"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101
"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
What does all of this mean dumb Euro?
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 27 July 2005).]
posted
LOL. Topdog, I don't know what good it will do, to ask eurotrash the meaning of something that is obviously too complicated for him to understand. I mean, you are talking to one who thinks that "invisible" Y-chromosomes explain the morphology of women.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 27 July 2005).]
posted
Whats taking so long Eurotroll? You can't provide an answer to a simple question?
Posts: 328 | From: Vicksburg, Mississippi | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Douglas H. Ubelaker Curator Department of Anthropology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC & Ann H. Ross Postdoctoral Associate C. A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory
Howells skull classification system - 17th century Spain classified 35% Black and less than 50% White:
All of the crania in this Spanish sample originated from a 16th to 17th-century community associated with a church in northwestern Spain. Generally all individuals should be considered examples of this group.
Table 3 presents the race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option. Of the 95 individuals, 42 (44 percent) were classified as white, 35 percent as black, 9 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Japanese, 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese
Why is this?
Variation in racial classification represents the lack of a Spanish sample within the FORDISC 2.0 databases as well as the human variation inherent within them. Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with the existing samples of the database, but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the overall Spanish sample
What Howells says:
Lack of kin among reference populations? - WW Howells
The Smithsonian scholars continue:
Some crania were classified into groups with no clear geographic or ancestral relationship with the Spanish sample
Can Howells explain?
suggesting affiliations which are not credible. - WW Howells
Can the resident pseudo do anything besides parrot Dienekes? tsk. tak.
WHATS TAKING SO LONG?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: How Howells skull classification system - 17th century Spain classiried 35% Black and less than 50% White:
Can Howells explain?
Already been explained, you ignorant ape, when the other equally ignorant ape tried the same thing at Dodona:
quote:"The 20 measurements listed in Table 1, as defined by Moore-Jansen et al. (1994), were used in the Forensic Data Bank and this study."
Howells used 57 measurements in his study. Obviously if one reduces the number of measurements so drastically (nearly 1/3 of the original set), they are going to get worse results.
quote:The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.
Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
What does all of this mean dumb Euro?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 July 2005).]
posted
Notice that afro-mussolini has yet to answer the opening question put forth about Howell's book, but rather refers to immaterial stuff from dodona. It has exhausted all it’s straws, and needs new immaterial stuff to parrot; probably indicative of time for his tiny greasy ass to go back to his cave and hibernate. The Neolithic Afro-Asian farmers, carrying sub-Saharan paternal lineages, apparently didn't manage to civilize everyone in the forests through the ensuing cultural diffusion and crossbreeding with females of the european shrub-dwellers; hybrids like grease monkey, is testament to this.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
That desperate Negroes with inferiority complexes will try any non-sequitur to avoid the devastating implications of Howells' research on their Afronut agendas.
If you can't steal this:
All you have left is this:
That's the scariest thing for any savage/slave Negro to contemplate.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: That desperate Negroes with inferiority complexes will try any non-sequitur to avoid the devastating implications of Howells' research on their Afronut agendas.
[b]If you can't steal this:
All you have left is this:
That's the scariest thing for any savage/slave Negro to contemplate.[/B]
Your forgot the appointment with your psychiatrist...It was this morning....
posted
This is what happens when a faker misrepresents data and scholarship.
They can't even manage a coherent answer to simple questions about 'their' only source.
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
What does all of this mean dumb Euro?
Props to TogDog for exposing a pseudo and his ignorance.
In this treatsie I have made suggestions, at several points, that cranial robustnes is present as a special factor confusing posible affiliations of certain pre-historic crania.......the East African Elmenteita crania, where influence of size or robustness was suggested by me, supra, as causing perturbations in the relations of such crania that DISPOP might otherwise have been expected to reveal.
p.102
"Late prehistoric skulls in Kenyan sites like Elmenteita appear as distinctly less "Negroid" than present Bantu-speakers of the same locality."
Less Negroid means Eurasian Erroneous E?
p.98
"In general, the populations of this study, as constituted, act like natural units, although not totally discrete ones, with the overlapping we have seen. On the other hand the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."
[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: P.104 from Howells book:
Addendum
In this treatsie I have made suggestions, at several points, that cranial robustnes is present as a special factor confusing posible affiliations of certain pre-historic crania.......the East African Elmenteita crania, where influence of size or robustness was suggested by me, supra, as causing perturbations in the relations of such crania that DISPOP might otherwise have been expected to reveal.
p.102
"Late prehistoric skulls in Kenyan sites like Elmenteita appear as distinctly [b]less "Negroid" than present Bantu-speakers of the same locality."
Less Negroid means Eurasian Erroneous E?
p.98
"In general, the populations of this study, as constituted, act like natural units, although not totally discrete ones, with the overlapping we have seen. On the other hand the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not ben successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."[/B]
That's the language he understands: Eurasian are no Eastern Elongated Africans...Here in Africa we call them (Eurasians) mixed people...we can't put them in any category....At least we can define clearly Eastern Asians...
quote:To construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by awale: no, in my opinion negroe means if you have dark skin slave ancestry or people with congo bongo bantu inner african facial features
YEA YOU ARE RIGHT. It is deffinitely YOUR OPINION and an ignorant one at that.
Posts: 303 | From: Inside my Mind | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Super car: Do you mean 'chat', a green plant eaten in eastern Africa, or is this some other stuff that I'm not familiar with?
That's how you pronounce it...correct. I think the fellow is on high. Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 30 July 2005).]
posted
Why this Evel Euro claim the ancient East African were caucasoid?? What kind crap is that? Your people try to manuplate other people for long time and steal ancient storys from other countrys by puting false statement to benefit them selves. Now you try to claim the first east african were caucasoid, what are you trying to do, i know why, because the ancient east african were the richest in the world. Stop with this stupid crap. I don`t think you have the knowledge about ancient east african history. Even today there are east african farmers don`t even know your people exist, but you and your people trying so hard to put the dark skin people down, all this game is jealous.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by awale: no, in my opinion negroe means if you have dark skin slave ancestry or people with congo bongo bantu inner african facial features
LOL The definition of 'negro' has nothing to do with "slave ancestry" or even dark skin, or "inner african" whatever that means!!
In it's modern usage it is applied to any and all indigenous Africans!
I say usage because the whole term "negro" is not accurate, just like all the other racial terms like "caucasoid" and "mongoloid"!!
The problem is that many Somalis get confused and think that the word is only used for people of West African (Guinea) ancestry, specifically those who are descendants of slaves. This is not the case at all!
In fact some of my Somali friends got rude awakenings when white people called them NIGGERS!!!
In many white peoples eyes, Somalis are no different from West Africans, regardless of whether they were slaves or not!
Cobra should know better by now, since I corrected him in the Somali 101 thread!
As I have told him before, many of those features he calls "inner African" are found among peoples outside of Africa, so his whole concept is null and void.
The fact is Somalis are as closely related to West African Guinea people as Russians are to the Irish. Speaking of which, Cobra is half Irish so I wonder why he thinks the way he does?
Perhaps it is because of the racial hostility some Irish have against blacks, that I have heard about. Maybe this is the reason why he tries to distance himself and his people from other blacks of West Africa? Sorry Cobra, believing in a lie won't help you and it definitely won't help your racist Irish pals!
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
West Africa is very diverse and even if you tried to throw a Jamaican with a Gabonese, one will be able to discern between the two. We can even include Nigerians or the Kongo people, the same will apply, and one will even be able to discern between the Nigerian, Gabanone or Congolese (Kongo).
Clustering such a large population is clearly moronic especially when most of the English speaking Blacks in the West were sourced from around Niger or Mali.
[This message has been edited by Rudib001 (edited 31 July 2005).]
quote: LOL The definition of 'negro' has nothing to do with "slave ancestry" or even dark skin, or "inner african" whatever that means!! In it's modern usage it is applied to any and all indigenous Africans! I say usage because the whole term "negro" is not accurate, just like all the other racial terms like "caucasoid" and "mongoloid"!! The problem is that many Somalis get confused and think that the word is only used for people of West African (Guinea) ancestry, specifically those who are descendants of slaves. This is not the case at all! In fact some of my Somali friends got rude awakenings when white people called them NIGGERS!!! In many white peoples eyes, Somalis are no different from West Africans, regardless of whether they were slaves or not! Cobra should know better by now, since I corrected him in the Somali 101 thread! As I have told him before, many of those features he calls "inner African" are found among peoples outside of Africa, so his whole concept is null and void. The fact is Somalis are as closely related to West African Guinea people as Russians are to the Irish. Speaking of which, Cobra is half Irish so I wonder why he thinks the way he does? Perhaps it is because of the racial hostility some Irish have against blacks, that I have heard about. Maybe this is the reason why he tries to distance himself and his people from other blacks of West Africa? Sorry Cobra, believing in a lie won't help you and it definitely won't help your racist Irish pals!
what ever man never been called nigger or negroe. sorry we are just not negroes cobra is right.
quote: In many white peoples eyes, Somalis are no different from West Africans, regardless of whether they were slaves or not!
that’s a lie where i live most white people can always tell a somali they joke about our foreheads and skinniness. lol i would stick out like a sore thumb in countries like ghana.
quote: The fact is Somalis are as closely related to West African Guinea people as Russians are to the Irish. Speaking of which, Cobra is half Irish so I wonder why he thinks the way he does?
no man africans have to most diverse gene pool on earth a chinaman is closer to a english person then a horn african is to a central african.
[This message has been edited by awale (edited 31 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Topdog: "Late prehistoric skulls in Kenyan sites like Elmenteita appear as distinctly less "Negroid" than present Bantu-speakers of the same locality."
Less Negroid means Eurasian Erroneous E?
According to Howells, it means they resemble "such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island". I myself use the shorter term "Eurasian" to avoid having to list all of those different groups every time I'm forced to repeat the information to you dense Afronuts.
Bzzzt right there; no need to even go further! You never understand what is actually being said in the first place, much less quote properly; it is all a figment of your imagination.
Despite the obvious complete flaws in the study, not to mention the out dated use of defunct fraudulent terms, it was said "...less Negroid than Bantu...". Of course, nobody else but ginney clown reads this as "not Negroid".
Also,
Among other serious flaws, which were shown here time and again, such as
"Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series." - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski, and
"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'" - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.,
where were the other East Africans , i.e., the Cushitic and Nilotic groups represented in Howell's study?
Last, but not least...
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96
"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.
p.101
"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.
What does all of this mean dumb Euro?
No answer, eh! The words too difficult to understand?
quote:awale says: what ever man never been called nigger or negroe. sorry we are just not negroes cobra is right.
What do you mean by the term "negro"??!!
In your previous definition you included having slave ancestry when that has absolutely nothing to do with it!
As I said, here in the West and especially in the US, negroe means black which is why my Somali friends were called niggers!
quote:that’s a lie where i live most white people can always tell a somali they joke about our foreheads and skinniness. lol i would stick out like a sore thumb in countries like ghana.
I never said they weren't able to tell the difference, only that to many of them it does not matter because you are all black.
quote:no man africans have to most diverse gene pool on earth a chinaman is closer to a english person then a horn african is to a central african.
You are partially mistaken! Yes, Africans have the most genetic diversity on earth but not only do they share a recent common origin but also gene flow.
Although English and Chinese share a common origin as Out-of-Africans, they were isolated from each other and developed without any contact. The case was different in Africa where isolation was not as long or as total.
The relation between Africans is about the same as that between Europeans. For example, on the y-chromosome haplotype carried by males, Western Europeans like Irish have R1b while Eastern Europeans like Russians carry R1a. Both haplotypes are brother clades that are R1. In Africa, West Africans like Nigerians carry E3a, while East Africans like Somalis carry E3b. Both African haplotypes are E3 and are brother clades.
Even maternally through mtDNA, all Africans are related to each other.
As genetically diverse as Africans are, they still remained on the same continent and have migrated around making contact with each other.
So you're belief in Somalis 'distant' relation to West Africans is a lie.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 31 July 2005).]
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing is that Chinese and other East Asians are related to these people:
These Andamanese people live in Southeast Asia, but notice their features!!
They have broad noses and kinky hair, just like West Africans, yet they have as much in common with West Africans as the Chinese!
On the other hand, I have shown that East Africans like the Somalis are essentially brothers to West Africans like Nigerians!
Which is why the very definition of "negro" as being a black person with broad noses and kinky hair is very loose, because there are peoples outsides of Africa that match this description but have nothing to do with Africa!
I have already explained this to your half Irish Somali brother on the Somali 101 thread.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 31 July 2005).]
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway Somalis are not really the prototype of Eastern Elongated Africans...I know for sure...some mixed with Yemenis...we don't really view them as pure...I mean some have a very light skin (mulatto skin), bigger nose they got from Yemenis...A pure Elongated Eastern African is very dark, has a very small nose, small and long head...Somalis are diluted Eastern Elongated Africans...Afars and Boranas are more representative of EEA...you give me the impression that you think Somalis are more representative of Eastern Africa...we don't think so... Relaxx
Posts: 577 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
They have broad noses and kinky hair, just like West Africans...!
I see where you are going with your explanations, and for the most part, you seem to be heading in the right direction, however, these features (presumably facial features) are not only limited to Africans in western Africa. They exist in eastern Africa as well.
Tropically adapted folks are more diverse, than the cold-adapted folks (as in Europeans); not vice versa. A pseudo scientific geo-contruct like "caucasoid", was meant to artificially imply the latter. In Africa, tropical adaptation isn't limited to West Africans, nor is it limited to facial features; it is essentially the original state of modern Humans and basically covers the bulk of 'indigenous' African populations.
quote:Djehuti: Which is why the very definition of "negro" as being a black person with broad noses and kinky hair is very loose, because there are peoples outsides of Africa that match this description but have nothing to do with Africa!
I agree. The term is scientifically defunct, i.e., meaningless or devoid of logic! Those who play with scientifically invalid constructs as an attempt to forward a scientific logic, are needless to say, engaging in pseudo-science.
quote:Originally posted by relaxx: Anyway Somalis are not really the prototype of Eastern Elongated Africans...I know for sure...some mixed with Yemenis...we don't really view them as pure...I mean some have a very light skin (mulatto skin), bigger nose they got from Yemenis...A pure Elongated Eastern African is very dark, has a very small nose, small and long head...Somalis are diluted Eastern Elongated Africans...Afars and Boranas are more representative of EEA...you give me the impression that you think Somalis are more representative of Eastern Africa...we don't think so... Relaxx
While no one is denying back migration into the African Horn, and hence Somalia as well, I think there is some tendency by a few for various socio-political reasons, to overestimate the level of back-migration contribution to the Somali gene pool. The studies that have been cited thus far, do a number on such logic. Generally, Somalis do represent the indigenous physiognomies of Eastern Africa. The Boranas, while they are Kenyans (a nationality), and NOT 'Somalis'(a nationality) as claimed here time and again by a few individuals, are basically the same stock (meaning the original Cushitic Speaking populations) as the Oromo and the indigenous Somalis.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 31 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by relaxx: Anyway Somalis are not really the prototype of Eastern Elongated Africans...I know for sure...some mixed with Yemenis...we don't really view them as pure...I mean some have a very light skin (mulatto skin), bigger nose they got from Yemenis...A pure Elongated Eastern African is very dark, has a very small nose, small and long head...Somalis are diluted Eastern Elongated Africans...Afars and Boranas are more representative of EEA...you give me the impression that you think Somalis are more representative of Eastern Africa...we don't think so... Relaxx
I never said anything about Somalis being pure or prototypical anything, I am just stating that just because they differ in certain respects from Guinea peoples of West Africa doesn't mean they are not closely related.
By the way, I have heard that some of the Afar people have Yemeni ancestry as well. This ancestry comes from a people called the Able that migrated to Africa around the same time as the Sabaeans.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I see where you are going with your explanations, and for the most part, you seem to be heading in the right direction, however, these features (presumably facial features) are not only limited to Africans in western Africa. They exist in eastern Africa as well.
Yes, I am aware of this.
quote:Tropically adapted folks are more diverse, than the cold-adapted folks (as in Europeans); not vice versa. A pseudo scientific geo-contruct like "caucasoid", was meant to artificially imply the latter. In Africa, tropical adaptation isn't limited to West Africans, nor is it limited to facial features; it is essentially the original state of modern Humans and basically covers the bulk of 'indigenous' African populations.
I know all that, but the reason why I used Nigerians and Andamanese as an example was to show how two populations from opposite ends of the globe could resemble each other so much yet genetically are very distant. While Nigerians and Somalis who don't look that much alike but live on opposite ends of the same continent really are closely related.
quote:I agree. The term is scientifically defunct, i.e., meaningless or devoid of logic! Those who play with scientifically invalid constructs as an attempt to forward a scientific logic, are needless to say, engaging in pseudo-science.
I feel the problem is ignorance and a lack of education or understanding. In Stupid-Euro's case, a refusal to understand.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 31 July 2005).]
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [B] By the way, I have heard that some of the Afar people have Yemeni ancestry as well. This ancestry comes from a people called the Able that migrated to Africa around the same time as the Sabaeans.
----------------------- I know about that too but phenotipically they are more representative...that's how the Issa (Somalis) from Djibouti view them too: as more representative of Elongated Eastern African....they have much finer features and are much darker than Issas in general, a skin closer to Southern Sudanese. Relaxx
quote:Originally posted by relaxx: I mean some have a very light skin (mulatto skin), bigger nose they got from Yemenis..[...]Relaxx
This is the same reason why many assume that pure Somalis are mainly fair. Most Yemenese are pretty dark skinned, like a Dravidian or to be frank, like most South Asians. These Black skinned people are found all over the Middle East and make a good share of the population too. The problem is most are well ashamed to admit this fact.
You will find alot of the type who just hate this fact hence they constantly bring up the white Yemenese. These white Yememese are just mixed with foreign elements. The media does a good job representing the whites as the mainstream population just like in various other nations around the world. This is why skin lighteners are selling better there than in the 'Congo Bongo' region of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by relaxx: Anyway Somalis are not really the prototype of Eastern Elongated Africans...I know for sure...some mixed with Yemenis...we don't really view them as pure...I mean some have a very light skin (mulatto skin), bigger nose they got from Yemenis...A pure Elongated Eastern African is very dark, has a very small nose, small and long head...Somalis are diluted Eastern Elongated Africans...Afars and Boranas are more representative of EEA...you give me the impression that you think Somalis are more representative of Eastern Africa...we don't think so... Relaxx
quote:Originally posted by relaxx: I know about that too but phenotipically they are more representative...that's how the Issa (Somalis) from Djibouti view them too: as more representative of Elongated Eastern African....they have much finer features and are much darker than Issas in general, a skin closer to Southern Sudanese. Relaxx
quote:Originally posted by Rudib001: This is the same reason why many assume that pure Somalis are mainly fair. Most Yemenese are pretty dark skinned, like a Dravidian or to be frank, like most South Asians. These Black skinned people are found all over the Middle East and make a good share of the population too. The problem is most are well ashamed to admit this fact.
You will find alot of the type who just hate this fact hence they constantly bring up the white Yemenese. These white Yememese are just mixed with foreign elements. The media does a good job representing the whites as the mainstream population just like in various other nations around the world. This is why skin lighteners are selling better there than in the 'Congo Bongo' region of Africa.
damn that's so not true. most yemenis are about this color. [light brown] this is dravidian. [dark brown] and skin bleaching products are popular all over the world(even in light skin countries like iran, china etc.)
[This message has been edited by awale (edited 31 July 2005).]
[This message has been edited by awale (edited 31 July 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by awale: [b]Djehuti somalis are not negro Rudib001 yemenis are lighter then south asians and they are considered white by africans.[/B]
Wrong, Yemenis are not white and never call them selves white. In Yemen there are dark skin, even more dark skin and light skin people. If you are light skin, it does not mean you are white. I am talking about the real Yemeni. They are Arabs, they are not white.
quote:Originally posted by dahlak: Wrong, Yemenis are not white and never call them selves white. In Yemen there are dark skin, even more dark skin and light skin people. If you are light skin, it does not mean you are white. I am talking about the real Yemeni. They are Arabs, they are not white.
go to any random town in the horn of africa people call yemenis and other arabs white skinned.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said anything about Somalis being pure or prototypical anything, I am just stating that just because they differ in certain respects from Guinea peoples of West Africa doesn't mean they are not closely related.
By the way, I have heard that some of the Afar people have Yemeni ancestry as well. This ancestry comes from a people called the Able that migrated to Africa around the same time as the Sabaeans.
[QUOTE][b]Originally posted by Supercar: I see where you are going with your explanations, and for the most part, you seem to be heading in the right direction, however, these features (presumably facial features) are not only limited to Africans in western Africa. They exist in eastern Africa as well.
Yes, I am aware of this.
quote:Tropically adapted folks are more diverse, than the cold-adapted folks (as in Europeans); not vice versa. A pseudo scientific geo-contruct like "caucasoid", was meant to artificially imply the latter. In Africa, tropical adaptation isn't limited to West Africans, nor is it limited to facial features; it is essentially the original state of modern Humans and basically covers the bulk of 'indigenous' African populations.
I know all that, but the reason why I used Nigerians and Andamanese as an example was to show how two populations from opposite ends of the globe could resemble each other so much yet genetically are very distant. While Nigerians and Somalis who don't look that much alike but live on opposite ends of the same continent really are closely related.
quote:I agree. The term is scientifically defunct, i.e., meaningless or devoid of logic! Those who play with scientifically invalid constructs as an attempt to forward a scientific logic, are needless to say, engaging in pseudo-science.
I feel the problem is ignorance and a lack of education or understanding. In Stupid-Euro's case, a refusal to understand.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 31 July 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]
I heard that too about Afars, there are some Afars look like Yemenis.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
The definition of 'negro' has nothing to do with "slave ancestry" or even dark skin, or "inner african" whatever that means!!
[light brown] 
[dark brown] 
Printer-friendly view of this topic