLANCES WHICH IS WHAT COUNTS, OR HOWEVER, AS WAS MADE CLEAR ON THE "EVE" PROGRAM, A TINY GROUP OF AFRICANS COMING FROM ONE AREA WITH ONE TYPE OF GENES LEFT THE CONTINENT ABOUT 150,000 YEARS AGO AND SPREAD WORLDWIDE. WHAT ABOUT THE AFRICANS WHO STAYED ON THE CONTINENT. WELL, TODAY, THEY HAVE THE GREATEST VARIATIONS IN GENE TYPES COMBIMED, COMPARED TO ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD.
WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT IF THERE ARE 100 VARIATIONS OF GENES IN AFRICA AND ABOUT TWO LEFT, THEN ONLY THE TWO TYPES SPREAD ALL AROUND THE WORLD, LEAVING THE REST IN AFRICA. HENCE ONE CAN TAKE ANY GROUP OF AFRICANS FROM A PART OF THE CONTINENT WHERE NO ONE LEFT AND THEIR GENES MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS AFRICOID PEOPLE IN A PLACE LIKE FIJI.
HOWEVER, IF YOU TAKE THE GROUP OF AFRICANS (WHO LIVE IN TANZANIA TODAY) THAT THE FIJIANS ARE RELATED TO, YOU WILL FIND THEIR GENETIC MAKEUP TO BE IDENTICAL.
SO THE IDEA THAT HE AUSTRALOIDS ARE NOT OF PROTO-AFRICAN ORIGINS NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED. FURTHERMORE, IT DEPENDS ON WHICH GROUP OF PEOPLE IN INDIA OR AUSTRALIA YOU SPEAK TO. THOSE BRAINWASHED BY ARYAN AND BRITISH RACISM MAY NOT KNOW THE TRUTH, BUT THOSE WHO KNOW IT WILL PROUDLY CLAIM THEIR AFRICAN ORIGINS. I HAVE SEEN IT AND EXPERIENCED IT IN PERSON, RIGHT IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA WHERE I HAVE MET BOTH BLACK DALITS FROM INDIA AND AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES WHO ARE PROUD TO SAY THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE BLACK AFRICAN DIASPORA.
posted
If anyone wants to comment on the term Africoid and it's meaning below and the other stuff below,go ahead.
Africoid An inclusive term? A broad term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples of Sub-Saharan African descent, those people today called Congoids (formerly called "Negroids"), but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain faciocranial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to Congoid (formerly called "Negroid") peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathism[citation needed], a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, and Chancellor Williams.
Criticism of race categorization Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton,[14] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. This more race neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial typ but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids?
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some Afrocentrists argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia.[35] Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual."
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about blackness as an identity, a shared history, a certain culture or religion which connects blacks through time ans space. we need to get away from the skull measering eurocentrics who are up to no good.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic