The first is simple. Cassi has already admitted East Africans didn't require modern Europeans to enter into Africa to give it the diversity that it has.
The second point, is that he's presented when asked no tangible evidence that pygmies have no physical diversity akin to East Africans, and that West Africans came from pygmies instead of non-pygmy East Africans.
So onto point: 1
Exhibit A: Cassi admits that certain East Africans have features you can also find in Europe and the middle East. He however attempts to explain this by suggesting admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Djehuti, Capoids (Khoisans) are heavily Eurasian (Caucasoid) admixed like the Beja. This admixture is not recent (for example its not from European colonisation admixture).
''..the intermediacy of the Khoisan, which could be described as part African and part West Asian. A possible explanation is that earlier Khoisans inhabited another region...where hybridization occurred.'' (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994: 193)
This hybridization only could have occurred if the Capoids existed once in a widespread area - North and East Africa as Cavalli-Sforza (Ibid.) discusses.
Like the Beja, 30% of their genes are Eurasian.
They are heavily Caucasoid admixed.
However he then makes the mistake of suggesting the Capoids existed before supposed "wandering Caucasoids" would have hypothetically came into Africa...twice.
quote:Capoids (Bushmen) originated in North and East Africa, but were pushed south by Caucasoids during the Mesolithic.
Look up the Singa skull.
Singa has often been regarded as having proto- Bushman or Bushmanoid affinities, especially the posterior of the vault (Woodward 1938; Briggs 1955; Coon 1962, Wells 1972; Wolpoff 1980).
Also there is rock art evidence of Capoids in North Africa.
and again...
quote:Capoids originated in North Africa. Take a look at the following maps.
Coon, 1962 -
Pleistocene
Holocene
Green = Caucasoid Purple = Capoid Red = Australoid Blue - Mongoloid Yellow = Negroid
See how Capoids were pushed south by Caucasoids.
Negroids are only indigenous to West Africa.
Now how did the Capoids (whom he insists have their features because they are mulattoes) get pushed down by "wandering Caucasoids" if they couldn't exist to get pushed down before the "wandering Caucasoids" got to Africa? So basically he would have us belive East Africans were had their features before modern Euros came to make mulattoes but are mulattoes. And Cassi, suppose we go by this belief that Capoids were the mixture of indigenous Africans and wandering "Caucasoids" who did these "Caucasoids" mix with to make the Capoids? Your ship is already sunk by admitting they were there before any "wandering Caucasoids" arrived but humor me anyway.
Now onto point 2. Cassi admits that "capoids" existed before East Africans left for West Africa (pleistocene) thousands of years ago. This should suggest that they carried some of that East African diversity and additionally had distinct adaptations to the environments they went to live. And doesn't that map suggesting wandering Caucasoids also extend into west Africa?
Cassi attempts to deny West Africans carried East African diversity by attributing them to pygmies. It should go without saying that attributes (such as a thin nose) can also be found among pygmies.
He hasn't exactly gotten back in touch here after asking for what sources and tangible evidence supports a pygmy population over non pygmy East Africans.
Cassi relied on 3 sources.
The first source
quote:''All of these physical and hormonal characteristics seem to have arisen within a narrow timeframe. In sub-Saharan Africa, the beginnings of proto-agriculture cannot be pushed back much further than 12,000 BP. A tall, clearly black African skeleton has been dated to 6,500 BP (Camp, 1974, p. 241; Coon, 1962, pp. 649-650). This leaves a window of barely six thousand years for the changes that differentiate black Africans from their hunter-gatherer ancestors,''
When asked how this directly connects the pygmy to West Africans no answer was provided.
quote:''On the basis of genetic and archaeological data, black Africans seem to have radiated from a relatively small West African and possibly pygmy population within the last 20,000 years (Coon, 1962, pp. 651-656; Spurdle et al., 1994; Watson et al., 1996).
When asked for tangible evidence Coon relied upon, no answer was provided. And once more, how does Watson's data support West Africans coming from pygmies? Explain the supposed archeological and genetic evidence.
quote:''By 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, the transition to agriculture had been completed in West Africa and these early agriculturalists were able to support much higher population densities than they had as hunter-gatherers. Inevitably, this nucleus of farming populations began to spread outward at the expense of more sparsely distributed Khoisan and pygmy peoples. By about 4,000 BP, the expansion had reached as far east as the middle Nile, when black Africans first appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker, 1921). About 3,000 BP, another wave of advance began along the Nigerian-Cameroon border and spread rapidly throughout central, eastern, and southern Africa (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986c, pp. 361-362; Diamond, 1997; Oliver, 1966). By 300 AD, pioneering groups had advanced as far south as KwaZulu-Natal''
This doesn't even suggest pygmies were direct ancestors. Just that they and Khoisan were displaced.
Where is the direct, tangible evidence and why are pygmy completely disconnected from any affinities you are quick to suggest are Caucasoid? Focus on the first question primarily. Otherwise Cassi you have admitted that West Africans carry "Capoid" East Africans diversity just as Europeans and everyone else.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show me what I overlooked or admit East Africans don't need Euro inflow for their features. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cassi admits East Africans don't need European mixture for their features
Yet then yourself admit, I said no such thing:
[quote]Cassi admits that certain East Africans have features you can also find in Europe and the middle East. He however attempts to explain this by suggesting admixture[/quote]
Its nothing more than another personal attack thread. I wouldn't be surprised if you, Claus and Bumbumtish are all the same person.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cassi admits East Africans don't need European mixture for their features
Yet then yourself admit, I said no such thing:
I don't admit it. What I see here is you admitting that East African features existed before your supposed wandering Caucasoids came to settle in Africa. As far as I can see, you are still trying to (as you've done previously) RETRACT what you admitted. What you saw there was my willingness to give (provided you can show where I read wrong) the benefit of the doubt. But that's the thing, unless you can show where I did not read properly once more admit that "Capoids" did not require Caucasoid mixture and don't retract it anymore.
quote:Cassi admits that certain East Africans have features you can also find in Europe and the middle East. He however attempts to explain this by suggesting admixture
I never suggested trying to tack on the admixture theory WHILE saying Capoids predate Caucasoids in Africa made much sense to me. So you are inconsistent with your rhetoric it would seem. You claimed "Capoids" were Caucasoid admixed when explaining their features but then place them in Africa before "Caucasoids" got there who would later come to displace them according to YOU. If "Capoids" have "Caucasoid" features as you admit and if you also admit they PREDATE Caucasoids in Africa...how did you not just admit Africa didn't need wandering Euros to give East Africans their features? That's all I'm asking.
quote:Its nothing more than another personal attack thread. I wouldn't be surprised if you, Claus and Bumbumtish are all the same person.
And when no response can be provided, cry that it is a personal attack while personally attacking with accusations of sock puppetry.This isn't a "personal attack."
You had no problem making a thread about Zarahan claiming Native American mixed African Americans are black:
You let Lioness make threads to review what others here have said. But when it time to go over what you say you are suddenly being "persecuted." Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: None of the above are indigenous to Eastern Africa. The indigenous peoples of Eastern Africa are the remnant Sandawe people, who obviously have Capoid affiliation. Negroids only entered these regions during the Bantu migration.
Now would you like to do this board a favor and explain to us exactly what makes these people 'non-negroid'?? What is the difference between a 'negroid' and a 'capoid' anyway, and why are the people above capoid and not negroid??
quote:None of the above traits appear in native Sandawe. That is why the claim by Afrocentrics thin noses evolved in situ in Eastern Africa is completely bogus. Nonetheless they will continue to repeat it, as they self-hate the true Negroid phenotype.
What IS the "true Negroid" phenotype? Why is there even a 'true' Negroid in the first place? This suggests that there are 'fake' Negroids. How come there is no true Caucasoid phenotype??
It's become obvious that the Prime-Idiot uses "Capoid" as nothing more than a strawman dummy that he waves as a distraction from the FACT that "negroid" morphology is MUCH older and ancient than he wants everyone to believe and of course widespread throughout the African continent and beyond. This is why he never bothers defining what exactly is the difference.
Someone with "negroid" morphology inhabiting Africa during Paleolithic times he labels as 'Capoid'. Definitely any skulls with "negroid" morphology in North Africa or even the adjacent Middle East prior to the neolithic is 'Capoid' because he desperately wants to preserve his fantasy that "negroids" are recent only coming about during neolithic times in the jungles of the Congo or some stupid sh*t like that.
It's pathetic as it is hilarious is it not? LOLPosts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pathetic as it is hilarious is it not? LOL [Big Grin]
Both pathetic and hilarious is the new name- the self-styled "Thule"..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But one of his theories is that Capoids are a Caucasoid admixed people. But even if I were to take this comment at face value, what would these Caucasoids have mixed with to make a Capoid?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You guys do know that the troll named Casstrated a.k.a. Anglo-PrimeIdiot a.k.a. Gruel (brains) is either a really dumb liar or a psychopath if he believes his lies.
He argues that all these ancient Africans and African diaspora were not "negroid" yet he argues "negroids" are not a truly separate racial group by a Caucasoid hybrid!!
Now what sense does this make??
Notice he still hasn't answered my question above as to why or how the Sandawe people are not Negroid but Capoid, even though BOTH racial groups according to him are Caucasoid-mixed!! LOLPosts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well word around the grapevine is that "he" may be multiple individuals the same way Lioness is more than one person that gets paid to post here. It would explain "his" incoherent views.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic