Those pictures are very well known and could easily be modern or ancient Somalian or Ethiopean. You can't prove non-African origin by virtue of small mouth and long nose, as those features have likely existed in Africa since before the migrations that gave rise to current Euroasian peoples.

The ideology of Caucasianism which assumes that Europeans constitute a racial template, by which other people can be defined, and then going around classifying people ranging from the Tutsi, to the Australian Aborigenes as "cau-casoid", has been largely discredited by recent anthropological and DNA based research.

In fact - Europeans are not the root of the human family tree, the roots are African, as is the trunk of the tree...in the sense that Africa has more human genetic diversity than all the rest of the world combined.

Europe is only a leaf on the tree.

It has been suggested that it makes more sense to say that Europeans have "Ethiopoid" features, than to discuss native African types in terms of caucasianism. Of course it will never happen since European egocentrism mitigates against it....but still. Caucasianism is largely without foundation in modern science.

Some links:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mt26b.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-05/PS-Ssoo-1005101.php
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000 /12/07/MN113749.DTL&type=printable
http://stewartsynopsis.com/death_by_blackness_files/blackswhites1.htm

Another term for these types are elongated Africans. This is what Jean Hiernaux calls them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Thanks. Not sure what your point is though.

Those pictures are very well known and could easily be modern or ancient Somalian or Ethiopean. You can't prove non-African origin by virtue of small mouth and long nose, as those features have likely existed in Africa since before the migrations that gave rise to current Euroasian peoples.

The ideology of Caucasianism which assumes that Europeans constitute a racial template, by which other people can be defined, and then going around classifying people ranging from the Tutsi, to the Australian Aborigenes as "cau-casoid", has been largely discredited by recent anthropological and DNA based research.

In fact - Europeans are not the root of the human family tree, the roots are African, as is the trunk of the tree...in the sense that Africa has more human genetic diversity than all the rest of the world combined.

Europe is only a leaf on the tree.

It has been suggested that it makes more sense to say that Europeans have "Ethiopoid" features, than to discuss native African types in terms of caucasianism. Of course it will never happen since European egocentrism mitigates against it....but still. Caucasianism is largely without foundation in modern science.

Some links:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mt26b.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-05/PS-Ssoo-1005101.php
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000 /12/07/MN113749.DTL&type=printable
http://stewartsynopsis.com/death_by_blackness_files/blackswhites1.htm

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 June 2004).]

---

I agree with the Western Asian statement, however I disagree with the claim that nasal shape is caused by adaptation of weather for the simple fact that the Beja tribe has the same nasal indices of a swedish person- and we're talking two extremely different climates here, and secondly Dinkas and Bejas have totally different nasal indices and they share the exact same climate conditions.

I would have to agree with Rasol's claim as it is more logical. It only makes sense that different African tribes gave birth to other ethnic groups given how diverse the physical features are from tribe to tribe. (All in the same climate mind you) I think the only climatic adaptation is from "melanin" production. It is my opinion that during the evolutionary process the body produced less melanin in colder climates in order for people to survive. Scientists claim that melanin rich species absorb UV which significantly reduces levels of Vitamin D. Those species migrating to colder climates cannot survive without vitamin D. Therefore the body would produce less melanin, and absorb less UV which overtime would result in a melanin-less species. Melanin determines the color of our hair, eyes, skin which explains why those that migrated closer to the North Pole developed lighter eyes, hair, skin.

Even if humans included milk in their diets a 100,000 years ago we know that milk producing mammals like cows and goats did not survive in the cold climates.

I think if physical anthropologist study the physical features of African tribes closely they will find that hair texture, nose shapes, lip size, height, etc. differs extensively and one or more of all these traits (except those affected by melanin) can be found in every race of mankind.

Photo references:

Khosian man, same features found in Asian-slanted eyes, broad nose, etc.

Vietnamese woman

Borana tribe of Kenya (notices the very thin lips)

Gabbra tribe of Kenya

Nubian woman (nose not much different than Arabs and other people around the Mediterranean including Greeks and Jews)

Japadhola of Uganda, same facial features of Austrailian Aboriginals

The caucasoid myth dies hard because as pseudoscientific as it may be, it has extreme political utility.

For example: In South Africa, the apartheid regime argued that 'they' (the Boer whites) were the true native Africans, and that the blacks were in fact mere immigrants.

A part of the rationale for this was that the Khoisan peoples (present in southern Africa for perhaps 100,000 years or more) were not "true" Negroes and so did not count, as a part of the same African majority as the Zulu and Xhosa belonged.

In British Rhodesia it was argued that the people who built Zimbabwe were non Negro "Hamites" - and so not related to current Shona Africans....therefore the British were not colonialists usurpers of African Nations (what Nations?), but rather founders of an original "Western" nation.

Ian Smith: "Rhodesia is not a part of Africa and must instead be considerd a part of the West".

The more current, honest and less racist approach begins with the reality of Africa as a central and paramount entity and necessary basis for any ethnic scheme.

In other words -> Khoisan, Ethiopian, Zulu, Efe (so called Pygmy) peoples are all African or Africoid - indigenous African ethnic groups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Ausur
[b]We know that nasal shape is caused by adaptation of weather circumstances instead of intermixture with so-called Western Asians.

[quote]I agree with the Western Asian statement, however I disagree with the claim that nasal shape is caused by adaptation of weather for the simple fact that the Beja tribe has the same nasal indices of a swedish person

---

Same as the Swedish? I don't think so, I think you need to see some more pictures of the Beja. Nasal form is cause my a combination of climatic conditions and diet, they both influence face shape and hence the shape of the nose. Beja face form is mostly a natural adaptation though most Bejas tend to resemble Ethiopians and Nubians and look black.

Keita, S. O. Y., and Rick Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist September, 1997 Vol. 99(3):534-545.

The authors analyze the popular theories of race and racial divergence. They point out the many inconsistencies in the attempt to classify races based on physical diversities and geography. Race, for the purpose of this article, is defined in classical terms as the "collection of uniform individuals who comprise relatively distinct units." Classical terms describing race, such as Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, among others, are found to be too broad or too narrow to be of any use in terms of describing human diversity. One of the major issues analyzed here are ideas about when, where, and under what circumstances human divergences took place. Keita ands Kittles point out that until recently it was thought that the most important divergence was between Africans and non-Africans. It was discovered recently, however, that Africa displays the most genetic variation, even though, due to phenotypic similarities, Africans had been previously regarded as largely homogenous. While the extent of this diversity was previously thought to be the result of the constant migrations of non-African groups into Africa over the millennia, this assumption has been found to be incorrect.

Another possible explanation for this diversity is the great length of time over which parts of the African continent was inhabited, allowing for differentiations within the various gene pools. Efforts to place a date on when human populations diverged resulted in the discovery of many inconsistencies. Finding such inconsistencies led to the realization that many populations were not the product of hybridization, as was first recognized, but rather the products of differentiation. The attempt to place names on various groups based on phenotype and geography also led to dead ends because it did not account for overlaps. Furthermore, some phenotypes of some populations, while highly similar are genetically far apart.

The earliest divergence between Africans and non-Africans seems to have occurred between 156,000 and 115, 000 years ago, as there is no evidence thus far of the existence of modern humans outside of Africa before this period. The earlier idea that the Khoisan and other short-statured groups of Central Africa are representative of proto-humans has also been discounted. Scientific tools such as dendrograms have been found to be useless when attempting to describe human populations.

The authors state that racial thinking should not be associated with racist thinking. Racial thinking persists "in spite of multiple lines of evidence that deconstruct racial schema and their underlying philosophy." Projects such as the Human Genome Diversity Project will hopefully destroy some of the myths of racial typological thinking. Furthermore, the "human geographical variation in external traits is obvious, but these differences should not be looked at as fundamental biological differences." Stereotypes that are linked to continents do not flow from biogeography. In closing, the authors emphasize the need to develop new terms that describe human variation, biohistories, and phenetic and genealogical affinities. Failure to explain such variations by means of terms and concepts, will only allow the continuance of misunderstandings and misclassifications.

http://www.publicanthropology.org/Archive/AA1997.htm

1. In the most recent well-known anthropological work attacking Afrocentric positions on the "race" of the Egyptians, Brace et al. (1993) commit the decades old error of giving greater variabilty to those traditionally labeled "Caucasoids." While, Brace et al. attempt to avoid using such labels, their classification methods nonetheless show that they subscribe to the same idea (only under the guise of "clusters and clines").In attempting to show that greater gene flow has occured between Somalis and Europeans, they assign undue importance to the traits like narrow noses and narrow faces, while discounting evidence such as dark complexion and "supra-Negroid" limb ratios (long, slender limbs. Thus, while suggesting that the dark skins of Egyptians may not be due to gene flow at all, but only to adaptation, they see narrow noses in Somalia as suggestive of gene flow with northwest Europe more subtantial than that with the geographically contiguous sub-Saharan Africa!:
"There is the very real possibility, for example,that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing of a population that come from somewhere else." (Brace et al., 1993, p. 20)

"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa." (Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)

That gene flow is suggested by the Brace et al., data is proven by the following quote: "Our own battery of craniofacial measurements, however, deals with traits that , for the most part, have little demonstrable relationship to specific selective forces. For this reason, their use are largely indicators of the genetic relationship of the groups compared." (Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)

However, Brace et al.'s "own battery" of tests is based mainly on measurements of the nose. According to the same article, nasal "elevation and elongation" is influenced by adaptation to the environment. In fact, there is little to suggest that any of the nasal measurements that make up the vast majority of the twenty-four variables used by Brace et al., are not influenced by selective forces. Since these make up the vast number of variables used, the distances, or relative similarity, shown in the Brace et al. graphs (dendograms) do not support their argument on genetic relationship. Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. Eskimos, American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples is due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, 1991)

Related to the previous point, there was, and to a great extent, still is a practice of labeling traits according to race. Thus, the long, high narrow nose becomes "Caucasoid." Indeed, the importance of the nose in Western anthropology is so great that one might label it "nasal science." For in the division of the races, the nose has played a greater part than the skull altogether. The nasal nature of the Brace et al. study is reminiscent of an earlier work by Risley (1915), that sought to racially classify the castes of India according to nasal index. According to Risley's thinking, the higher castes would have been primarily of Caucasoid ancestry and thus would have longer noses. Later studies by Ghurye (1961) and Dutt et al.(1973), however, show Risley's studies were invalid. The glaring discrepancy of the data in the two Indian studies as compared with Risley, despite measuring the same populations, was also startling.

The fact that one of the most discriminating nasal characteristics is often ignored in studies of population affinities is revealing. This is the shape of the nasal profile, a non-metric trait. In forensic anthropology, it is this profile that allows investigators to determine the difference in ancestry between the Amerind or Polynesian, who might have narrow noses, as compared to Caucasians. The Caucasian type is one of the only groups that possesses almost entirely a straight profile, while most other groups have concave or concavo-convex. Most "Negroids," have either concave or straight profiles. Interestingly, in ancient and modern Egypt, the nasal profile is also a mixture of concave and straight. In an interesting study by forensic anthropologists of the Egyptian scribe, Pepi (Kennedy et al., 1986), the following interesting comments are made concerning the racial identification traits of ancient Egyptians:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

Notice while the described traits are not "universal" in certain areas of Upper Egypt, yet these features definitely predominate even in these areas. In fact, the studies of Keita have shown this is so, and such traits are by no means uncommon in Lower Egypt (Keita, 1993). However, even such a trait as the concave nasal profile alone would not prove much. Any reasonable study would have to avoid any labeling of traits whether explicit or implied.

The choice of variables is broad, and Keita makes few attempts at gauging the selective quality of each trait. Indeed, views like those expressed by Brace et al., (1993) e.g., that the elongation and elevation of the nose is related to the local rate of moisture in the air is inconsistent with a number of examples found throughout the world. For example, the native Australians, despite living in one of the driest regions of the world for tens of thousands of years, have one of the broadest noses of any peoples.

You can read the full page at : http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/anthro.htm

I haven't seen enough convincing evidence to fully support the climatic theory, its simply a "working hypothesis" as far as I'm concerned.

Even the Herto Skulls found 160,000 years old, had "narrow" nasal bones and the Ethiopians still have this feature to this day. While their neigbors from other tribes have much broader noses in the "same climate". We know that the climate in that area was wetter then, than it is now, but this particular feature remains unchanged in some tribes. When someone can explain this, then I'll be more convinced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
[B]Supercar I have a problem with the theory that nasal shapes are determined by climate, as their are too many of the same shapes if DIFFERENT climates, and how are they to be explained. What about the broad noses of Vietnamese in "Tropical Climate" and the broad noses of Khosian in "Desert Climate", and the narrow noses of Ethiopians in "Hot climates" and the narrow noses of Swedish in "Cold climates". No I am not using noses to "classify races" Actually I'm doing the opposite to show that there is no fine line. And that maybe those tribes that migrated "out of Africa" 100,000 years ago already posessed those features or at least the genetic material to produce those features.Ethiopia is one of the most genetically diverse areas. Why are Africans living side by side sometimes often 50% genetically distinct from eachother??

---

Genetics and phenotype are distinct, thats why you have Africans who look alike very much, but are genetically distant from each other. Africa is full of many climates and the PRESENT peoples you see living in one area could have lived through several climatic conditions or could have migrated,ie, intra-African migration.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Even the Herto Skulls found 160,000 years old, had "narrow" nasal bones and the Ethiopians still have this feature to this day.[/B]

---

By contrast some studies purport that the ancestors of Europeans arrived in Europe as little as 40,000 years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Even the Herto Skulls found 160,000 years old, had "narrow" nasal bones and the Ethiopians still have this feature to this day. While their neigbors from other tribes have much broader noses in the "same climate". We know that the climate in that area was wetter then, than it is now, but this particular feature remains unchanged in some tribes. When someone can explain this, then I'll be more convinced.

.

---

Homeylu, Herto was a generalized modern meaning its features did not corresond to modern human races.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Supercar I have a problem with the theory that nasal shapes are determined by climate, as their are too many of the same shapes if DIFFERENT climates, and how are they to be explained. What about the broad noses of Vietnamese in "Tropical Climate" and the broad noses of Khosian in "Desert Climate", and the narrow noses of Ethiopians in "Hot climates" and the narrow noses of Swedish in "Cold climates". No I am not using noses to "classify races" Actually I'm doing the opposite to show that there is no fine line. And that maybe those tribes that migrated "out of Africa" 100,000 years ago already posessed those features or at least the genetic material to produce those features.Ethiopia is one of the most genetically diverse areas. Why are Africans living side by side sometimes often 50% genetically distinct from eachother??

---

I see where you are going with this. It is simple really how people with different phenotypes live side by side. S. Mohammad pointed it out...it's because of migration of groups. You have to understand that adaptation of various Africoid people occured at different times, not simultaneously. Now, even though Ethiopia is in the tropical zone, unlike its west African counterparts, it is a mountainous region. There is no doubt that Ethiopians had to adapt to their environment. It is due to genetic mutation also. Like you pointed out, there are also some 100% Ethiopians with somewhat broader noses than others. How to explain this? Genetic mutation! E.g, I have members among my immediate family, some with thinner noses and lips than others. Yet we have the same parents.
As far as African being 50% genetically different, where did you get your sources on that? I beleive S.O.Y Keita was trying to show that there is continuity among Africans genetically, than those outside of the continent. This is why he mentioned that even the orginal stock of the so-called mediterranean (before the influx from Western Asia) type of northern coastal Africa, are actually not of the same race as Western Asians or Europeans, even though they have faslely been identified as such because of their phenotype. You'll also notice that even though we often connect the upper Egyptians as the same phenotype as the Somalians and Ethiopians, there are actually people among these upper Egyptians who look somewhat different because of their comparatively broader noses, and fuller lips.
The link I provided explains all this in detail from Keita's work, which is surprisingly accepted by both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics! If you know of anyone who has come up with better findings, please let me know.

ie - "None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt", and...

"the Southern Egyptians and Nubians are most closely related to Nile River peoples in the Sudan and to other peoples in adjacent regions. These peoples are, in turn, a blending of the same Saharan type with the type found in the Badari and early Nakada cultures that would fit into the so called "authentic African" typology. However, Keita (1993) rightly rejects such an idea of the authentic African, and similar terms like "Forest Negro," "True Negro," etc. He notes that the rejection of relationship between types not both meeting the "True Negro" standard, would be as invalid as rejecting relationships between Europeans who were non-Nordic,"

uhm.....that is not a compromise with Eurocentrism, that is a complete dismantling of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Keita has done terrific work, but I can't see how he would accepted by Eurocentrics other than to say that they can't and don't try and directly reject his work. But his findings are directly in contrast to the fundamental tenants of Eurocentrism.

ie - "None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt", and...

"the Southern Egyptians and Nubians are most closely related to Nile River peoples in the Sudan and to other peoples in adjacent regions. These peoples are, in turn, a blending of the same Saharan type with the type found in the Badari and early Nakada cultures that would fit into the so called "authentic African" typology. However, Keita (1993) rightly rejects such an idea of the authentic African, and similar terms like "Forest Negro," "True Negro," etc. He notes that the rejection of relationship between types not both meeting the "True Negro" standard, would be as invalid as rejecting relationships between Europeans who were non-Nordic,"

uhm.....that is not a compromise with Eurocentrism, that is a complete dismantling of it.

I simply long to see the day the history books start reflecting these findings.

---

You are right about Eurocentrics reluctantly accepting Keita's findings. Nevertheless, they use his findings selectively to make their point. What would you consider Mary Lefkowitz? You are most likely to describe her as being terrifically Eurocentric, right? Anyway, here is a quote by Mary Lefkowitz using Keita's findings selectively to make a point:

"On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."

I found this in a link to her website: http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
"On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara;

---

Clever, but intentionally misleading.
Should be written as.....DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley were Black Africans from the South -> precisely as the AE themselves always said.

I've already commented enough on Lefkowitz in general, with her trapped in a loop approach to AG (ancient Greece).

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Clever, but intentionally misleading.
Should be written as.....DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley were Black Africans from the South -> precisely as the AE themselves always said.

I've already commented enough on Lefkowitz in general, with her trapped in a loop approach to AG (ancient Greece).

fact 1: greeks are superior
fact 2: greeks said africa was superior
fact 3: 'we know' africa is inferior to greece
fact 4: greeks must be wrong (see fact 2)
fact 5: greeks can't be wrong because....(see fact 1)
repeat......

---

Now, you know very well that I don't buy into Lefkowitz's ideology. I was just trying to make a point that she too used Keita's findings selectively to preach her ideas. Since these Eurocentrics seem unable to fight his points, they try to twist it around to suite their agenda.

Yes humans adapt to the environment, but I think this has more to do with skin color than nose shape. Adaptation is necessary for survival, and I have yet to be convinced as to how the shape of your nose affects your survival rate. While the opposite is true for skin color. Before the invention of sunscreens, pale skin could not have survived in Hot climates due to skin cancerous affect, and by contrast, dark skin, could not have survived in "ice age" climatic conditions due to the devastating effects of bone cancer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Africans are genetically diverse, this has been proven so many times, that I'm surprised you would ask for a source, It's a known fact, how did you think the "Out of Africa" theory came about anyway? I don't care what S. Mohammad says about migrations (it has no relevance), humans migrated "Out of Africa" to all four corners of the earth so naturally they would migrate around the continent. Thst is the birthplace of mankind, and that's why they are so genetically diverse!!

---

What do you mean migrations are irrelevant? They are inasmuch most people think Africans were affected only by people migrating outside into Africa but have never focused on intra-African migration. Migration of Africans from one part of Africa to another would cause genetic variation within African populations. Thats a fact you cannot say is irrelevant.

homeylu posted:
Africans are genetically diverse, this has been proven so many times, that I'm surprised you would ask for a source, It's a known fact, how did you think the "Out of Africa" theory came about anyway? I don't care what S. Mohammad says about migrations (it has no relevance), humans migrated "Out of Africa" to all four corners of the earth so naturally they would migrate around the continent. Thst is the birthplace of mankind, and that's why they are so genetically diverse!!

I asked you for your source, because you said "50%" variation! That is almost like talking about two different species. Even the variations between different races is not that great, unless you can convince me otherwise with a reliable reference. The variation in human beings is only to the level of the genetic codes for phenotypic adaptation, and in some cases for resistance to certain disease, like the sickle-cells prevalent in the Africoid or Negroid people. While there are phenotypic variations among Africans, there is continuity in the gene flow. For example, North African populations such as Egyptians and to a very small degree the Greeks (because of proximity and historical interminglings with North Africans), have this sickle-cell phenomenon, because of continuity in the gene flow. You'll not see such cells in Europoid people.

If it was someone else, credit to you...anyway, it contains astute information on how phenotypical defintions are sometimes abused, esp. with respect to the "narrow nose" issue:

"The very fact that narrow noses can be found over practically the entire globe among large populations who are highly variant in other ways should suggest that this is not a good choice for a genetic trait. However, early hyperdiffusionists saw it in a different light; one in which quite fantastic racial claims of a "white" origin for all civilization could be made."

Imagine "Native American" (Indian) anthropologists rummaging thru ancient China remains, and pronouncing the fossils with "Indian" as opposed to Asian features, and then 'theorizing' on the Indian origins of Chinese civilization.

Nevermind that some of the fossils are "pre-Bering straight migration" from Asia to America, which logically renders the whole concept of Indian a non starter.....still, go ahead and declare them 'Indian' anyway.

Such an approach is the basis of 'caucasian's civilizations in Africa' theory. Totally illogical. Really a bit of a scam.

You almost had me convinced with the nose shape, and moisture escaping ( I thought you were on to something), but when you went to the jaw shape eating habits, all I thought was “junk science”, sorry.

Originally posted by Supercar
I asked you for your source, because you said "50%" variation! That is almost like talking about two different species I don’t know about two different species, but if you do some research on nucleotide variations, you will find that for Africans the diversity is 50%, while for other populations the diversity is around 28%. What this simply means is that some African populations are genetically closer to others (i.e. Europeans) than they are to each other. All the other populations belong to just 3 lineages (combined-not each), Africans (sub-saharan) on the other hand belong to 22 lineages (which is amazing). In simple terms there are 22! Founding fathers for the subsequent African tribes. ( I can’t remember the source of this either, but type Tishkooff and Williams 2002, African genetics into a search engine).
Originally posted by S. Mohammad
What do you mean migrations are irrelevant? They are inasmuch most people think Africans were affected only by people migrating outside into Africa but have never focused on intra-African migration. Migration of Africans from one part of Africa to another would cause genetic variation within African populations. Thats a fact you cannot say is irrelevant
Sa3d, that’s actually my whole point, before you didn’t add focused on intra-African migration so I didn’t know what you were getting at. I was just trying to show how diverse Africans are within themselves (without outside influence), and that its actually “them” that influenced the “outsiders” genetically before all the mutations took form. The 3 lineages found in all other populations, I, IIIA, and IIIB are ALL present in Africa. So I wasn’t clear on that statement.

quote:

---

How does this sound, hey the Egyptians ad "narrow noses", no way they could have been African, and so what the Olmecs had "broad noses" they couldn't have been African. This type of logic drives me nuts!

---

lol. Similarly, one of the arguments that were a precursor to this thread went as follows:

Kemet cannot be considered a Black African civilization because it was not homogeneous, this due to the presence of the Medit. type in the Delta.

Doesn't matter that the civilization originated among Black Africans.

Doesn't matter that Kemet was predominantly Black African for longer than most civilizations ever existed.

Doesn't matter that its cultural origins are rooted in Black Africa.

Doesn't matter that they referred to themselves as Black people.

Doesn't matter that they repeatedly stated that the African interior was their ancestral homeland.

All that matters is that it is provably not exclusively 101% Black African.

What civilization in history could meet such a ludicrous litmus test? ? ?

Meanwhile: European civilization can be considered white, due to much higher level of homogeniety.

And so as with nose shapes, now we get to play with the meaning of homogenous, and twist it to suit prejudicial ends.

We simply disregard the fact that European civilization originates in Greece.

Greek civilization follows Kemet by at least 1000 years and borrows from Kemet by it's own admission in virtually every aspect.

Of course the Greeks cannot reinvent the wheel...nor can European civilization become virginally homogenous a thousand years after the civilized facts of life were related to them in Africa.

To claim that European civilization is homogenous and African is not, is equivelant to claiming that ancestors inherit from descendants and not vice versa.

I actually recall learning about the Greek "Miracle" as a child in school, until the Greek superiority propaganda piled so high and thick that I concluded that the true miracle is the number of people who actually believed it.

The link I provided specifically states that the "moisture" reasoning alone cannot account for nose shape. There must be other factors. This is why I brought up the jaw structure theory, which I must admit doesn't explain the nose structure at all. That is why I recommended more research on this issue!

homeylu posted:
Originally posted by Supercar
I asked you for your source, because you said "50%" variation! That is almost like talking about two different species
Originally posted by homeylu:
I don’t know about two different species, but if you do some research on nucleotide variations, you will find that for Africans the diversity is 50%, while for other populations the diversity is around 28%. What this simply means is that some African populations are genetically closer to others (i.e. Europeans) than they are to each other. All the other populations belong to just 3 lineages (combined-not each), Africans (sub-saharan) on the other hand belong to 22 lineages (which is amazing). In simple terms there are 22! Founding fathers for the subsequent African tribes. ( I can’t remember the source of this either, but type Tishkooff and Williams 2002, African genetics into a search engine).

I agree on the part where you say that there is more variations within a particular race than outside it. Which means that "some members of the African populations, may actually be genetically closer to members in the European populations, than members within the African population". The same is true vice versa. But I still have a hard time dealing with the 50% variation. Human variation in general is so minimal, that biologically speaking, social definitions of race based on "phenotypic classification" becomes redundant. No doubt that there is some biological basis for phenotype, but this variation is so insignificant, in creating clear cut races within the human species. In other words, the genetic variation across the human races is really low, limiting to phenotypic variations and other minor cellular (e.g. sickle cells in Africans) adaptations to the environment. Keita uses the sickle cell phenomenon among African populations to prove the racial relation of Ancient Egyptians to the rest of Africa. He did this through the examination of several AE mummies and skeletal remains from different time frames of pre-dynastic, dynastic, and proto-dynastic Egypt. This only makes sense, because the degree of homogeneity of the population would change over time!

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

How does this sound, hey the Egyptians ad "narrow noses", no way they could have been African, and so what the Olmecs had "broad noses" they couldn't have been African. This type of logic drives me nuts!
Yet I get criticized for seeing the world in what is more obvious "skin color".
Queen Tiye is the perfect example of my logic, and would you believe someone told me (not on this forum) this woman had to
have been "mixed" with European because of her NOSE?

---

I think you spend too much time debating on the net with people who aren't as knowledgable as you. Generally when people in the West describe a black person, they will mostly conform to the West African phenotypes(broad nose, big lips, high cheek bones, etc.) because that is what most people here are familiar with. People in the West either don't realize that the phenotypes are different in East Africa, or they assume East Africans get their features from mixing with caucasions.

On Egypt, it's not uncommon to find light skinned lower Egyptians with broad noses, thick lips, or kinky hair. It's also not uncommon to find dark skinned upper Egyptians or Nubians with narrow noses, thin lips, or wavy hair. Egyptians are so phenotypically diverse that they challenge many of our Western notions about race.

Queen Tiye was likely of mixed race if her father was Yuya. Yuya was ethnically Persian...

quote:

---

European populations, than members within the African population". The same is true vice versa. But I still have a hard time dealing with the 50% variation

---

The percentages of genetic variation statistics would depend upon what you are measuring and how you are measuring it.

For example, by some measures human being and our nearest relatives - chimpanzees, are as much as 98% identical.

Now that may sound absurd, but that's because most of the genetic information that makes up an organism amounts to redundant (noise), and is repeated in one species after another as result of the evolutionary fact that all lifeforms evolve from a single common ancester.

When studying differences within a species however, haplotypes are analyzed. Haplotypes are different forms of a single gene within a chromosome.

For example, it's said that only six genes determine skin color differences, out of perhap 50,000.

As an overall percentage of what makes a human being....this is almost negligible.

On the other hand, if you break the issue down to simply discussing variation within a select group of those 6 genes.....it's possible to claim that their are large percentile differences. (a whole lotta nothing?)

One of the positive results of molecular genetics is that it has forced people to admit that race is a murky at best biological notion, and ultimately more of a political and social phenomenon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
There are non-white caucasions indigenous to Africa as well...

---

Debatable. In fact, I would say that is more garbage/in garbage/out Aryanism. It is rationalization in support of a distortion in support of a lie.

Start with something simple: you are mispelling the word. It is caucasian.
I'm not nitpicking spelling, there is something more important here....you are removing the sub-word ASIAN. That is critical to the whole term. It is a race term based on geography.

Cau·ca·sia - region in SE Europe bounded by a Russian mountain range (Caucasus Mountains)

Now, if you understand this, you will appreciate the paradox involved in attempting to claim that caucasians (essentially Western Asians), are indigenous to Africa, as well as Europe (west Asia), as well as East Asia, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, the Americas.....
Well you get the picture.

Like I said, nice little scam, being "indigenous" to...everywhere.

I'm going to go around the world and put a RASOL name tag on everything I want to claim. See how many suckers I can con. Maybe get people to repeat it...no matter how little sense it makes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Debatable. In fact, I would say that is more garbage/in garbage/out Aryanism. It is rationalization in support of a distortion in support of a lie.

Start with something simple: you are mispelling the word. It is caucasian.
I'm not nitpicking spelling, there is something more important here....you are removing the sub-word ASIAN. That is critical to the whole term. It is a race term based on geography.

Cau·ca·sia - region in SE Europe bounded by a Russian mountain range (Caucasus Mountains)

Now, if you understand this, you will appreciate the paradox involved in attempting to claim that caucasians (essentially Western Asians), are indigenous to Africa, as well as Europe (west Asia), as well as East Asia, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Polynisia, North Armerica.....
Well you get the picture.

Like I said, nice little scam, being "indigenous" to...everywhere.

I'm going to go around the world and put a RASOL name tag on everything I want to claim. See how many suckers I can con. Maybe get people to repeat it...no matter how little sense it makes.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 July 2004).]

---

quote:

---

Good point! Cauc-"asian" would imply the flow of genes from Asia to Africa,

---

EX-ACT-LY. The term caucasian was made up in the 18th century by German "scientist" Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.

It was based on 4 fundamental hypothesis':

1 the human race began in Western Asia (ie Europe, with Caucasia being chosen as the designated - birth place)

2 the caucasian race was best represented by the blonde blue eyed white - ideal race.

3 other races are degenerate, and impure. (degeneracy was a favorite term of his, and not coincidently a favorite term of The US segregationists "negro degeneracy" and the SS germans "jewish degeneracy")

4 he believed that races could be so ranked.
of course caucasian on the top, and negro on the bottom.

All 4 points are wrong. And because it is known to be wrong and yet repeated,it is also a lie.

And (could it be worse?), it is a lie told for a morally evil purpose that has helped cause a great deal of human misery and suffering.

That's because I'm talking about variations in "genotypes" not "phenotypes". And more specifically "nucleotides" that deal primarily with lineages of different ethnic groups. That's why some Africans may appear "phenotypically" the same, but they can trace their origins to a totally different ethnic group.

Originally posted by Neo*geo
I think you spend too much time debating on the net with people who aren't as knowledgable as you.
You're right, I debated with a group of white supremacist for almost 6 months, trying to "educate" them, and gave up after "finally" realizing some people are more comfortable remaining ignorant.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ < is a joke.

Originally posted by Rasol
Cau·ca·sia - region in SE Europe bounded by a Russian mountain range (Caucasus Mountains)

Exactly, and historically caucasian has been synonomous with White people, just as negro was synomous with Black people. Now the label continues to "distort" reality, to suggest that there is somehow a race of Black, white people (or white people born with deep tans-lol)

Neo*geo, I'm just one of those people that feels that there is no place in Phyical Science for racial labels. It tends to be mis-leading. Although some will argue that it does have a place in Forensic science, however I disagree.

You can see the logic as to why I disagree with its usage here:
http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000263.html

See comment section

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]But I still have a hard time dealing with the 50% variation. Human variation in general is so minimal, that biologically speaking, social definitions of race based on "phenotypic classification" becomes redundant.

That's because I'm talking about variations in "genotypes" not "phenotypes". And more specifically "nucleotides" that deal primarily with lineages of different ethnic groups. That's why some Africans may appear "phenotypically" the same, but they can trace their origins to a totally different ethnic group.
[/B]

---

I have to clarify that I wasn't simply talking about phenotype. I was speaking of "genetic" variation, not the "phenotypic" one. I was simply stating that "phenotype", which is determined by DNA makeup, is just a small portion of our genes. Other cellular differences are also minor. Overall, genetically speaking humans are virtually the same, regardless of color or phenotype.
I am not quite sure I get the last portion of your comment, about some Africans despite their phenotype tracing their lineages to a totally different ethnic group. Again, you would have to be talking about superficial differences in the genes, in order to come to that conclusion. There is continuity in the genetic flow among the African populations. This means that no outside race has had influence on the traits found among Africans. These traits have always been on the continent, ever since the genetic adaptation to the environment. Haplotypes will explain the ethnic linkages better, but even then we are talking about a small percentage of genetic variation. And yes, these variations usually translate to "phenotypic" variations. So we are probably talking about the same thing, since you said you are talking about "nucleotides" which translates to haplotypic study.

quote:

---

You can see the logic as to why I disagree with its usage here:

---

@yourlink: Berber (in general) = East Africa to North West Africa mixed later with European and West African and Arab.

His study did show that the West African was 8% and the European 4%. Does that help his case? I don't think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
@yourlink: Berber (in general) = East Africa to North West Africa mixed later with European and West African and Arab.

His study did show that the West African was 8% and the European 4%. Does that help his case? I don't think so.

---

Are you talking about S.O.Y Keita?

Never mind the above question. I have figured out that you are talking about Homeylu's link!

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*geo
[b]Queen Tiye was likely of mixed race if her father was Yuya. Yuya was ethnically Persian

Call me a "critical thinker" but "mixed" as in having parents from 2 different races? From their names Thuya, and Yuya they are of the same origin. [/B]

---

I'm not sure about the origin of their names however, I have yet to find a historian who believes Yuya was a native Egyptian. He was a foriegnor who lived in Egypt and rose to a very high rank in Amenhotep III's kingdom. I have seen Yuya's mummy and it is well preserved showing Eurasian facial features.

Thuya most likely was a native Egyptian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

And it has been suggested several times that Tiye is not Black and not Nubian. But I don't agree with this at all.

---

Suggested by whom? I don't agree that she was Nubian. I have heard theories that she was Hebrew and her father, Yuya, was the biblical Joseph. She was born in Egypt and raised Egyptian. Whether she was hebrew, black, or mixed doesn't really matter. Her bust is a realistic portrait of her face. People can argue what they wish but portraits don't lie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

I doubt most of those mummies are really authentic. They claim her parents had blonde hair, and we know from genetics, 2 blondes will produce a blonde, now does this statue look like on of a Blonde child. And if she's not black, then neither is Michael Jackson.

---

Who is making these wild suggestions? Really, this is the first time I've heard anything like this about Tiye's parentage...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by homeylu:

And it has been suggested several times that Tiye is not Black and not Nubian. But I don't agree with this at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggested by whom? I don't agree that she was Nubian. I have heard theories that she was Hebrew and her father, Yuya, was the biblical Joseph. She was born in Egypt and raised Egyptian. Whether she was hebrew, black, or mixed doesn't really matter. Her bust is a realistic portrait of her face. People can argue what they wish but portraits don't lie.

---

quote:

---

Whether she was hebrew, black, or mixed doesn't really matter. Her bust is a realistic portrait of her face. People can argue what they wish but portraits don't lie.

---

People see what they wish to see. Proof of that is found in the mere conviction you have that you can clearly determine race and even degree of race mixture simply by looking at a portrait. Lets test the objectivity of your perception shall we?
When you look at the Sphinx, what race do you see then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
The portrait I see, happens to be of a Negroid character. What do you see in this portrait?

---

Supposidly Tiye's mummy greatly resembles Thuya anyway...so....

Again the litmus test itself is inherently biased and one way only.

So lets be fair and apply the Aryan litmus test of whiteness instead? After all, it is based on the original phenotypical archtype that defined the "true" caucasoid.

It requires, blonde hair, blue eyes, very pale skin.....shall I go on? Everything to the contrary, we may safely say involves black features. Neo should realize that his game is easy to play from the other side of the table.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
People see what they wish to see. Proof of that is found in the mere conviction you have that you can clearly determine race and even degree of race mixture simply by looking at a portrait. Lets test the objectivity of your perception shall we?
When you look at the Sphinx, what race do you see then?

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 July 2004).]

---

Let's get this straight. I never said the portrait of Tiye looks mixed. I said she is most likely mixed because of her parentage. Personally, I think the bust looks like that of a black women however, her complexion may not have been as dark. Or maybe she was? We do know that her brother was the Vizier and Pharoah Ay who was often depicted with dark brown skin.

quote:

---

Let's get this straight. I never said the portrait of Tiye looks mixed

---

?

quote:

---

Her bust is a realistic portrait of her face. People can argue what they wish but portraits don't lie.

---

quote:

---

I think the bust looks like that of a black women

---

quote:

---

however, her complexion may not have been as dark

---

best to be cautious when making generalizations about race based on facial features. perhaps that is your intended point.