quote:Originally posted by the lioness: only in a breeding situation do you find the various breeds of dogs. Around the world dogs look like the same "mutts". nature's course is muttification. As population technology brings people together and travel becomes easier and easier with more with infrastructure, highways, cars planes and trains the
caramelization of the world will be unstoppable. The visual differences between people will become less and less.
Yeah... doubt that.
You are of the persuasion that time travels linear (which is a White Western POV) and that things will somehow eventually get "better", while I am of the opinion that it is circular, and that if it hasnt happened in the thousands upon thousands of years we've been here, it aint soon to happen within the thousands upon thousands of years into the future either.
What's interesting about his new-found conversation that me and you are having now is that no other group of people talk like this except for blacks.
We are the only deplorable race of people earnestly waiting for a future in which the world will be "caramel", to finally THEN guarantee us that we can be accepted, while everyone ELSE establishes power for THEIR future and TURNS the world-view upside down on it's head and has OTHERS begging for THEIR acceptance. SMH. But we want to keep holding onto the bibles, and the Korans wishing for that ONE DAY of acceptance. SMH
We really ARE an ass-backward and disgustingly pathetic group of ppl sometimes.
It's best if we agree to disagree at this point.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
IDK about business ventures with the asians, other than getting them to come to our businesses and sending them along their way, just like they do us.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theDoctor: Hmmm... Dravidians?
Is that another word for "Indians", Mike?
IDK about business ventures with the asians, other than getting them to come to our businesses and sending them along their way, just like they do us.
India has many kinds of original peoples. But the majority are the Dravidians (the pure-Black people), and the Hindu, which are a mutt race of Dravidian and returning Dravidian Albinos from Central Asia (aka European type, circa 1,500 B.C.).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doctor We are the only deplorable race of people earnestly waiting for a future in which the world will be "caramel", to finally THEN guarantee us that we can be accepted, while everyone ELSE establishes power for THEIR future and TURNS the world-view upside down on it's head and has OTHERS begging for THEIR acceptance. SMH. But we want to keep holding onto the bibles, and the Korans wishing for that ONE DAY of acceptance. SMH
Who is this we??..listen people want fair treatment and respect that's it!! now how to achieve it is the problem to solve, no amount of impractical-separating of folks into neath boxes will carry the day,it hardly held sway back in the day under the penalty of death it is even more impractical now.
my own thought of seeing this through is
1 African and nations dominated by African descended folks governments first and foremost has to keep their people in mind first,treating them better looking after their well-being.if you treat your people with respect others will your do so at home or abroad, have the same type of agreement your trading partners have with you in regards to emigration and laws they have with you for their own citizens visiting your lands..when such agreements are violated lodge a formal complaint with the offices of offending nations,If nothing is done stop all projects with offending nations even if you have to take a financial hit..deport it's Representative or leading figures residing your country. seek-out or threaten to seek-out it's primary competitor.
2 Stop acting like your trading partner is there to do you a favor,(we use to be good at this)they are there for your stuff!! and you want payment for the stuff that you sold them or strategic space that you lease them. realize that they could give two sH!!t about what you do with the money after you got paid.
3 Stop treating your nation like it's your family owned business. realize that being El-Presidente for life is not necessarily a good thing trust others can do the job.
4 Demand excellence from your nation's youths, set the tone by having trains buses all government offices run on time and closed on time be anal that way, private businesses will follow and the people will follow after-all you set the tone.
5 No one respects a pushover prepare for a strong defense but respect your neighbor's boarders.
6 Learn all you can from both friends and foes and use what's use-full or less harmful remember most Africans went from the stone age directly into the iron age..modern equivalent invest in clean renewable sources of energy forget oil,gas and nuclear whenever possible. Now with all the above and more examples could be made, you have the blue print for making a strong successful nation of black folks that your neighbors will want to emulate,your friends and foes are bound to respect even if grudgingly and your citizens self satisfied and confident. The result???= NUFF RESPECT.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Doctor We are the only deplorable race of people earnestly waiting for a future in which the world will be "caramel", to finally THEN guarantee us that we can be accepted, while everyone ELSE establishes power for THEIR future and TURNS the world-view upside down on it's head and has OTHERS begging for THEIR acceptance. SMH. But we want to keep holding onto the bibles, and the Korans wishing for that ONE DAY of acceptance. SMH
Who is this we??..listen people want fair treatment and respect that's it!! now how to achieve it is the problem to solve, no amount of impractical-separating of folks into neath boxes will carry the day,it hardly held sway back in the day under the penalty of death it is even more impractical now.
"Fair treatment and Respect"?
Sir, did you not just see what Mike stated up above?
In a world in which BLACKS command 2/3rds of ALL the population in the WORLD, who in the hell do we need FAIR TREATMENT or RESPECT from anyone?
they should be begging THAT of US-- not the other way around.
Who needs "fair treatment" when your group represents the overwhelming majority of people RUNNING this WORLD? That should have been already commanded AUTOMATICALLY. Not as an after-thought.
There simply IS no excuse for this degeneracy of ours, that this race has fell into.
IDK-- what relevance those points that you outlined towards the latter part of your essay had ANYTHING to do with POSSIBLY correcting ME on MY POSITION.
and you are wrong about the separating of ppl not bringing about anything. The Jews and The Japanese were and still are very successful simply because of their HEAVY reliance on putting themselves in their own little "cultural box" and outright refusing to accept anybody who was not OF them.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doc quote: "There simply IS no excuse for this degeneracy of ours, that this race has fell into."
Ah yes, knowledge always brings one to that conclusion.
He,he, Now begins the hard part. Figuring out what and why, Whites did what they did is easy. Figuring out why, or more correctly, why not, for sub-Saharan Africans, is at this point - impossible!
But I have the feeling that if you can figure out what happened in South Africa, you will gain insight into the sub-Saharan psyche.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who is this we??..listen people want fair treatment and respect that's it!! now how to achieve it is the problem to solve, no amount of impractical-separating of folks into neath boxes will carry the day,it hardly held sway back in the day under the penalty of death it is even more impractical now.
Segregation not in the sense of I hate All races and want to preserve my race in the sense of White Radicals but seperation in the sense that the only people Who give a damn about blacks IS BLACKS...Period. We need to recycle our Money and resource within our communities, and BTW, Polls and research shows that people Self Segregate according to culture, we need to stop running from this common sense aspect.
BTW, did you know if all the money black Americans Alone was put together we would be the 10 or so most wealthy nation on Earth, Makes no God-Damn sense for our people to be in the situation we are in.
We are the only deplorable race of people earnestly waiting for a future in which the world will be "caramel", to finally THEN guarantee us that we can be accepted, while everyone ELSE establishes power for THEIR future and TURNS the world-view upside down on it's head and has OTHERS begging for THEIR acceptance. SMH. But we want to keep holding onto the bibles, and the Korans wishing for that ONE DAY of acceptance. SMH
We really ARE an ass-backward and disgustingly pathetic group of ppl sometimes.
It's best if we agree to disagree at this point.
I agree with this, blacks are Ass Backward but not by Genetics or culture considering the domination in History by Empires like Egypt, Nubia etc, the problem is Ass-Backward in the modern sense.
Too many of our people trying to run into 200 different dirctions, You Got the Muslims on Hajj to Mecca Praying to a Damn Rock 5 times a day over in Arabia but don't know jack about Lalibella, Axum, Dongolia, Thebes..etc., You got the Xtian Pulpit Pimps flying Private Jets while their congregation is thousands of dollars in Debt, You have the Black Radicals Preaching about the white man, making the white man his #1 concern, You have the blame whitey syndrome amoung blacks where their #1 concern is to blame the white man but will Never leave whitey's lands. You have the rare "blame blacky"..AKA House Nigga like Rev. Manning.
its the lack of a common goal, blame whitey syndrome, amoung many others that is the reason for Ass Backwardness amoung blacks in the modern Era.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stated above African and nations dominated by African descended folks governments first and foremost has to keep their people in mind first treating them better looking after their well-being.if you treat your people with respect others will your do so at home or abroad.
The taking care of "Your People First" and treating them better does in no way implies begging. others do what they do to us despite having 2/3 of the world populous precisely because our governments have not done the above. example an American or a Brit of whatever color,creed gets picked-up on some bull-Sh!!t charge in a foreign nation they do not go un-noticed by their national governments,or people of influence. I have seen this happen a lot of times.Africans and others stays in jail African Americans and Afro-Brits gets to go home.people of influence who consistently make that happen Jessi Jackson or even Al-sharpton.if you are American.
Stop acting like your trading partner is there to do you a favor (we use to be good at this)they are there for your stuff!! and you want payment for the stuff that you sold them or strategic space that you lease them. realize that they could give two sH!!t about what you do with the money after you got paid.
The fundamental problem is the highlited portion If you allow the prices of your goods and services to be set by your trading partners then you lose points in respect no matter how large a population you have look at what China called their great humiliation.
The last part of my reply was more about possible solutions Ie strong military deterrent makes for a certain amount of "RESPECT" Ie North Korea and Iran you don't like them but you will Respect them you may want to think real hard and deep before putting boots on the ground.
The thing about Jews and Japanese being somewhat insular is only some what true what they do is keep their culture close to their bosom and they do travel and intermarry like everyone but what they do above all else is put their people first. as outlined above.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Scientific practices often look at realities that are not congruent with the ideas of a given society, even when the scientists themselves are culturally connected to this society and share its values.
My guess is your an agent provocateur, and possibly (but not probably) with one of the neo racial movements which, although possibly well intentioned, aredesigned to reduce the numbers of different minorities. Ethnic groups with diverse lines of descent obviously hold greater percentages of folk who could check "mixed", "non-racial" etc but instead mark black or hispanic. The aim of some here is to seperate the power of the "mixeds" from the other groups. As far as scientific taxonomy goes none of these terms describe any groups anyway and adding mixeds just supports an old raciallist ideology and numerically dis-empowers minorities.
And Jews? There are Jews WORLDWIDE of varying phenotype and mixes and yet they are all Jews (even Jew-mixes). So your wrong on that one. If they "seperate themselves", than they do this in the same fashion as do say black Americans.
Regardless of any and all of this bullshi+ htough, you wait and see: the world's races will become moe and more economic based rather than ethnicity or skin color based. You just watch. The new colors will be green verses broke. {starts monacle laughter}
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theDoctor: Hmmm... Dravidians?
Is that another word for "Indians", Mike?
IDK about business ventures with the asians, other than getting them to come to our businesses and sending them along their way, just like they do us.
India has many kinds of original peoples. But the majority are the Dravidians (the pure-Black people), and the Hindu, which are a mutt race of Dravidian and returning Dravidian Albinos from Central Asia (aka European type, circa 1,500 B.C.).
Just one question is it accurate to say that the Dravidians make up 28% of the indian population?
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
Not really a source, just trying to figure out the true pop. of the Dravidians in India and on the subcontinent altogether...
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peregrine - I that case you might as well go to the Wiki pages on Dravidians, and the various countries that they inhabit.
Quote: Dravidian peoples also Dravidians is a term used to refer to the diverse groups of people who natively speak languages belonging to the Dravidian language family. Populations of speakers are found mostly in southern India. Other Dravidian people are found in parts of central India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The largest Dravidian peoples (30-70 million each) are the Telugus, Tamils, Kannadigas and the Malayalis. Smaller Dravidian communities with 1-5 million speakers are the Tuluvas, Gonds and Brahui.
Of course you know that all Dravidians do not speak the language. So you may want to note the Y-dna haplogroups on the India page, I find that very helpful.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theDoctor: Because Dr. Keita's scientific claims are the claims that lead to what Jari is insinuating here.
"Blackness" = defunct.
which opens us up to attack from those whom would come in to the continent wanting to embrace us as "brothers and sisters" by have agendas directly contrare to it.
I'm glad you brought this up. Eurocentrics love to use Dr. Keita's statements (along with Snowden's) when arguing with what they perceive to be Afrocentrics - the latter being anyone who refers to ancient Egyptians and sometimes Nubians and Ethiopians as blacks. This is because he has said some particularly vague and questionable things when it comes to how ancient North Africans originated and their biological affiliations - things that can be easily miscontrued by white nationalists and gullible "Afrocentrists". And not all forensic scientists associated with these matters have done this. Some have corrected these earlier assumptions in their papers.
I had plenty of discussion, actually borderline arguments back in the late 80s with Dr. Keita about so-called black traits - trying to convince him that the use of the term of "Negroid" for certain traits (as opposed to European) among ancient Nilotes was unwarranted. He had actually implied something about traits of nose being non-Negroid among northern Egyptians in early papers. From what i gather the issue was only cleared up for him later when certain other white anthropologists started saying traits of nose didn't necessarily define whether one was black African or not. He was originally influenced much by his mentor or teacher whom I think at the time was Armelagos. Thus, when people mention Keita even though he has done much to help African studies, I still cringe, as I remember our conversations.
However, there are other things or statements made since that time concerning biological affiliations and genetics of North AFricans and complexion that still have in my view contributed to confusing others even more than previously. Wanting to remain "mainstream" I guess has its consequences.
A prime example of these sorts of unclarified easily misconstruable statements is : "The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color,hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another."
I personally don't know what that means and would have to again respectfully disagree, unless there has been some genetic proof that people with blond hair and green eyes evolved in some African mountain top somewhere, or Mike is right that white people just popped up in some sudden mutation from black Africans somewhere and remained isolated in some part of Africa noone new about unable to produce rock art - like the Neanderthal.
Although Keita does further down in the paper write, " Another false idea is that supra- Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after he emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized."
The damage has already been done. hence there is still confusion over Ibero-Maurusian/Mechta Man who had long ago been shown through similar studies on discrete genetically determined traits to be east AFrican affiliated if not "Negroid".
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using IberoMaurusian instead of Mouillian and Oranian is damaging. Finds are usually named after their site. So we have Swanscombe, Cro-Magnon, etc., but in N. Africa certain skeletal finds and the culture related to them get the Iberian peninsula pushed all up in their name.
Anyway, it'd be a good thing to gloss Briggs' Stone Age Races conclusions with current archaeology, anthropology and genetics.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I'm glad you brought this up. Eurocentrics love to use Dr. Keita's statements (along with Snowden's) when arguing with what they perceive to be Afrocentrics - the latter being anyone who refers to ancient Egyptians and sometimes Nubians and Ethiopians as blacks. This is because he has said some particularly vague and questionable things when it comes to how ancient North Africans originated and their biological affiliations - things that can be easily miscontrued by white nationalists and gullible "Afrocentrists". And not all forensic scientists associated with these matters have done this. Some have corrected these earlier assumptions in their papers.
I had plenty of discussion, actually borderline arguments back in the late 80s with Dr. Keita about so-called black traits - trying to convince him that the use of the term of "Negroid" for certain traits (as opposed to European) among ancient Nilotes was unwarranted. He had actually implied something about traits of nose being non-Negroid among northern Egyptians in early papers. From what i gather the issue was only cleared up for him later when certain other white anthropologists started saying traits of nose didn't necessarily define whether one was black African or not. He was originally influenced much by his mentor or teacher whom I think at the time was Armelagos. Thus, when people mention Keita even though he has done much to help African studies, I still cringe, as I remember our conversations.
However, there are other things or statements made since that time concerning biological affiliations and genetics of North AFricans and complexion that still have in my view contributed to confusing others even more than previously. Wanting to remain "mainstream" I guess has its consequences.
A prime example of these sorts of unclarified easily misconstruable statements is : "The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color,hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another."
I personally don't know what that means and would have to again respectfully disagree, unless there has been some genetic proof that people with blond hair and green eyes evolved in some African mountain top somewhere, or Mike is right that white people just popped up in some sudden mutation from black Africans somewhere and remained isolated in some part of Africa noone new about unable to produce rock art - like the Neanderthal...
I couldn't agree with you more, Dana.
Keita's point of the phenotypic diversity of indigenous African populations has been misconstrued and spun to the point that some Euronuts claim these people...
..are as indigenous to the African continent as these people.
LOL It is totally ludicrous.
quote:Although Keita does further down in the paper write, " Another false idea is that supra- Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after he emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized."
True, but nowadays you begin to hear talk of indigenous "African cacausoids". This is the crap peddled by Dienekes Pontikos and his ilk.
quote:The damage has already been done. hence there is still confusion over Ibero-Maurusian/Mechta Man who had long ago been shown through similar studies on discrete genetically determined traits to be east AFrican affiliated if not "Negroid".
Indeed, the Moussian or Oranian culture and its 'Mechta-types' are actually not much different from the Natufian types of the Levant and both possess very "negroid" features. Though biased anthropologists in the past might be quick to say negro-like and not really negro. LOLPosts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: 80% Africans according to Doctoris Scientia:
Yea, well, according to Tishkoff (2009) a.k.a her chart, these people are 60% European:
"60% European" Now where have I heard that from before?? LMAO
That's right, the Nubians were described as such by some people as well!
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
There's a difference between "Haratin" Mozabite and ethnic Mozabite, the Mozabite tested in the Tishkoff study were ethnic Mozabite who look like your average Northern Saharan/Coastal North African; lighter skin, etc. The ethnic Mozabite population is 49% non-"Saharan/Dogon" and 51% "Saharan/Dogon"... with them possessing more African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" blue (40%) than non-African "European" blue (20%).
The Tishkoff study sampled several Saharan populations, from Chad, Mali, Sudan, and several other West African Saharan groups from several other countries. So while the Mozabite may not represent the entire Saharo-North African sub-region, since their genetic ancestry is drastically different from that of Chad and Mali, they are a good representation of the general Berber/Arab speaking Northwest African population... with the Kabyle and the Tuareg representing two extremes.
Also, "Saharan/Dogon" represented the ancestral group in question to the "ancestral" African blue, given the fact that the ancestral group showed a greater affinity to the Dogon then it did do either the Mozabite or the Beja. Meaning that the Dogon are genetically more closer to the source population than any other group with possession of the above ancestry. Therefore why they chose "Saharan/Dogon" over that of "Saharan/Mozabite" or "Saharan/Beja".
The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
The recent Tishkoff study even goes further in proving the above point. The Tishkoff study finds no non-African ancestry among the Chadic or Fulani groups, both groups also possess miniscal levels of the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestral group, who form the ancestral group which recently donated ancestry to non-Africans. Therefore suggesting an origin of Haplogroup R among another group other than the ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" cluster.
"The fact that Chadic speakers have high frequencies of a maker deemed "Eurasian" : R1 but have little possibly "Saharan/Dogon" or "Eurasian" yet cluster with Southern Sudan / Central Sudanic + forms their OWN cluster is very telling about the coalescence location of such Chadic speakers themselves. And also how Eurasian Blue is/was NOT spread."
"The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13 in the global analysis and at K <8 in the Africa analysis. Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations."
These folks are not Dogon. I would say they are most Certainly Fulani. Look at the Dye on the mouth of the woman on the far Left.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I couldn't agree with you more, Dana.
Keita's point of the phenotypic diversity of indigenous African populations has been misconstrued and spun to the point that some Euronuts claim these people...
Unfortunately Djehuti - it looks very much to me like black "Afrocentric" people on this site are also misinterpreting info and trying to blend in predominantly black Africans of Paleolithic North Africa and Eurasia with the ancestors of modern Eurasiatics who were quite different phenotypically from ancient makers of Oranian alias IberoMaurusian and Eburran culture.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita studied under Lawrence Angel who unfortunately had to rely on some of the same anthropological that gave rose to the Hamitic Caucasian confusion as witnessed below.
Caucasoid Morphological Types The people of Lerna; analysis of a prehistoric Aegean population, by J. Lawrence Angel, Princeton, N.J., American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1971, pp. 36-38
The Basic White type A1 for example, is close to the British Atlanto-Mediterranean of Deniker and others, and it is longer-faced, more linear throughout than A3. Type A2 is a smaller version of the Upper Paleolithic norm and is broader-based and more rugged than A3, the Central Basic White, which approximates the Eurafrican of the literature and is a smaller version of Cro-Magnon. A4, a squat-faced and low-headed version of A3, being more Eastern than African; and A5 is a taller, more massive version.
The Classic Mediterranean type B1 is a generalized Mediterranean, whereas B2 is the more angular form, as often found in Egypt. Types B3, more linear and "Classic" in Sergi's sense, and B4, with the long face, approximate the desert-belt Mediterranean in the range from North Africa and Siwah to Hissar and Kazakhstan.
The Nordic-Iranian type D1 lies between Anglo-Saxon and Keltic area norms, and D2 is the earlier pre-Bronze Age Corded form which Coon identifies. Type D3, lighter and more hawk-nosed, is transitional to the Mediterranean type B4 and to type D4 (Iranian), which is the Proto-Iranian of Vallois, Irano-Afghan of others, and Proto-Nordic of Krogman, and which is more linear and more rugged than D3 and has a more tilted chewing plane, more nasal convexity, and deeper occiput. Type D5 approximates Coon's Danubian-Halstatt and successor Central European forms.
The Dinaric-Mediterranean type F1 is the higher more Mediterranean version found in Lower Egypt or Anatolia; F2 is the broader bigger-faced more Dinaroid version, rarely with less curved occiput; and F3 is the low-headed East Balkan version with some Iranian face features. Type F4, with its more Iranian face and short vault and with little occipital bulge diverges toward the Armenoid of Bunak and others. Note that type F never has the "flat" occiput of Dinaric and Armenoid types; this occiput is probably artificial (head-bounding) in any case.
The Mixed-Alpine type E1 has the A3 form puffed out and more paedomorphic (cf. Alpine), whereas E2 is Nordic-Alpine and E3 Mediterranean Alpine.
The Alpine type C1 is the typical Central European Alpine form, C2 a smaller trend of this, and C3 is the Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic form (cf. Borreby). Type C4, short-faced but narrow-nosed and with an almost flat occiput, is an Eastern but not Armenoid form; and C3 is a low-headed and squat-faced version of C4, perhaps frequent in Hittites. These two may be pre-Armenoid.
-------------------- D. Reynolds-Marniche Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I could never get the "Armenoid" thing. As late as 1990 edition I saw a Encyc Brit blurb talking about ancient Egyptian 'Armenoids."
What exactly is an "Armenoid"? Kim Kardashian?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^I could never get the "Armenoid" thing. As late as 1990 edition I saw a Encyc Brit blurb talking about ancient Egyptian 'Armenoids."
What exactly is an "Armenoid"? Kim Kardashian?
LOl - I think it is just the old physical anthropological term for the earliest Eurasian type in the Near East or Levant. They were usually described with a rather prominent nosed, brachycephals, hairsute and the type often seen bearded on Mesopotamian sculptures which are sometimes wrongly confused with the majority dolichocephalic populations of ancient Sumer and Akkad or the African looking peeps Hanihara talks about.
Of course many of the genes of the modern Middle Easterners come from these so called "Armenoids" including Armenians.
I don't know about any "Armenoids" making up a significant proportion of ancient Egypt though. Maybe modern Egypt, but not ancient.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
On the plantation, we could identify a POTENTIAL traitor based on the COLOR of their skin, or on the texture of their hair before we even had to have a CONVERSATION with them.
Oh really, what are you basing that on a paper bag?
quote:Originally posted by theDoctor: And this is what saved many of us as a people. Now you want us to believe that many of "our people" should now include those of us whom resemble our enemies rape products? and if so, whats to stop us from differentiating between us and the indians? Indians wield all of the same facial characteristics-- are we supposed to look upon THEM as our "black brothers and sisters" too now? Despite the fact that we now KNOW how they REALLY feel about black people?
If you live in America you pay sales and other taxes to a white government and live in a system of laws enforced by white people. So if you have decided to live in America instead of Ghana stop kidding yourself that we have any control of a neighborhood in America or Western Europe. Black people are now a minority in Harlem. You think we had the power not to let them in? That's a fantasy. [/QB]
Shaddup Jew. Your people have control of your neighborhoods, and we will also in spite of your demonic perch upon our shoulders.
Doctor, you are correct, however it does not necessarily have anything to do with skin tone or hair texture. It's all in the MIND! Many of our most harmful traitors possessed the darkest skin and the kinkiest hair.
These fools require, INTENSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL REEVALUATION, as do ALL blacks, especially Black women where WHITE THOUGHT has corrupted their social values and worldview.
Those blacks such as Kettles, Keita preaching and championing INTEGRATION are fools. The same type of fool that will spy on black self-improvement organizations and report to the FBI/CIA, I.E. W.E.B. DuBois.
Really, it's our own fault though since historically we have never made these traitors pay a price. In fact, the traitors reporting on Garvey, Malcolm X, MLK, received promotions and in some cases, became wealthy byway of their traitorous actions, where they should have received a bullet to the skull. Their profiles cannot be tracked by skin color, hair texture, or geographic location. The sole manner of identifying these psychologically damaged individuals is by way of psychological evaluations. In the meantime, we need to follow the examples of Idi Amin on how to deal with traitors. This is real WAR. Not an assimilation exercise. Imbeciles like Kettle and Keita need to be addressed by a group counsel which lays out strict guidelines on their behavior. if they refuse to comply, they should be censored and exposed for the traitors they are at every opportunity. LOL, but an Black organization like this requires commitment, and that is a quality whites have eliminated in the black majority. Sad.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
________________________ 
Printer-friendly view of this topic