quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Perhaps I'm not really being clear with what I'm trying to say regarding the biological approach to classifications. At this point in the game, I strongly doubt I'm at all blinded by Eurocentric ideology, but to paraphrase Wally's earlier point, let's suppose a 1st Dynasty Ancient Egyptian were still alive today. If you asked him where he came from, he might use a word that translates to "blacks". Would you then tell him that he is blinded by Eurocentrism?

---

I wouldn't because I consider the AE Blacks.

The AE considered themselves Blacks, that's what Km.t means, what the Ancient Hebrews called them, and how the AG referred to them.

What some of us have tried to convey is that this is distinct from the biological issue of 'race'.

In biology, there is no such thing as a "Black race".

In biology, black is a phenotypical reference to dark skin as an adaption to strong UV as was found in the African interior, where the Km.t originated, along with the many other African peoples with whom they share a common lineage.

In biology, black occurs in a variety of ethnic groups some of whom are quite distantly related.

In biology pacific island blacks are more closely related, 'biologically'... to the Japanese, than West Africans.

In biology West African Blacks are more closely related to the Swedes than they are to pacific Islanders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
well wally, he wouldn't be blinded by Eurocentric ideology

---

quote:

---

Horemheb writes: He wouldn't use a word to describe himself as black because he wasn't black.

---

Who is 'he'? What are you talking about?

Professor Horemheb, please learn to think, and eventually even write in a coherent manner, like your friend Wally: http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/ , and stop making a fool of yourself. Thanks.