posted
Hey everyone I'm new here and I have a question (please go easy on me I'm new and here to learn, I was always told to ask questions and you guys seem to know your stuff). I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level, seeing that most africans are long limbed, dark skinned people and share common ancestry really the only people who don't fit that are the so called "white" berbers but they still have the "black" hap group E from what i studied. So can you guys clear that up for me because what I've gathered through studies is that africans are a diverse people ranging all phenotypes and a wide variety of skin tones but they are still related very closey and I think we should still use the concept of race in a new way not in skin color but in gentics.
Please forgive me for bad typing or stupidity im just a kid trying to learn from his elders
PS in future posts and topics I may claim two different ethnics groups while I debate this is because my father is Somali and my mother is African-American so I might post from two different points of view on certain topics.
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level, seeing that most africans are long limbed, dark skinned people and share common ancestry really the only people who don't fit that are the so called "white" berbers but they still have the "black" hap group E from what i studied. So can you guys clear that up for me because what I've gathered through studies is that africans are a diverse people ranging all phenotypes and a wide variety of skin tones but they are still related very closey and I think we should still use the concept of race in a new way not in skin color but in gentics.
The fact that you can't include all Africans into a single race without including the rest of humanity (because all human genetic variation is nested in African variation) would suggest against this.
Human DNA Sequences: More Variation and Less Race Jeffrey C. Long,1* Jie Li,1 and Meghan E. Healy2 1Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5618 2Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 KEY WORDS race; DNA sequence; short tandem repeat; diversity; hierachical models
quote: The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level.
...
A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub- Saharan African populations also includes every non- Sub-Saharan African population (Figs. 2B and 4B). Moreover, the Out-of-Africa branch would place all Eurasians in the same race, but this would necessitate placing Europeans and Asians in sub-races.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course all native Africans are related but "race" is a tricky word. Biologically, no, Africans are not a separate race of people as all people draw back to a common source that is very recent in evolutionary terms. There is but one race. Proof is in the fact that non-Africans are basically a subset of African diversity. They represent one group of Africans who left the continent 60,000 years ago. They are basically Africans in terms of biohistory, just not "native" in the sense that they have no "historical" ties to the continent.
Most native Africans are closely related via a lineage or DNA marker (a cluster of genes that can reveal who your common ancestor was in the recent past) called "PN2". The first person to carry the PN2 marker lived in East Africa maybe 30kya. Most Africans (with the exception of "Pygmies" [sic], Khoisan, and some Nilotes) can trace their ancestry to this one individual, while non-Africans cannot. Therefore, native Africans are more closely related paternally to each other than they are to non-Africans. Put it like this. Most native Africans can be considered cousins while Africans and non-Africans can be considered as second cousins. Still related, but not as immediate. This is the way you can frame it. But not in terms of "race" or independent breeding populations.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh I see thank you for the help. But i'm still gonna say that KMT were "black" people lol.
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: oh I see thank you for the help. But i'm still gonna say that KMT were "black" people lol.
As much as I hate to say it, I don't know if it's really useful to employ terms with as much misleading baggage as "Black" or "Negroid" anymore. Such characterizations inevitably lead to headaches over how we properly define those terms. Better to simply describe them as dark-skinned Northeast Africans IMHO.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Tropical Africans is an even better term.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Well it is accepted in modern society that Dark skinned, long limbed native Africans are "black" and I personally don't see the wrong in using that term to describe those people. We have became comfortable and familar with those terms and just stating they were northeast Africans (to vague) only just leads to confusion on who they really were because modern Egyptians are called north African but most aren't even native. You really think a self identified "white" person would be okay with the greeks or romans being called southern darkskin europeans? no they would not, so why should we lable them northeast Africans and leave people confuse on who they were because collectively as African peoples that is our history some thing we contrbuted to the world and we should claim it and I personally think the social-construct of "black" puts a finality on the Ancient Egyptian orgin question for good.
Besides most of us put black/african-american on forms we fill out so don't act as if you completely abondoned "blackness" as a identity and consider yourself as only a human. You must feel some special connection with other darkskin native africans (including the dispora)that you don't feel with other people?
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay im cool with tropical African since most people that fit are native dark africans excluding the negritos and aboriginals.
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Of course all native Africans are related but "race" is a tricky word. Biologically, no, Africans are not a separate race of people as all people draw back to a common source that is very recent in evolutionary terms. There is but one race. Proof is in the fact that non-Africans are basically a subset of African diversity. They represent one group of Africans who left the continent 60,000 years ago. They are basically Africans in terms of biohistory, just not "native" in the sense that they have no "historical" ties to the continent.
Most native Africans are closely related via a lineage or DNA marker (a cluster of genes that can reveal who your common ancestor was in the recent past) called "PN2". The first person to carry the PN2 marker lived in East Africa maybe 30kya. Most Africans (with the exception of "Pygmies" [sic], Khoisan, and some Nilotes) can trace their ancestry to this one individual, while non-Africans cannot. Therefore, native Africans are more closely related paternally to each other than they are to non-Africans. Put it like this. Most native Africans can be considered cousins while Africans and non-Africans can be considered as second cousins. Still related, but not as immediate. This is the way you can frame it. But not in terms of "race" or independent breeding populations.
False. Many Africans with E are autosomally closer to non-Africans than to certain other Africans with the same clade. Notably people in North Africa.
Direct lineages have little to do with overall genetic affinities. Norwegians with haplogroup P (hap R is a sub-group of P) are closer to Arabs with J/E etc than they are to Native Americans with P (hap Q is a sub-group of P).
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ So you are saying that modern egyptians are less mixed then other indigenous people? lol so you claim that eurasians skipped all of egypt and left a genetic impact on those people but the modern egyptians stay mostly the same? Funny it sounds to me that the video is trying to say that Chadics, North Sudanese, and Ethiopians look they way they do because of back migration of eurasians and that the modern egyptians are eurasians who are native to Egypt. well I maybe wrong but that seems supspect to me just seems like a eurocentic pushing hamitic theory or some other type of scientfic racism.
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptians have more African male ancestry than many groups south of them. This is a simple fact, deal with it.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Like I said I highly doubt it. Then shouldn't we see more of a tropical African body plan in modern Egyptians? If they are more native african because all the people you list still retain those bodyplans and skull shapes and they are so called less African. Besides its common knowledge that Egypt has been occupied and invade by diffrent people and to say that modern Egyptians have more genetic african dna then proven native peoples is stupid, to belive that a gentic onslaught passed over egypt to get to the southern people sounds suspect. Like I said it sounds like more hamitic theory to try claim east africans as whites
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you care so much about Egypt? It is none of your business, stupid Somalian Pirate. Your people are dumb nomads who never build anything historic and still are living in primitive conditions.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
^You should ignore Atemu. he's actually just a troll (someone whose sole purpose here is to antagonize). This is why he'd tell such a stupid lie. No one worth responding to.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
5th: why can't I have a interest in my collective african history I love all Africa's cultures (like great zimbabwe, ghana and songhay) and empires but Egypt is my favorite. Plus I'm half AA so my gentic past doesn't end in Somalia.
Now let me ask why do you care?
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^ 1st: It is Somali not Somalian
Who cares.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
Liar. The Arabs and Swahili folks build those and did all the trading. You are a delusional nomad with no history.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
Punt/Pwnet was either in Eritrea or the Hejaz (Arabia), not Somalia which is too far from Egypt and no evidence has ever been presented that it was located there.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
Idiot. The Afro-Asiatic language family is a very archaic linguistic group with only few similarities. Your real cousins are the primitive Rendille Maasai tribe, not Egyptians.
Posts: 51 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I'm gonna take the advice I was given and ignore its impossible to debate eurocentric on anything. So im gonna opt out to save myself the trouble of your stupidity.
Ps look up keita he shows the genetic and cultural similarities between the two peoples
Pss Somalis are closet to oromos of Ethiopia Aar is a somali word which means lion in the pharonic languge and in Somali
PSS Why should I belive a euronut about my own history?
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pwnt is believed to have referred to a region encompassing Eritrea, Northern Ethiopia, and possibly a little of adjacent Sudan, but it may not have denoted an area demarcated in a rigorously rigidly exact manner, but simply the "inland area", "where the exotic animals and short people" are [or were].
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: Hey everyone I'm new here and I have a question (please go easy on me I'm new and here to learn, I was always told to ask questions and you guys seem to know your stuff). I know races don't exist but I was wondering if all native africans are more related to each other then any other group of people shouldn't that be consider a race or a independent population? I mean not on a skin color or phenotype level but on a genetic level.
To answer your question, and it is a valid one, it's like this:
Basically Africa has more variation, though this variation is spread out.
Explanation:
Say you have an ethnic group, divided in to groups A and B, representing Africans and extra-Africans or non-Africans.
The genetic diversity existent in B is also present in A, and more. So A has more variance.
The thing is, let's say A is made up of large ethnic groups or clans or families. It is just that the variance existent in A happens to be intra- - meaning within - group variance rather than inter- or between group variance. Meaning: the variance is fairly spread or distributed out within all groups making it individual (all families pretty much have ranges of variation), rather than meaning that it is mostly so that the groups are so different from eachother.
Because Africans are so variable, actually, I thought the standout point was that all non-Africans were closer related to each other than were any to sub-Saharan Africans. Meaning Europe, Oceania (actually more distantly related to Africa than Europe), East Asia, Alaska, South America, etcetera.
Interesting fact:
There are some individuals in certain regions / ethnic groups on this planet, on one extreme of the variation within our species genome, who are so different from folks on the other extreme, that they could be said to literally be a different sub-species or race from them. As I gethered it this is very few people though, and only in certain ethnic groups.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
Posts: 24 | From: ATL | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^ 1st: It is Somali not Somalian
Who cares.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 2nd: My ancestors were traders, Mogadishu was a great trade city on the silk road it was called regico aromantico (or something close) by the romans.
Liar. The Arabs and Swahili folks build those and did all the trading. You are a delusional nomad with no history.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 3rd: Aes called us punt or pwnet and said the gods lived their and that they came from that region
Punt/Pwnet was either in Eritrea or the Hejaz (Arabia), not Somalia which is too far from Egypt and no evidence has ever been presented that it was located there.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: 4th: we are one of the many native peoples egyptians traded and shared culture with hell our languge share similar words with the pharonic languge
Idiot. The Afro-Asiatic language family is a very archaic linguistic group with only few similarities. Your real cousins are the primitive Rendille Maasai tribe, not Egyptians.
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, p. 317, 2003:
"There is still some debate regarding the precise location of Punt, which was once identified with the region of modern Somalia. A strong argument has now been made for its location in either southern Sudan or the Eritrean region of Ethiopia, where the indigenous plants and animals equate most closely with those depicted in the Egyptian reliefs and paintings.
"In the process of cleaning the walls between the tomb's inner and outer chambers they stumbled upon an inscription believed to be the first evidence of a huge attack from the south on Elkab and Egypt by the Kingdom of Kush and its allies from the land of Punt, during the 17th dynasty (1575-1525 BC). "
Texas A&M University
Queen Hatshepsut's expedition to the Land of Punt: The first oceanographic cruise?
Queen Hatshepsut ruled Egypt from ca. 1503 to 1480 B.C. In contrast to the warlike temper of her dynasty, she devoted herself to administration and the encouragement of commerce. In the summer of 1493 B.C., she sent a fleet of five ships with thirty rowers each from Kosseir, on the Red Sea, to the Land of Punt, near present-day Somalia. It was primarily a trading expedition, for Punt, or God's Land, produced myrrh, frankincense, and fragrant ointments that the Egyptians used for religious purposes and cosmetics.
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^^ Thank you for the help.
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
For thousands of years, several native tree species have provided the raw materials for some of the Horn of Africa’s most important commodities, including frankincense (from Boswellia sacra in Somalia, Yemen and Oman, and B. frereana in Somalia), myrrh (from the widespread Commiphor myrrha and C. guidottii in Somalia and eastern Ethiopia) and dragon’s blood or cinnabar (from Dracaena cinnabari, EN found on Socotra). All three are gum-resins obtained from these trees. Dragon’s blood, is used as a medicine and dye. The production of frankincense and myrrh is still a major economic activity in Somalia and, to some extent, in Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
posted
What happened to your Hamitic union Atmenu?? all of a sudden the new guy is a Somali Pirate?? and not for nothing but trade in the area goes back millennia before the rise of the Swahili city states
And yes Mogadishu was part of the international trade network ran by Somalis but in line with the Swahili,Zimbabwe and other states in-land..look at that the dreaded Bantus and "Hamites" making commercial ties and links with the rest of the world tisk! tisk! what where they thinking.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Pwnt is believed to have referred to a region encompassing Eritrea, Northern Ethiopia, and possibly a little of adjacent Sudan, but it may not have denoted an area demarcated in a rigorously rigidly exact manner, but simply the "inland area", "where the exotic animals and short people" are [or were].
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: ^^ Thank you for the help.
Also pwnt from my research includes ethiopia, eritia, way southern sudan and northern somalia because their are pyramids from what Ive learned in all of those places and many of the animals that were trade really only came from that region.Ive also heard that incensce like myrrh and frankencense are indigenous to Somalia. But hey i could be wrong I haven't even started university yet so ill find out then.
Right, and this goes inline with what I was saying. They went to these places because they were the nearest, they could easily find them in following the Nile River and Red Sea Coast in direct routes South. This all can remain true (that they only went to these named areas) even if the "exact" boarders we define today wouldn't have existed for them, then, and it just meant the simple "inland area". By the way, they have found ancient trade routes inland to areas other than these areas, though it may be true that there weren't any animals that ever came from there.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just finished watching NG : Human Family Tree by Dr Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project.
Personally I don't agree with some of his point of view but he is clear on certain things.
1. He clearly states there are no Races . . genetically!!!! All humans are genetically a subset of Africans. In other words ALL genes found in non Africans are found IN Africans.
2. He says that humans became DEPIGMENTED in the Steppes of Eurasia.. . .40ky ago!!! which is BS.
3. Depigmentation occured due to lack of sunlight and the need for more efficient vit D sysnthesis most likely in the caves in Asia(Clyde?). This is 30kys before the agricultural revolution(Neolithic).. . .finger to Jablonski and KIK(LOL!).
4. He states that 70kya humans reached South Asia Asia but was wiped out due to a volcanic eruption(Java). The next wave occured around 50kya.
5. His proposes several waves from Africa. Some through the Levant.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Just finished watching NG : Human Family Tree by Dr Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project.
2. He says that humans became DEPIGMENTED in the Steppes of Eurasia.. . .40ky ago!!! which is BS.
Yes it is bullsh1t - they were depigmented when they got there.
But it is very satisfying to see him scramble to try and get ahead of the wave of truth Black researchers are putting on them.
Anyone remember this:
In 2004, Nina G. Jablonski - then of the Department of Anthropology, California Academy of Sciences; published a study entitled "THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SKIN AND SKIN COLOR" which declared that White skin developed in Europeans because of a lack of vitamin "D".
posted
Cass, Lioness, Jari et al: I'll bet that this is the first time that you are seeing your real homeland. Does it stir and feelings?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is clear there is confusion on WHEN humans became depigmented. Dr. Wells proposes 40ky. Jablonski proposes about 6-12kya. Clearly there is disagreement among white scholars. There is also disagreement on WHY and HOW.
In others words they do NOT know. But as I said many times. I am with Dr. Mekova, Kittles(current)etc.
It is also clear the Steppes played an important part.
BTW - we know now that cited study(above) is outdated. SLCA45 is just ONE of many genes that interact to produce depigementation .. . or pigmentation.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Simpleton's haven't yet realised pigmentation is really not important as a racial factor. Forensic anthropologists identify someone's race just by looking at a skull. And guess what? They are always 100% right, or they would be out of jobs.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usuually have discourse with people who are well read. ie well rounded and knowledgeable.
sho!!!!
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Simpleton's haven't yet realised pigmentation is really not important as a racial factor. Forensic anthropologists identify someone's race just by looking at a skull. And guess what? They are always 100% right, or they would be out of jobs.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: xyyman - Go back to sleep.
Cass, so you're heading to the exits too huh?
Well, I'll bet this guy wishes you had told him and them, that he was White before the rag-headed mulattoes fuched over him.
East Africans are 40% Caucasoid. It's why they have thinner noses, straighter hair and Caucasoid bone structure. Blacks out of self-hatred of broad negroid features (which even blacks on this forum themselves claim are ugly) though what to claim these Caucasoid traits are their own. How many times do we have to go over this?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hersi_Yusuf: Okay im cool with tropical African since most people that fit are native dark africans excluding the negritos and aboriginals.
Keep in mind that tropical Africans have the most skin color diversity in the world, and that they come in numerous different shades, from light yellowish to "jet" black. Light skin in Africa is nothing new, nothing unusual, and occurs in a range from West Africa (i.e. the "Red Igbo) to the vast expanses southern Africa, to the desert peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, to parts of East Africa. Light brown skin is just as native to tropical Africans as darker skin. Naturally regions with more UV radiation will yield more darker skinned people, on the average, but that does not negate the built-in, baseline diversity of tropical Africans. Africa is the birth place where anatomically modern humans evolved. As the original homeland, it is the source of all human diversity.
Pale depigmented "white" skin like that of cold climate northern Europeans is not seen much, compared to brown and black in Africa, but it is not unknown. Keep in mind also that tropical Africans have the highest number of albinos in the world so "white" skin is in place, and has always been in place, and does not depend on "wandering Caucasoids" or "Eurasians" to produce skin color diversity.
QUOTE:
"Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. T his study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." --Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900." --(E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cass, I know it's tough being the arbiter of Caucasoid, but just one more.
What are we to do with these turn-coat White sluts who wouldn't even give you the time of day. But went out and got lip jobs just so they could do a better job for Black guys.
posted
^Lioness, don't bother, it wouldn't help you.
Cass, are you thinking what I think you're thinking? Hey it doesn't cost that much, and it will make you more popular with them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Some Northern Europeans have wide noses because they have Sami (Lappid) admixture. You can look at the Old Norse texts, and find Vikings with the surname ''flatnose''. They have Lappid admixture.
Timo Soini -
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keep in mind that tropical Africans have the most skin color diversity in the world, and that they come in numerous different shades, from light yellowish to "jet" black. Light skin in Africa is nothing new, nothing unusual, and occurs in a range from West Africa (i.e. the "Red Igbo) to the vast expanses southern Africa, to the desert peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, to parts of East Africa. Light brown skin is just as native to tropical Africans as darker skin. Naturally regions with more UV radiation will yield more darker skinned people, on the average, but that does not negate the built-in, baseline diversity of tropical Africans. Africa is the birth place where anatomically modern humans evolved. As the original homeland, it is the source of all human diversity.
Pale depigmented "white" skin like that of cold climate northern Europeans is not seen much, compared to brown and black in Africa, but it is not unknown.
Pigmentation Map -
White skin (Luschan 1 - 12) doesn't appear naturally in Africa.
EDIT: finding other link to show how Zaharan has once again contradicted himself.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^But Cass, above you indicated that bone structure is the determining attribute, so shouldn't he be 100% Caucasoid, just like you?
BTW - where does the 40% come from? I mean is there a mathematical formula or something?
Caucasoid morphologically, not in pigmentation. Although some would argue this was the ancestral Caucasoid colour, i disagree. It's far too dark.
Dark skin is a recent mutation. So is pale.
Take a look at a San Bushman, and you will see really the original skin hue, its a sallow-light brown colour. It approaches the typical Mediterranoid complexion (olive) and is the same colour as the Cro-Magnon (who were morphologically Caucasoid)
The 40% comes from genetic studies which shows East Africans are heavily admixed with Eurasian (non-African) Caucasoid genes.
---
We don't need pigmentation to determine race.
If we were all blue or green skinned, we can still cluster ourselves based on bone structure, hair texture etc.
Negroid and Caucasoid bone structure look nothing a like.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Relethford JH.. 2001. Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36.
Sub-saharan africans have the most skin colour diversity because Capoids are included in the studies. They are non-Negroid and a seperate race. As has been pointed out they have a light-sallow brown complexion, so if you compare that to the dark pigmentation of the Negroid, you get the more diversity.
Genetics clusters Capoids with Eurasians (mostly Mongoloids), not with Negroids.
In other words an East Asian, for example a Japanese, is more related to a Capoid then an African-American.
Are you Japanese? Why else are you trying to cluster yourself with a race you have no genetic connection to?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Some Northern Europeans have wide noses because they have Sami (Lappid) admixture. You can look at the Old Norse texts, and find Vikings with the surname ''flatnose''. They have Lappid admixture.
Timo Soini -
Well no Cass; actually as you should know - the Vikings were Black!
A study of the settlement of England and the tribal origin of the Old English people:
by Thomas William Shore (1906)
Quote: "On the borders of Saxony and Prussia at the present day (Germany). Some of the darker Wends may well have been among the Black Vikings referred to in the Irish annals."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
] 
Printer-friendly view of this topic