quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The "African climate" incorporates diverse temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements in a wide range of environments -- from deserts, to high altitude snowy zones, to jungle, to savannah, to mixed woodlands, to higher altitude cloud forest, and all that is WITHIN the TROPICAL zone of Africa.
WANTED TO RE-POST THIS TO SAY THAT THIS IS TRUTH AND IMPORTANT FOR OTHERS TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY WITHIN AFRICA
Posts: 7 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: The reality of race -
"Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."
- Gill, George W., PhD, Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000.
Like i said the only people who deny race have a political agenda.
alTakruri is either a far left white liberal or a black obsessed with civil rights. He's a crank who refuses science for a political agenda.
You are greatly mistaken to suggest that there is no scientific evidence to support the FACT that there is indeed only one race!!! As science indicates, races are not able to interbreed! All humans can clearly do so! You were probably an African in your past life anyhow... lol. Actually you were certainly an African if you were human, since all humans are originally from African ancestral populations in the first place.
Posts: 7 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: The reality of race -
"Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."
- Gill, George W., PhD, Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000.
Like i said the only people who deny race have a political agenda.
alTakruri is either a far left white liberal or a black obsessed with civil rights. He's a crank who refuses science for a political agenda.
You are greatly mistaken to suggest that there is no scientific evidence to support the FACT that there is indeed only one race!!! As science indicates, races are not able to interbreed! All humans can clearly do so! You were probably an African in your past life anyhow... lol. Actually you were certainly an African if you were human, since all humans are originally from African ancestral populations in the first place.
Typical race-denier loon who is using the same old race and species confusion tactic.
Argument by false definition
Race deniers frequently confuse race and species in their argument, setting a standard for race that is the same as the standard for species, implicitly applying the definition of species to race. Since humanity is one species, with no different human species, it is then argued by false definition that there are no different human races, defining race out of existence. The distinguishing difference between species and race, of course, is that species cannot interbreed, or at least do not interbreed under natural conditions, while races can and do interbreed when there is extensive contact between them. Race deniers wrongly use the existence of hybrid or racially-mixed individuals and populations, which prove that the different human populations interbreed and are therefore races rather than species, as proof that all humans are of one race, not different races, confusing race with species and defining race out of existence.
posted
Take an anthropology class at one of your local universities and perhaps you will see the truth. REGARDLESS of the meaning behind a simple human phrase in the limited English language, race is just a concept invented by man! From a much higher, spiritual point of view, we are all one regardless! Our world is moving closer and closer to oneness and soon we will all be one, beautiful population with, most likely, a medium brown skin complexion with curly to wavy hair texture. I am African, Japanese, English, French, Native American (ancestry from all corners of mother Earth), so I wouldn't be surprised is a few centuries from now the entire human race looks like me
Posts: 7 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I read the info on the link you posted. Not to be offensive, but it appeared to be very, well, last century. If we are to progress as a species, we need to put those old, outdated views away for good. They will serve us no longer! I am surprised to find that such ideas about "race" are still surfacing! We need to evolve past that, and honestly, most of us are!
Posts: 7 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinamonia: Take an anthropology class at one of your local universities and perhaps you will see the truth.
I'm qualified in forensic anthropology. Races are a biological reality (as genetic confirms) and are morphologically different. Modern forensic scientists recognise 3 major distinct races (Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid) based on osteological (especially craniofacial and craniometric) traits. My thread on the difference of the bone structure and cranial features in races can be found here -
quote:REGARDLESS of the meaning behind a simple human phrase in the limited English language, race is just a concept invented by man!
The word itself is quite irrelevant. The fact of the matter is race as a concept is validated by science, but also history, and many other areas.
quote:From a much higher, spiritual point of view, we are all one regardless!
Nope we aren't. Races have been seperated for many millenia and evolved entirely different, not only physically but mentally.
quote:Our world is moving closer and closer to oneness and soon we will all be one, beautiful population with, most likely, a medium brown skin complexion with curly to wavy hair texture. I am African, Japanese, English, French, Native American (ancestry from all corners of mother Earth), so I wouldn't be surprised is a few centuries from now the entire human race looks like me
No thank you. My children will be white. You have a very ugly fantasy of genocide where races will all mix, but this will never happen. Its only freaks and self-haters who want to mix, do you really want to destroy races and phenotype diversity so everyone is an ugly brown colour? Most people love their own race and are sexually attracted to members of their own race of the opposite sex. Marriage statistics reveal only 1% of white people marry outside of their race. We aren't going anywhere. Does that upset your fantasy of genocide? Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL... "We" aren't going anywhere? So apparently you believe you speak on behalf of the entire, so called, "white race?" Well you should speak for yourself! Not all "white" people would agree with you. You speak on behalf of a dwindling group of racists. Human populations may have been separated for some time, but believe it or not, accept it or not, you alone will be unable to stop our acceleration towards oneness! Their is a fantastic book called "Oneness" by Rasha. Why don't you give it a try, my brother (because that is what you are). Oh, and don't be surprised if you do return in your next life as a man of mixed ancestry. I know you pride yourself with the skin color of the body you now possess, but in the grander scheme of things, we are all spirit, and this form we are now exploring is but a temporal dwelling place... that being said, rest assured that your spirit is indifferent to the color of the "vehicle" in which it chooses to dwell. You know in the deepest part of your being that you and I, and all creation, are connected as one. And by the way, polls actually show that when asked to choose which individual they thought was most attractive, most chose a male and female of mixed ancestry (brown skin), and most of the poll takers identified as white American! The concept of beauty is evolving, which is what the universe intended! P.S. Don't be surprised that one of your children marry outside of their "race." The most racist of parents often giver birth to the most openly loving of children (the universe has a since of humor)... Love you. Goodnight.
Posts: 7 | From: Arizona | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Again I subscribe to race being ancestral to a particular segment of the globe.
Yep.
Caucasoids are indigenous to Europe and South-West Asia (Middle-East).
See map -
The Negroid or Black is not even indigenous to North Africa. The indigenous people of North Africa are the Capoids (Bushmen).
The New “Black Caucasians”– Changing Meaning of the Caucasian - New Caucasian Delusions
In 1937, Caucasians were defined as “the white division of human beings so called because the people are from the Caucaus mountains. They were taken from the highest type of the human family, the circassians, Jews, Armenians, Hindus and Persians.” See Webster’s 20th century Dictionary unabridged, 1937.
A more recent revision of the New Websters dictionary, 1981 defined the terms as:“Caucasian- pertaining to the white race as characterized by physical features. A native of the Caucausus, a member of the Caucasian race.”
In 1992, the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Ed,1992 moved this re-definition process even further for it boldly declared as follows:“Caucasian- of relating to, or being a major human racial division traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to BROWN skin (??) pigmentation and straight to wavy orcurly hair, and includes people indigenous to Europe, northern AFRICA(??),Western Asia, and India, relating to the Caucasian region of its peoples.”
The definition of Caucasian that exists in Webster’s New World College Dictionary of 1996 is a 180 degrees turn around from the term’s usage in the early parts of the 20th century. In the Webster’s dictionary one finds the following so called explanation:“Caucasoid- from the erroneous notion that the original home of the hypothetical indo-europeans was the Caucasus ..one of the major…varieties of human beings…characterized by…straight or wavy hair..loosely called the white race although it embraces many people of DARK (??) skin color.”
Motivation For A Historic Lie
We all thought that Caucasian meant the so-called white race,(actually a pink-pale coloured tribe from Central Asia) who today dominate Europe, America and the rest of the world. This tribe was the last civilized tribe of humanity, yet it claims to be the first world nation.
Until recently, it was quite understood that the essential difference between the pink northern European (Caucasians) and the brown African (Coloureds)was the colour of their skin. It appears that the Euro-controllers of the world, dominators of the world consciousness, have now redefined the meaning of Caucasian to include Africans.
Why would they do this: To keep Moors (so-called Africans) confused about their identity; to keep Europeans deluded about their abilities; to steal the legacy and achievement of worthier civilizations; to perpetuate pink-skin supremacy by erasing the collective memory of humanity and giving an impression of a collective mass that does not exist in fact.
They also lie to the rest of us, so that we do not know where we are coming from or where we are all heading to. And where are we heading to? To a world of sanity, equity, and balance. We are fighting for a world where white (pink-skin) supremacy is utterly destroyed. Our strenght is in numbers, and we cannot be conquered, as long as we are aware of their manipulations and underhand tactis.
Caucasian
1807, from Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian seas; applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Ger.) by Ger. anthropologist Johann Blumenbach, because their supposed ancestral homeland lay there; since abandoned as a historical/anthropological term. Lit. meaning "resident or native of the Caucasus" is from 1843.
The mountain range name is from Gk. kaukhasis, said by Pliny ("Natural History," book six, chap. XVII) to be from a Scythian word similar to kroy-khasis, lit. "(the mountain) ice-shining, white with snow." But possibly from a Pelasgian root *kau- meaning "mountain."
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinamonia: Another note... SCIENCE PROVES THAT ALL HUMANS ORIGINATED FROM THE FIRST HUMANS IN AFRICA!!! Everyone is African in that case.
In Upper Paleolithic sense that is true.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Caucasoid cannot be used as a race but can be used to classify features. The issue is that there are Black Caucasoids and White Negroids. So the use of the term doesn't fit social constructs of ethnic groups.
No. You are wrong. Caucasoids ARE a race. This is scientific fact and is backed my generations of studies. Why do you think Jews, Europeans, and....Armenians all share the same skull dimensions and morphology? Each of the 3 races is easily identifiable by traits that forensic anthropologists use.
Those who say otherwise are clearly in racial denial.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Caucasoid cannot be used as a race but can be used to classify features. The issue is that there are Black Caucasoids and White Negroids. So the use of the term doesn't fit social constructs of ethnic groups.
No. You are wrong. Caucasoids ARE a race. This is scientific fact and is backed my generations of studies. Why do you think Jews, Europeans, and....Armenians all share the same skull dimensions and morphology? Each of the 3 races is easily identifiable by traits that forensic anthropologists use.
Those who say otherwise are clearly in racial denial.
So you are trying to tell me that there isn't overlap? That the oids are logical when applied globally?
The simple answer to that is a clear no.
It doesn't take much to show that ethnic groups do not follow oids. This fact baffled colonialists in Africa and thus we got the Hamitic theory.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Take it from the top
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Casitereds/thule/angle/whatever says: Argument by false definition
Race deniers frequently confuse race and species in their argument, setting a standard for race that is the same as the standard for species, implicitly applying the definition of species to race. Since humanity is one species, with no different human species, it is then argued by false definition that there are no different human races, defining race out of existence. The distinguishing difference between species and race, of course, is that species cannot interbreed, or at least do not interbreed under natural conditions, while races can and do interbreed when there is extensive contact between them. Race deniers wrongly use the existence of hybrid or racially-mixed individuals and populations, which prove that the different human populations interbreed and are therefore races rather than species, as proof that all humans are of one race, not different races, confusing race with species and defining race out of existence.
Your claim is a somewhat dubious. No, they don't "confuse race and species." All credible scholars, recognize there is ONE species of anatomically modern humans. So the alleged "confusion" is a strawman.
Here is what geneticist Alan Templeton, who questions the notion of BIOLOGICAL RACE, has to say on the matter:
"Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population. Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DN A haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate."
--Templeton 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. Amer Anthr 100(3)
Templeton has been quoted on ES for half a decade on this. The claim about "race being confused with species" is simply bogus as pointed out long ago.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: You can find a lot of lies across the internet regarding races and phenotypic diversity. PC liberals, pseudo-scientists and Afrocentrics typically like to claim that Negroids/Blacks/Africans have the most phenotypic (physical) diversity. The fact though is the precise opposite - Caucasoids (Whites) have the most physical diversity and Negroids (Blacks) have the least. Several following essays will overwhelmingly prove this through scientific and historic sources, as well as through common observation; Part 1 below will be covering hair colour.
Caucasoid Hair Colour Variation
The Caucasoid (White) race, especially among the inhabitants of Northern Europe have the most diverse hair colours, a fact acknowledged among early anthropologists and still recognised in modern anthropological and scientific literature (Coon, 1982: 59; Cavalli-Sforzaet et al., 1994: 266: Frost, 2006: 86-88). The hair colour found in the Caucasoid population of Northern Europe ranges in the highest proportion of diversity from black, brown, auburn, blonde, golden and red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965: 212-214). However as one moves ''outward from this area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair uniformly black'' (Frost, 2006: 86). The red hair colour gene, MC1R, has more than seven phenotypically distinct alleles that only exist among Caucasoids in Europe (Harding et al., 2000). Scotland, followed by Ireland and England have the highest population of redheads in the world (5 - 13% of the population) while approximately 35% of the Scottish population carries the recessive redhead gene.
Scandinavia and the Baltic have the highest recorded population of blondes (Beals & Hoijer, 1965: 212-214; Cavalli-Sforzaet et al., 1994: 266; Frost, 2006: 86-88).
Outside of Europe, countries are only 0 - 1% blonde and most these areas with minority blonde populations are non-European Caucasoids, not non-Caucasoid races. Blonde or yellowish hair however does appear in rare instances of non-Caucasoid races, such as some Australoid racial populations such as the Australian Aborigines (Basedow, 1925: 48; Champion et al., 1992: 2623). However blonde hair in Australoids only appears in youths and during adolescence it fully disappears and their hair darkens to black (Coon, Garn & Birdsell: 1950: 80; Downs & Bleibtreu, 1972: 284). There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty. Within the Negroid, Mongoloid and Capoid races, blonde or yellowish hair (excluding albinism) does not exist as a heritable feature (Downs & Bleibtrue., 1972: 272). It is though associated with protein-calorie malutrition, as Negroid hair has been recorded among some Sub-Saharan African tribes to turn lighter through poor lack of diet (Hammond-Took, 1980: 21).
Red hair as noted appears the highest worldwide in North-Western Europeans, mainly in the British Isles at 5 - 13% of the population. If reddish tinted hair (auburn or chestnut) are added, the population figure is considerably higher. Outside of Europe, red or reddish hair is only found in recognisable numbers among other Caucasoids, such as the North African Berbers (Coon, 1939: 47). Red hair does not appear naturally in the Negroid, Australoid or Capoid races, but appears in a minority of Mongoloids as discovered in isolated parts of Japan (Yamamoto & Neel, 1967: 257-262). In conclusion, although red and blonde hair have been recorded among non-Caucasoids in very rare instances these are usually not-heritable examples and are instead obtained through malutrition or are only associated with youth such as some Australoids who only have their fair hair up to adolescence. Caucasoids in contrast, especially White Northern Europeans have the highest natural diversity in hair pigmentation, which continues into their adolesence - a fact recognised by all modern scientists which has led many different theories as to why such diversity only exists in Caucasoids, particularly of Northern Europe (Frost, 2006).
Coon, Charleton. Races of Europe. Greenwood Press. 1939 (reprinted 1972).
C. S. Coon, S. M. Garn, Joseph B. Birdsell. Races. Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd., 1950.
Hammond-Tooke, D. W. The Bantu-Speaking Peoples of Southern Africa. Taylor & Francis, 1980.
Yamamoto M & Neel J.V. "A note on red hair on the Island of Hirado, Japan". Jinrui Idengaku Zasshi. March 1967. 11 (4).
Downs. F. James & Bleibtreu. Hermann. K. Human Variation: an introduction to physical anthropology. Glencoe Press, 1972.
Champion, Robert H. et al. Textbook of Dermatology. Blackwell Scientific 1992.
Frost, P. European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?Evolution and Human Behaviour. 27. 85-103, 2006.
Harding, R.M. et al. Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R. American Journal of Human Genesis. 66. 1351-1361, 2000.
Cavalli-Sforza et al. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Priceton University Press. 1994
Beals, Ralph L & Hoijer, Harry. An Introduction to Anthropology. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
Basedow. Herbet. The Australian Aboriginal. F. W. Preece, 1925.
NOTE: This essay i wrote originally for my blog.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Greater variability [is] assigned to "Caucasoid" types. This type may have complexions ranging from very fair to very dark, and wide ranges of all other characteristics, often apart from "admixture." However, it is often implied (if not directly suggested) that other types do not have such variability [unless due to admixture].
"[L]abeling" of characteristics. Thus, as an example, there is the implication that narrow noses are "Caucasoid."
nconsistency of results and evidence. The unwarranted assignment of greater value to certain results and evidence while downplaying that which does not agreee.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. [Inuit], American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples as due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, Stephen, [i]Human Variation, New York, 1991)
Probably, light-colored eyes and hair are among the rarest prominent external traits among the human species. They are found mostly in Europe, and aside from albinos, are hardly found at all outside of Europe, ... populations that have resided for long periods in cold climates like the Altaic peoples of Siberia, the northern Chinese, the [Inuit] and Native peoples of Canada do not possess such traits. Thus, light hair (including light brown and red hair) and light eyes (blue, green, etc.) might be seen as very strong genetic traits, and their complete or near complete absence among a group as evidence of minimal genetic relationship. ... However, from the Eurocentric perspective, the color of skin, eyes, hair, etc., is given little importance in anthropological studies. This is not justified, ...
. Blah, Blah, Blah:
The answer was, and still is, ALBINISM!!!!
No matter how many times the issue is debated, that fact will never change. .
posted
Some people can't seem to accept the fact of greater African diversity.
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Does that upset your fantasy of genocide? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic