It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
Somali - (be aware no blacks are pictured here)
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
posted
Yo have disappointed so many people, did you know that you filthy pink assed monkey? Hahahaha This place has turned into a joke, and you are such a sociopath that you cannot see it! LOL
I DID THIS TO YOU FAGGOT!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
The fact that East African body proportions, skin color any everything on them and in them can be distinguished from Europeans doesn't mean there is a true black. If Europeans are not related to black-skinned east Africans whether they call themselves "Caucasians" or anything else that still doesn't mean there is a true black. Negroids is used in a racial sense by your Euronut kind - Maca-Meyer, Camps,etc. Hiernaux and others with sense speak of population biology that is to say groups of people.
In any case I forgive you Euronuts for your Tarzanish delusions because it is obvious some of your revered scholars still FIRMLY believe in them. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
BTW - I would never say "Negroid" traits don't exist, because obviously they do.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: The train wreck continues! LOL
This is perhaps the ONLY intelligent thing you posted thus far.
I totally and absolutely agree!
Dana, this is truly some scary stuff. I mean I and the other veterans in this board especially Explorer, Rasol, and even Ausar have noted that the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' has made a comeback in recent years in the guise of genetics, but I just didn't know how bad it was until the advent of "Hamitic Union"!!
What's even more messed up is that some Africans especially those of 'Horn' extraction seem to be buying and drinking the poison.
I think you're right though, that followers of this revamped Hamitic b.s. could be the reason why this board is being harassed by a new wave of trolls or rather old trolls in new guises. ('White Nubian' anyone?!) They KNOW damn well that Egyptsearch remains a constant and eminent threat to their b.s.!! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy. So the Negroid is rooted in real geographic observation, its not an arbritary classification. The only people who deny it are a handful of self-hating 'Blacks', as they hate their nappy hair and broad traits and so they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
dana your thread doesn't make sense. You are saying the term "Negroid" is invalid yet you endorse Hiernaux who both uses the term "Caucasoids" and says that East Africans can be distinguished by body proportions
lioness productions 2012
The fact that East African body proportions, skin color any everything on them and in them can be distinguished from Europeans doesn't mean there is a true black. If Europeans are not related to black-skinned east Africans whether they call themselves "Caucasians" or anything else that still doesn't mean there is a true black. Negroids is used in a racial sense by your Euronut kind - Maca-Meyer, Camps,etc. Hiernaux and others with sense speak of population biology that is to say groups of people.
In any case I forgive you Euronuts for your Tarzanish delusions because it is obvious some of your revered scholars still FIRMLY believe in them.
If you look at a lot of textbooks they might use the word "Negroid" although some have dropped these terms altogether.
But recent textbooks that might use "Negroid" would probably not use "True Negroid", that is antiquated.
So an attempt might me made to use the word "Negroid" and have it include East African type features as well.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
^^Stephen Howe himself dabbles in hypocrisy and strawmen. He spends a great deal of time railing against "Afrocentrics" but carefully buried in his condescending screed is an admission of the central point raised by so-called "Afrocentrics"..
Likewise Froment is quoted as bashing the "Afrocentrics" but he too quietly admits the "sub-Saharan" character of the Nile Valley in various eras as well as similarities between Egyptians and East Africans.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record,` it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
This is a common pattern with the Eurocentrics. They build great bogus strawmen to slay - such as the dreaded bogeymen- the "Afrocentrics" while behind the scenes, at the backdoor, grudgingly conceding several central points raised by said "Afrocentrics." It's like Mary Lefkowitz who admits the African character of ancient Egypt, even as "Afrocentric critics" continue to use her work to "refute" Afrocentrism. These people actually believe no one has yet caught on to the game.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
^^Not so much excused as exposed. They can say what they like but once the the 3 points above are considered, their whole hypocritical edifice crumbles like a rotten house of cards.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the Afrocentrics are a powerfull circle of scholars you might have watched a few of them late at night or early on sunday morning too bad their opponents don't realize this.
Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Excellent point which I have been arguing for years, that is, Afrocentrists use dark skin as their 'Trojan horse' to seize to the history and legacy of all non-Negro, dark skin people.
Posts: 816 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
The educated Negro seems to have traded off Albino indoctrination for plain common sense.
They react to every single Albino delusion when their is absolutely no need to. At this rate, by deploying the same old failed strategies, you'll be chasing Albinos throughout eternity.
1 ounce of common sense is worth 5 tons of Albino indoctrination.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation. ------------------------------------------------------------------
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
^^Stephen Howe himself dabbles in hypocrisy and strawmen. He spends a great deal of time railing against "Afrocentrics" but carefully buried in his condescending screed is an admission of the central point raised by so-called "Afrocentrics"..
Likewise Froment is quoted as bashing the "Afrocentrics" but he too quietly admits the "sub-Saharan" character of the Nile Valley in various eras as well as similarities between Egyptians and East Africans.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record,` it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
This is a common pattern with the Eurocentrics. They build great bogus strawmen to slay - such as the dreaded bogeymen- the "Afrocentrics" while behind the scenes, at the backdoor, grudgingly conceding several central points raised by said "Afrocentrics." It's like Mary Lefkowitz who admits the African character of ancient Egypt, even as "Afrocentric critics" continue to use her work to "refute" Afrocentrism. These people actually believe no one has yet caught on to the game.
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
^^Not so much excused as exposed. They can say what they like but once the the 3 points above are considered, their whole hypocritical edifice crumbles like a rotten house of cards.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You may know realize this, but do the other 99% of African and African Americans who read no more than the Bible or only watch BET and reality TV? How will exposing this help them when most don't know or care what the Hamitic nonsense is? 99.8% of these actually have brought into the "Race" theory 100%, as have so-called educated Negroes.
LOL, most black bible totters have never even seen or eaten a fig.
-------------------- Selenium gives real life and true reality Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Excellent point which I have been arguing for years, that is, Afrocentrists use dark skin as their 'Trojan horse' to seize to the history and legacy of all non-Negro, dark skin people.
Yet Eurocentrics use facial features like long faces, narrow noses, and thin lips as their 'Trojan Horse' to seize the histories and legacies of various non-European peoples including AFRICANS, and unlike Afrocentrics, it is Eurocentrics who ran academia and published their views in widespread journals and texts.
Therefore your complaints about Afrocentrics are moot! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Rasol has pointed out, racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "negroid" are nothing more than terminological pawns that Eurocentrics love to play and exploit. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the rules and methods which they use these terms. Which is why I totally agreed with Rasol when he calls Eurocentric psuedo-science a fragile house of cards.
For example, why is there "true negro" but NEVER a "true caucasian" or "true blanko" as Takruri likes to put it? The fact that the Euronuts ascribe to a "true negro" must mean that there are fake negroes then! It is these fake negroes that are actually Caucasians or 'Hamites'! LOL Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
And then comes the hypocrisy...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Indeed! Features that are considered "true negro" remain as such ONLY when found in West or Central Africa. As soon as they are found in North Africa and especially outside of Africa, they then become a 'variant' of "Mediterranean Caucasoid" or "Basic White" or "Generalized Modern"!! LOL
Thus early Egyptian skulls despite their "negroid" traits noted by Briggs and Coon were still simply 'Mediterranean' whites.
And remember when the Natufians were first discovered in 1932, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith outright described them as "Negroid", yet he was quick to say that they were merely "Negro-like characteristics" in appearance but not really Negroes! [sic] LOL
Suffice to say, Coon merely says they were a "Mediterraneans with negroid tendencies"! LOL
Brace (2005)
Note how in the more recent study by Brace above the Natufians are aligned very closely with Niger-Congo speakers of West Africa a.k.a. 'Forest Negroes' a.k.a. 'true Negroes'!!
And like that, the house of cards collapses. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure. In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
If you go to West and Central Africa you find this physiognomy. So the Negroid is rooted in real geographic observation, its not an arbritary classification. The only people who deny it are a handful of self-hating 'Blacks', as they hate their nappy hair and broad traits and so they seek to extend their racial taxa based on a singular trait - dark skin, so they can cluster themselves with other races who look nothing alike them, except being dark...
Look wannabe hamite (who will forever be just Neanderdummy) the dominant population of north Africa were Negroid and most of Asia was a black type Negroid traits nappy hair, broad noses and non-chicken lips, as the majority of "hamites" still have, even the peninsular Arabs/Arabians i.e. Afro-Asiatics in Asia had according to the 14th century writer Ibn Mandour "kinky hair" and "not lank hair", so why would ancient people in the same latitudes in Africa not have the same as the woolly haired Mauri of the Roman era.
Through all dynasties Egyptians displayed the Negroid traits and tropical limb proportions
Of course, the majority of ancient Egyptians through all dynasties and predynastic were almost fully tropical ("NEGROID") not only in limb proportions but in facial structure which is now confirmed in dna like their Haratin (Afro-SAN) kinsmen, UNLIKE some of the cushitic desert dwelling kinsmen further south.
Most ancient Egyptians come from Sahure's stock. Where are the non-Negroid traits on the faces of the ancient Egyptians
Be proud of your own NeanderScythian kind and origins which are the exact cultural opposite of blacks, because you will never be considered closely related to black Africans by most of the intelligient scholarly world, white or black.
Unlike some people on this forum I remember and KNOW FOR A FACT that Coon traced your big boned colorless type back to Central Europe 10s of thousands of years ago just as non-tropical as ever. Those are you ancestors and had nothing to do with tropical Aterians and other black peoples dominant in Eurasia who may have returned to Africa 40,000 years ago.
I also do know that the so called "NEGRO" or true black doesn't exist. Unlike most of the other people of this forum I am well aware that the so called modern "Negroids" people of the SouthWestern Sudan (Benin Yoruba Ibo etc.) mentioned by BRACE are only a mixture of the brachycephalic relatively short and THIN-LIPPED, non-prognathic(THEREFORE NOT TRUE NEGRO) broad- nosed peoples of south Central Africa so called "CONGOIDS"(THEREFORE NOT TRUE NEGRO) with large North African- originated Asselar and EURASIATIC RELATED affiliated Mechtoid-related Jebel Sahaba types (ALSO NOT A TRUE NEGRO)from which they AND THE "NEGROID-FACED" ANCIENT EYPGTIANS received their frequent thick lips, prognathasism and broad noses.
SO you see Neanderdummy - THE "TRUE NEGRO" DOESN'T EXIST except in your sick inferior-minded imaginations and largely the reason the home of the "true Negro" has never nor ever will be found.
Only various black populations exist- none of which fit the NEGRO stereo TYPE or RACE of your WACKY EUROCENTRIC conception.
Hawazin man of the Qays Ailan North West and Central Arabians - Probable remnant of the palaeolithic Eurasian par excellence of West Asia
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
It turns out the Euronuts are not as Neanderdumb as one might have been misled to think. They can actually be excused for their constant harping on themes thought to be mostly long obsolete in the West.
Turns out there is a big gap in the modern academy between those who are true adherents to population biology's tenant of non-racial thinking and those who still apparently think such a thing as a true black or "Negroid" exists, - much like their early counterparts Coon, Dart, Camps, Strouhal and the anthropologists of National Geographic, etcetera. Euronuts are deeply reliant on these new or modern versions of the "racial scientologists" just mentioned.
Among these new raciologists are the much quoted and apparently wrongly cited (by Afrocentrists)-Alain Froment - who still believes in such a thing as a brown intermediate race.
He and a few others within the French and Spanish academies in fact still believe in the black Caucasoid view of Seligman and "brown" African theory of Elliot Smith which is contingent on the true Negro or "true black" theory. (Although most of the rest of the scientific world have done away with the concept and stereotype of the true black or Negroid.)
That is why the Euronut and hamitic wannabe administrator of the board hamiticunion has put down Jean Hiernaux who wisely noted about the east Africans -
"There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Their features can be found in several living populations, who are very dark skinned and DIFFER GREATLY FROM EUROPEANS IN A NUMBER OF BODY PROPORTIONS. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.." Hiernaux, J. 1975 The Peoples of Africa, p. 62 .
The hamiticunion board administrator so intent on making the ancient hamites i.e. original Berbers, Egyptians etc not only into non-Negroids, but into non-blacks (as if that were possible ) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url:
"Froment is a world-renowned authority on African anthropology, having been a former colleague of Jean Hiernaux (some of whose theories he also debunked in later papers) and one of the main consultants on Sarah Tishkoff's influential 2009 genetic study on African populations."
So now we know where and why Tishkoff went awry. Needless to say, it shows that there has been a school of thought within anthropology "scholarship" intent on keeping alive "the "Mediterranean man" of Coon and Camps' race mythology. It also explains why the average Euronut without blinking can in fact write to you about the genetics of Central East Africa and even 50,000 year old Aterians in Niger clearly thinking he/she is talking about some near black "Caucasian" of some sort ancestral to himself, not you supposed "Negroids".
Of course then there are the Spanish authors of confusion with their wacky reintroduction of the notion of the Eurasian Caucasian origin of ancient Maghrebis and even east Africans of 30 to 40,000 years ago.
Here is Maca-Meyer's "scientific" findings about these stealthy Caucasians - "Conclusions: The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000–69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." "Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions" Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, University of La Laguna, Tenerife, 38271, Spain BMC 2001.
Of course this is Maca-Meyer's code talk for "some Caucasians came back from Asia 40,000 years ago giving birth to current coastal North Africans, while those who turned black further southeast have obviously mixed with the true teeming black race who never left the sub-Saharan region." (Yes, it is Hamitic theory gone wild.)
The truth of the matter is part of the French Academy has been influenced by earlier anthropologists like Camps who wrote much on the Berbers proclaiming them early "white Mediterraneans".
Below Froment quotes another Frenchman's study G. Billy, writing "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
One might of course wonder why the Somali and Tigre are not designated black considering the jet and blue blackness of many of them as well as their rather African hair. But then it becomes clear with the mentioning of a broad nose which is the giveaway.
In emailing the British Africanist and anthropologist Wyatt McGaffey recently he wrote back something implying that most scholars did not believe in the hamitic theory anymore or that it was not taken seriously, but clearly this is not the case.
In the attack on Afrocentrism so condescendingly voiced by the non-anthropologist Stephen Howe about African American historians he expressed his view that of a "moribund state" of the older "Eurocenttric" "Mediterranean race" theory. Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes p. 116
But in fact nothing is further from the truth, not only is the older theory not dead but it has devolved into something even more manipulative and diabolical, as is shown bn the way some are now combining it with genetics to maintain the concept of the Euroconceptualized black of Tarzan fame i.e. true "Negroid".
Looks like Diop's argument is still in vogue. Euro supremacist clap trap genetic-style has reloaded the hamitic theory of their eugenicist forefathers.
Scary stuff.
GOod exposure of the dubious "hamitic union" Dana. Their claims easily fall flat on examination in 3 ways.
1) So-called "leading authority" Froment has in no way "debunked" the data of Hiernaux. To the contrary- Hiernaux's balanced model of African diversity, including elongated Africans, has been confirmed multiple times, using both skeletal evidence and DNA, and is so cited by Keita 1991, 1999, 2005 etc. The only "debunking" is of the bogus fantasies of the equally bogus "hamitic" "union".
2. Maca-Meyer's claims are unimpressive as part of any racial "Kakazoid" model of expansion. We all know that there has been ancient gene flow via the crossroads that is the Middle East, but at what point did such gene flow become "Kakazoid", save as yet another self-serving Eurocentric labeling exercise?
In fact, Maca-Meyer undermines assorted "Kakazoid" race models by noting that gene differentiation was ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa t`ens of thousands of years ago. IN other words, the gene variants that would become distinctive in Asia and the "Middle East" were ALREADY taking place WITHIN Africa BEFORE any SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION OUTWARD. These would grow more distinct due to time and distance from Africa but the founding variants and/or proto-variants were ALREADY in place WITHIN Africa. Hence, African fishermen migrating into the Sinai PEnisula or Arabia circa 60kya did not suddenly become "Middle Eastern" or "Eurasian" nor does a white guy who crosses the Rio Grande into Mexico suddenly become "Hispanic." THis is the cynical labeling game being foisted on the gullible by the European academy to de-africanize tropical African peoples, or minimize their built in indigenous diversity.
3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Zarahan - although I agree for the most part with you, my purpose for presenting the Mediterranean nationalist's hamiticunion post was to show where European academics in Europe have been contributing to misleading these Euronutzies in their delusional belief system.
The hamiticunion poster has said that the translation was taken from Fromen's paper. I am assuming he is using a different one than the one you have posted. However, the fact that Froment wrote the below means that he is absolutely NOT stating that only blacks fit the variations of the ancient Egyptians. In fact it is clear he is stating the opposite in the below paragraph as the hamiticunion poster has said, and using a revised form of hamitic theory.
"The physique of the ancient Egyptians is exactly equidistant between Europeans and "negro" Africans' one one hand, certain populations of the Mediterranean, (and) on the other in the Horn of Africa (the Tigre and Somalis), fall within the range of the gamut of variation in ancient Egyptians."
"le physique des Egyptiens Anciens est exactement à équidistance de celui des Européens et de celui des négro-africains; certaines populations de la Méditerranée d'une part, de la Corne de l'Afrique (Tigré, Somalie) de l'autre, tombent à l'intérieur de la gamme de variation des Egyptiens Anciens."
That is very different than simply saying: "Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
So I am assuming the hamitic union poster either translating from a different paper, or that the latter statement has been taken without its full context.
The hamiticunion poster also may have taken liberties with the words "negro" or "Negroid" in some of its English translations, replacing it with "black" which is normally translated as "noire" in French.
In any case, if Froment made the statement that there is no "negroid" element in the ancient Egyptians that is of course different than saying no black, and it can only mean he is referring to so-called "hamitic" black populations that may not have had as obvious Negroid element as do populations further west and south today in the Horn.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Differences in morphology are delimited by geographical boundaries:
quote:[...]morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.
(Gill, 2000)
We know the extent of Negroid territory, based on empirical observation of the populations that inhabit Africa. Negroid traits are only limited to Western and Central Sub-Sahara Africa.
East Africans are not Negroid, but Caucasoid admixed, while North Africans are Caucasoid.
Dana has everything wrong and is just a liar. As far as palaeoanthropology has shown - the earliest remains in places like Algeria are Caucasoid (thin nosed, orthognathic). Prehistoric North Africans simply weren't nappy haired Negroids, they are people that looked like me.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As Rasol has pointed out, racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "negroid" are nothing more than terminological pawns that Eurocentrics love to play and exploit. Hypocrisy and double-standards are the rules and methods which they use these terms. Which is why I totally agreed with Rasol when he calls Eurocentric psuedo-science a fragile house of cards.
For example, why is there "true negro" but NEVER a "true caucasian" or "true blanko" as Takruri likes to put it? The fact that the Euronuts ascribe to a "true negro" must mean that there are fake negroes then! It is these fake negroes that are actually Caucasians or 'Hamites'! LOL Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
And then comes the hypocrisy...
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 3. Claims of "racial backflow" (however disguised with labels like "EUrasian" or "Middle Eastern") fall short, because those "backflowing" ALREADY RESEMBLED TROPICAL AFRICANS as proved by credible studies. It is hilarious to watch the self-serving hypocrisy of Eurocentrics. When dark-skinned, broad-nosed people with tropical limb proportions are found far west of the Sahara they are firmly "true negroes." WHen similar people are found in Arabia, the SInai or Iraq they comnveniently become "Eurasian." THe bogus "hamitic union" is a prime example of this hypocrisy in operation.
Indeed! Features that are considered "true negro" remain as such ONLY when found in West or Central Africa. As soon as they are found in North Africa and especially outside of Africa, they then become a 'variant' of "Mediterranean Caucasoid" or "Basic White" or "Generalized Modern"!! LOL
Thus early Egyptian skulls despite their "negroid" traits noted by Briggs and Coon were still simply 'Mediterranean' whites.
And remember when the Natufians were first discovered in 1932, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith outright described them as "Negroid", yet he was quick to say that they were merely "Negro-like characteristics" in appearance but not really Negroes! [sic] LOL
Suffice to say, Coon merely says they were a "Mediterraneans with negroid tendencies"! LOL
Brace (2005)
Note how in the more recent study by Brace above the Natufians are aligned very closely with Niger-Congo speakers of West Africa a.k.a. 'Forest Negroes' a.k.a. 'true Negroes'!!
And like that, the house of cards collapses.
True Djehuti but its just surprising to find out some countries are still teaching this kind of rhetoric in universities when the vast majority of academics have rejected it.
The problem then turns to attacks by more politicized people like the Martin Bernal, Diop, and even Keita and anyone who is trying to teach the facts or truth in university. To teach about African history proper to show and discover their global or worlwide accomplishments.
The likes of academics like Dunn-Campbell, Keita. and Bernard Leeman and investigative journalists like Richard Poe (Black Spark, White Fire) then become the object of scorn and black people, I guess like the Bible thumping Narmer mentions are not able to learn about their history in the public school system.
This is institutional racism at its worst, and the reason so many blacks and non-blacks are decried as stealing others' heritage.
Truly pitiful, but i guess one has to just keep "fighting the powers that be", and be accused of being a bigot at the same time. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
Differences in morphology are delimited by geographical boundaries:
quote:[...]morphological features tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.
(Gill, 2000)
We know the extent of Negroid territory, based on empirical observation of the populations that inhabit Africa. Negroid traits are only limited to Western and Central Sub-Sahara Africa.
East Africans are not Negroid, but Caucasoid admixed, while North Africans are Caucasoid.
Dana has everything wrong and is just a liar. As far as palaeoanthropology has shown - the earliest remains in places like Algeria are Caucasoid (thin nosed, orthognathic). Prehistoric North Africans simply weren't nappy haired Negroids, they are people that looked like me.
Neanderniggah!- East Africans near Ottoman peoples have absorbed some Turkish blood. That includes the Somali and Beja in particular. Before that the Amhara have of course once lived on both sides of he Arabian Sea and have likely absorbed various Eurasiatic groups.
Fortunately we know from blood group studies Somalis and other Negroes are NOT any more connected with modern EURASIATICS than Southern Italians and southern Iberians are with west Africans.
That is the fact that you can not accept. We don't get our long narrow head faces and noses from NEANDERDULLS or BASQUES!. YOU ARE MUCH MORE RELATED TO THEM THEN YOU ARE TO ANY BLACK WHATSOEVER!
LIKE I SAID ENJOY AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE YOUR OWN SCYTHONEANDERDULLIC ANCESTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE BULK OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND IN FACT CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND I AM SORRRY IF THAT HURTS! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: The train wreck continues! LOL
This is perhaps the ONLY intelligent thing you posted thus far.
I totally and absolutely agree!
Dana, this is truly some scary stuff. I mean I and the other veterans in this board especially Explorer, Rasol, and even Ausar have noted that the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' has made a comeback in recent years in the guise of genetics, but I just didn't know how bad it was until the advent of "Hamitic Union"!!
What's even more messed up is that some Africans especially those of 'Horn' extraction seem to be buying and drinking the poison.
Messed up is an understatement. But what is also messed up is the people who apparently think they stand to benefit the most are the half black mulatto people of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula who apparently have worshipped "whiteness" for some centuries now.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Diop and others have long noted this glaring hypocrisy. How come blonde, blue-eyed Nordics are not 'true blankos' while all other Euros who don't conform to such phenotype, especially dark featured Mediterraneans, are not really blanko or Caucasian at all?? It is all based on the double-standards that so-called "Caucasians" possess phenotypic diversity whereas "Negroes" do not as Anglo-Idiot loves to remind us. It is this double-standard that is perpetuated by the Euronuts, despite the FACT that genetics has confirmed Africans to possess the **greatest** diversity! LOL
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure. In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
I would like to know what exact institution of higher learning in Liverpool you attend that relies on Coon's books and terminology, Scythian-descendant. I don't believe you learned this there, although I do think Camps, the Frenchman and Berber-specialist continued to use these terms.
As I told you American and even most British scientists consider Coon a wacky pseudoanthropologist. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scytho-Neanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the "Mediterranean Caucasoid" in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba-Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the "Mediterranean race'.
No the pitch black Garamantians whom Ptolemy II thought were Ethiopians weren't WHITES of any sort!
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't know what you are talking about. The so-called East African "Nordics" of Coon and "Eurafricans" of Sergi turn out to be Nilotic Negroes of more modern anthropologists. And believe me they and teh original Atlanto-Mediterraneans WERE the same BLACK people.
"In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially MORE GRACILE than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ..Rightmire found that these East African remains as well as those from the sites as Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan population, and not with either Egyptians or San/Khoi…Similar results were obtained by Brauer (1978), and Rightmire has suggested that these fossils may represent Nilotic peoples… These findings are very important because they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gambles Cave and Elmenteita SHOULD NOT be interpreted as Caucasoid elements, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene.” P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Capsians elongated east AFrican and other Mediterranean types were nothing but some black long-headed non-Scythic peoples. I am sorry that you have a distaste for your Scythic ancestry but you need tto focus on it and not trying to make yourself into US BLACKS! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
We have been the way we are since the Pleistocene, Scythian-descendant. The fact that Africans were related to ancient Eurasiatics has nothing to do with your Neanderkind which has its own ancestry somewhere in Europe. Remnant of the pre-Caucasoid Eurasiatic.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Daniels (1970) reports that pre and post Roman Garamantian remains from southern Libya were Mediterranid Caucasoid.
Chamla’s (1976, 1980) conclusions after morphological analysis of mid-Holocene Maghreban crania are as follows:
In other words 88% of crania are Caucasoid. I would dispute the 12% Negroid, based on the fact Capoids were excluded from such studies.
Scythonneanderdummy - Daniels refers only to the Mediterranean Caucasoid in Sergi's sense of the phrase which refers to the Ba- Hima "Eurafricans" of CentralEast Africa and other Negroes as much as to the so-called Nordic's he also considers Eurafricans.
That was my whole point in writing about the myth of the Mediterranean race.
Are you seriously expecting us to go back to believing that such people as the Bahima of Uganda and others of our ancestors are CAUCASIANS more related to you than to other black Africans.
You are plumb wacko like the other Neanderdummies.
Now try to lie and tell me Sergi didn't call the Central East Africans like the Bahima "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
No your Scytho Teutonic ancestors and people like this BaHima woman have very little affiliation. And this black Ba-Hima woman is the original Eurafrican Mediterranean of Sergi.
Anthropology has EVOLVED since then! Sorry you haven't. Long headedness doesn't make you related to US!
BTW - the only true Caucasoid you mentioned was the Armenoid, and I am truly grateful you mentioned that it is only 6 percent since that means that's how much white was in early Holocene Africans.lol!.
Atlanto Mediterranean is what the Carthaginian and Phoenician and early pre Turk influenced Tuareg were.
The Bahima, Hima are Caucasoid admixed. They are Nilo-Hamites.
''The Nilo-Hamites or half-Hamites include the Turkana and Masai of Kenya and Tanganyika and the Karamojong of Uganda who [...] A Nilo-Hamitic strain persists also among the Hima of Uganda, the giant Tusi of Ruanda, and the pastoral Fula'' (Allan, 1965)
Genetics confirms. Each dubbed ''Nilo-Hamitic'' group from earlier anthropological sources are now known to be part Eurasian in their genepool.
The Hima, cluster closer to ''Ethiosemites'' than ''surrounding Bantu'' (Negroids).
- Genetics and History of Sub-Saharan Africa",Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 30 (1987), pp. 151-194.
As we know Ethiopians are Caucasoid admixed, and the Hima cluster with them BEFORE Negroids.
That nonsense may be good enough for the Dodona board but won't work here. Like I told you previously most scholars do not believe modern Tutsi and Hima have any significant Caucasoid ancestry. YOU EURONUTS ARE JEALOUS AND NEED TO GET OVER YOUR FANTASIES!
Ethiopic people tall elongated Nilotes as represented on the rock art of the Syro-Arabnian deserts and other black nappy- headed Eritraean and more robust Natufian people left THEIR GENES in the Arabian peninsula/Levant and parts of Eurasia. THAT is the only connection they have to being related to later J haplotype carrying round-headed white hairsute EURASIATICS in southwest Asia. AND U6 evidently WAS NOT FROM WHITES according to some people on this board.
You have NOTHING LEFT!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You NeanderScyths are funny. Looking at your fantastical pseudoscientific wacky postings on other forums can keep anyone entertained for hours.
If you can not even be traced back to the freaking Cro-Magnon man in Europe how are you everwhere else at the same time, losers!
"'The first proto-Caucasoid or Europo-Aethiopoid forms did not occur in the Middle East but in the Ethiopian heartland." Skadi forum
"Scientists in Britain have identified the oldest skeleton ever found on the American continent in a discovery that raises ... However, the most intriguing aspect of the skull is that it is long and narrow and typically Caucasian in appearance..." thewhiterace.com
"The oldest remains found in America were Proto-Caucasoid and not mongoloid nor Proto-Mongoloid, see this thread..." forumbiodiversity
LOL! The jealousy and hilarity of you nobodies never ceases! Keep that hope and delusion alive!
Neanderdummy i.e. Anglophile's "Caucasoid admixed" Karamajong Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Dana, IGNORE the Anglo-PrimeIdiot! He is just lashing out in desperation since this very thread of yours exposes and busts the pseudo-scholarly con-game he and his idiotic ilk play! Note how all the outdated sources he cites don't go past 1990, which only confirm what you've said all along! LOL
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Neanderniggah!- East Africans near Ottoman peoples have absorbed some Turkish blood. That includes the Somali and Beja in particular. Before that the Amhara have of course once lived on both sides of he Arabian Sea and have likely absorbed various Eurasiatic groups.
Fortunately we know from blood group studies Somalis and other Negroes are NOT any more connected with modern EURASIATICS than Southern Italians and southern Iberians are with west Africans.
Actually! Just a small correction. You're right that relatively few East Africans do have some admixture from Eurasians and that most of it is indeed very recent. Unfortunately the converse can't be said for Europeans! LOL In fact, among BOTH southern Italians and southern Iberians, there are many who carry West African genes and genetic signatures like paternal E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, maternal L2, L1, and even Benin HBS (sickle cell)!! In fact all of these genetic influences are not recent at all but are very ancient dating back to at least the Neolithic!
Of course the Anglo-Idiot admits that E1b1b in Europeans was derived from Africans, though claims such Africans were "Mediterranean Caucasoids"! LOL
quote:That is the fact that you can not accept. We don't get our long narrow head faces and noses from NEANDERDULLS or BASQUES!. YOU ARE MUCH MORE RELATED TO THEM THEN YOU ARE TO ANY BLACK WHATSOEVER!
LIKE I SAID ENJOY AND LEARN TO APPRECIATE YOUR OWN SCYTHONEANDERDULLIC ANCESTRY BECAUSE THAT'S THE BULK OF YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND IN FACT CULTURAL HERITAGE. AND I AM SORRRY IF THAT HURTS!
I wouldn't be too sure about that if I were you! Just as many Africans were mistakenly thought to have so-called "caucasian" ancestry for having certain facial features, there are many Europeans who look totally white but could have recent African ancestry! Remember there are some Europeans who carry African lineages; some of these lineages are ancient while some are more recent! In other words, don't judge a book by its cover.
Perhaps the Anglo-Idiot needs to check his own genealogy before he concerns himself with the lineage of other peoples in Africa! LMAOPosts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: "In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially MORE GRACILE than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ..Rightmire found that these East African remains as well as those from the sites as Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan population, and not with either Egyptians or San/Khoi…Similar results were obtained by Brauer (1978), and Rightmire has suggested that these fossils may represent Nilotic peoples… These findings are very important because they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gambles Cave and Elmenteita SHOULD NOT be interpreted as Caucasoid elements, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene.” P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Indeed, the above confirms the findings of Hiernaux.
"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions..... From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia." Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) 1975
quote:Capsians elongated east AFrican and other Mediterranean types were nothing but some black long-headed non-Scythic peoples. I am sorry that you have a distaste for your Scythic ancestry but you need tto focus on it and not trying to make yourself into US BLACKS!
Thus is the very crux of the matter-- that these same racist whites who think themselves to be so superior to Africans, want to actually claim the very people and cultures of Africa for themselves!!
Yes it is a very sick and twisted paradox. It's very similar to mentality of 'God fearing', zealous, and fervent Christians who worship (a Jewish) Christ and follow the Bible (a Jewish book), yet hate Jews! LOL
They are psychopaths that are in deep need of mental treatment. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of a Hamitic Caucasoid from North Africa.
^ I believe she's from the Nubian region and Dongolan so obviously she of the same 'type' as 'White Nubian'! LOLPosts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
I'm aware of the recent evolution of light skin coloration in modern humans (not just West Eurasians). All humans are believed to have originally had brown skin.
That doesn't change the fact that the Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and the Horn region have a majority incidence of the same, recently-evolved allele that is associated with light skin pigmentation in modern West Eurasian populations. Black Africans, on the other hand, do not have the variant unless they've experienced some West Eurasian admixture; either directly or through intermediaries.
In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration, later waves of immigration from the same geographic area at some point(s) clearly introduced the aforementioned West Eurasian pigmentation allele. It didn't just get there and spread so widely by itself. Neither did the various downstream West Eurasian mtDNA lineages that are today so common in these particular regions.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "Caucasoids" have the most phenotypic diversity. But when you are shown African diversity a "true" negro must be found. You havent shown any reason to divide people by bone structure. And even if we did WHY focus on the head. Why not the limbs and other areas of the body.
There is no double standard retard. You are clueless about physical anthropology.
Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure.
In contrast East Africans are Caucasoid in morphology through a significant Eurasian admixture as the genetics has repeatedly proven.
East Africans don't look like Negroids in bone structure. You are so damn retarded, as many times as this is repeated you will ignore.
I swear this Anglo idiot, is a retard.smh
As Swenet stated before, it's mind boggling.
Eurasians are cold adapted and extensive HAIRY! East Africans are not!
190,000 Kya
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Morphologically Atlanto-Meds and Nordids are identical. All Caucasoids are highly uniform in bone structure.
^lol at cacasoids are most diverse.lol
You are even too dumb to understand what you yourself are writing.
When actual anthropologist say Africans are most diverse it means for example Africans in complete different phenotype, bonestructere, yet clustering within the same group genetically. Yes, without foreign genetic input. Dumbass!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: Actually, Jean Hiernaux did not analyse any of the East African Caucasoid remains. He just hypothesized/guessed that they may have been ancestral to Sub-Saharan folks like the Tutsi because of the somewhat narrower features in this ethnic group relative to other Negroid peoples.
Gunter Bräuer, on the other hand, did conduct several such cranial analyses from the late 1970s to 1990. And he found that the East African Gamble's Cave and related skeletal material grouped nearest to certain prehistoric Caucasoid remains from West Eurasia. They weren't Negroid, though some Negroid and Khoisan specimens did also coexist in the region during various periods (similar to the situation in prehistoric North Africa).
First off all, the terminology you're using exposes you.
Second, what is West Eurasian? Cro-Magnon? Who?lol
posted
^ The major morphological attributes in subspecies are uniform, what though can vary a considerable amount is ''soft tissue'' - phenotypic traits like pigmentation, hair colour and so forth. The majority of the intra-variation within a subspecies is in the latter - hence we recognise different races or clusters within the Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. On the most micro level they are a continuum, and are constantly being created. ''Africans'' are not a race. Its a geographical term. Africa has been inhabited by many different subspecies and races for thousands of years. The peoples of Madagascar and the eastern coasts of Africa for example are from Indonesia.
The equivilant of what you are saying is to take the USA - and claim it has the most 'natural' physical variation because today it is an extreme multiracial cesspool... No logic whatsoever. But that's to be expected since you are an ignorant Afronut troll. As many times as these facts are presented you just ignore.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gorpa: In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration
I don't deny that today's North and East Africans have some admixture with West Eurasians, as that kind of intercourse is historically documented, but what I'm addressing is your claim that this "Caucasoid" component goes back to the Paleolithic. If Wandering Caucasoids of any color ever back-migrated into sub-Saharan Africa in significant numbers, they apparently skipped Egypt, as Egyptian remains from the time period in question show sub-Saharan affinities according to relatively recent analyses:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
I'm aware of the recent evolution of light skin coloration in modern humans (not just West Eurasians). All humans are believed to have originally had brown skin.
That doesn't change the fact that the Afro-Asiatic peoples in North Africa and the Horn region have a majority incidence of the same, recently-evolved allele that is associated with light skin pigmentation in modern West Eurasian populations. Black Africans, on the other hand, do not have the variant unless they've experienced some West Eurasian admixture; either directly or through intermediaries.
In other words, while the earlier population movements from West Eurasia into North and East Africa likely involved Caucasoid-featured peoples possessing the original generic brown human skin coloration, later waves of immigration from the same geographic area at some point(s) clearly introduced the aforementioned West Eurasian pigmentation allele. It didn't just get there and spread so widely by itself. Neither did the various downstream West Eurasian mtDNA lineages that are today so common in these particular regions.
YES - slavery WAS common in North AFrica and especially in the Beja and Eritraean region where many Ottoman Trukish men and women arrived.
Our narrow elongated features come from the depths of hot, super-arid, BLACK Africa and are therefore NOT "Caucasoid" in origin. Your polar icecap-originated features came from your OWN ANCESTORS. If you NUTS weren't so busy on this forum trying to make East AFricans and other blacks into "Caucasoids" maybe you would known by now where. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afronuts once again quote-mining Vermeersch yet fail to note that his multivariate analysis on the mandible of Nazlet Khater clusters it with Capoid (Khoisanid) not Negroid:
''Therefore, on the basis of factor score [...] the Nazlet Khater and Khoisan groups are closely related. Based on this observation, I hypothesize that Nezlet Khater represent a (or ''the'') ''Proto-Khoisan'' stock, which could have extended as far north as egypt.'' - Vermeersch, 2002 p. 325
Which confirms Coon's (1962) theory that Capoids are indigenous to North Africa, having been pushed south by Caucasoids during the turn of the Holocene.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet what does such slavery have ANYTHING to do with the gracile "Caucasoid" skulls of prehistoric Tanzania??!!
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If people living in Olduvai Gorge way the hell in Tanzania during 15,000 BC are "Europid" according to you, there is no helping you.
Truthcentric hit the nail right on the head. When this 'gorpa' first showed up, I tried giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was merely a misguided black person. But now I see such hope does not exist here in this forum! LOL This person is nothing more than one of the Euroloons trying desperately to revive the Hamitic b.s. that Dana is warning us about! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) writes wistfully on the forum at the above url: ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Through all dynasties Egyptians displayed the Negroid traits and tropical limb proportions
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic