People in Sub-Sahara Africa have a different concept of color than most Western based systems. What is ''white'' in most of these regions is non-white in the west. Just like many lighter skinned African Americans in regions like Western/Central Africa are called ''red skinned'' or even ''white'' in some cases. This does not mean literally their skin is white but that they are simply lighter. This might also be the same case in the Horn of Africa.
The Fulani and some other Sahelian Africans are called ''red skinned'' by some Africans. Somalis in Western African might be called ''red skinned''.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Lies , We have been over this. ----------------------------------- [QUOTE]Originally posted by amal81: why is it that the darker the somali is the finer the faetures.
------------------- I noticed that too…
Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 01 August 2005).]
posted
Awale, you still have not answered my questions on your definition of racial terms.
quote:Originally posted by awale: 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.)
So here's another question regarding what you said about Yemenis...
What countries do the men below come from??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Super car: 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: [b]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?
[/B]
I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet!
Yemenis are alot more darker than the rather 'elegant' skinned man. Here's golden rule you should be aware of. The media and even losers with huge complexes tend to stress on their ideal. This is why the typical picture of a white women on google looks gorgeous while in reality they look..[Watch some Famil Guy and look at Meg]. This is the same case in Yemen those dark skinned Yemenis who are the majority are so ignored, its just sad.
I like that '0.0001%' figure. Provide a source please.
Awale, the picture of the Dravidian you provided is much more lighter than most of the Indo-Europeans population in South Asia. It really is a poor representation of an average Dravidian complexion.
quote:Originally posted by dahlak: What are you talking about?? What random town? Tell me one and for your information, i am Eritrean Rashaida (arab)
The problem here is the Westernized Arab complex. If one were an Arab that lives in Riyadh then there is a huge chance that he or she would love to, no, even sell their soul to be considered white. Elsewhere that isn't the case, like in the rural areas. Most would likely have other things on their mind. The urge of wanting to be white is something that is seen amongst the Westernized Arabs and not Arabs in general.
There are many Black Arabs and the Black skinned Arabs with straight hair. This is where the North-South Arab division comes from. That very light brown complexion Arab that Awale posted can be found all over Iran or the Levant. The strictly white populants are found in Turkey and Northern Iran (the majority of the population). This is why many Hispanics, Mullatos, and Indians are stopped in airports rather than Greeks or Italians.
[This boards posting facility looks very archaic...]
posted
People, notice how these divergent discussions are actually being used by ginney pussy as a pretext to cowardly evaporate, and hide behind its inability to address the issues put forth.
Super car: 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...
Topdog: 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?
I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet!
quote:Originally posted by Super coon: I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet!
The "specifics" are non-sequiturs, passages taken out of context, points not relevant to the topic, and other things that you're far too stupid to properly comprehend.
Instead of wrongly accusing others of having no answers, you should be working on finding answers yourself . . .
quote:E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.
quote: ginney pussy: The "specifics" are non-sequiturs, passages taken out of context, points not relevant to the topic,… Instead of wrongly accusing others of having no answers, you should be working on finding answers yourself . . .
…meaning that you really have no answers. Well, ginney loony, the point of the questions, was to gauge just how much you understand the work in question, much less have the capacity to properly quote the author; apparently, you don’t have the capacity to do either. Those scribbles devoid of logic continue to hold you back, ginney troll; so how about actually answering the specifics asked of you for a change!
So let’s try again:
Super car: 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...
Topdog: 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?
--------
Remember, I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet!
quote:Originally posted by Super coon: so how about actually answering the specifics asked of you for a change!
Yes, how about it . . .
quote:E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.
quote:Euro Trash said... Conclusion: E3b denotes Caucasoid ancestry and has nothing to do with the disgusting savages and slaves of West, Central and South Africa.
quote:Originally posted by COBRA: Can you difine cascasoid...
What difference does it make what Erroneous defines Caucasian as? It is a defunct term, a misnomer, and it should be striken from our language just like Negroid and all the rest. East African people are NOT related to the R1 clade which is what most people mean when they call someone Caucasian ( Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Northern Indians, Turks, IndoEuropeans, etc ).
East Africans are part of the PN2 Clade ( Fulani, Tutsi, Berbers, Ethiopians, Somalians, etc).
This racist Euro freak would have you to believe that E3b is more closely related to R1 than E3a. Europeans have been seeding rivalries of this sort in Africa for a long time. EvilEuro is a very fitting nick.
The so called Caucasian elements that are in East Africa is not from E3b. It is actually from people like me: Jews. Jews are NOT E3b! In fact, the more closely clustered with Jews the less E3b; ie: Ethiopians have significantly less than the Borana.
And before someone bitches about me calling the Eurasian people Jews - I will qualify - Hebrews. But there is significant genetic evidence of Jews/Hebrew influence but this undermines that argument that Evil is giving. He says that the Caucasian affinities is from E3b but we know it is from Hebrew/Jewish people that have little to no E3b at all.
quote: ginney pussy: E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).
On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs:
Still immaterial, borderline europussy.
So let’s try again:
Super car: 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...
Topdog: 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?
--------
Remember, I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet!
posted
Most prejudice against 'blacks' dates back to white American anthropologists like Carleton S. Coon and others from the 19th century.
These views were largely removed from science because they were based on prejudice and racism. Today most anthropologists know that there are very little differences between humans.
[This message has been edited by Puro Hybrido (edited 04 August 2005).]
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 02 September 2005).]
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[light brown] 
[dark brown] 
LOL Look who's talking?!!...
Printer-friendly view of this topic