...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » OT: Naming African phenotypes

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: OT: Naming African phenotypes
Planet Asia
Member
Member # 9424

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Planet Asia     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure we have al heard names like Congoid, Negroid, Negro, Paleonegroid, Negrid, and even worst like Kafrid. What would be a much better name to apply to African phenotypes? I like the name Africoid as an adjective and as such you can have west-central Africoid, Elongated-Africoid, Sahelian-Africoid, etc. Anyone have any better alternatives? If we're going to foster changes in African physical anthropology we at least need to start with the labels. Terms like "Negroid" and Negro have always carried the false impression that only Africans with the broadest noses, most prognathism, wooliest hair, blackest skin and thickest lips are true Negroes. We know this to be essentially pseudo-science now but the label Negro and Negroid still find their way occasionally in even peer-reviewed studies.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Apocalypse
Member
Member # 8587

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Apocalypse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trip,a couple of questions:
Why not West-Central African, Elongated African, Sahelian African?
Would your proposed labeling address the fact that every region of Africa is well represented by a range of phenotypes?
Most importantly how would the labels you suggest combat the temptation to think of these variations in terms of race?

Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Banned
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am with you Triple I think that africoid would be better then negroid. I think that one of the reason you still find people talking about negroid instead of africoid, is because it is so ingrained in people, they are just use to saying it, but hopefully terms like negroid will be replaced by terms like Africoid. I see on wikipedia the use the term africoid instead of negroid. And I see some alot of websites useing the term Africoid so we can see that there is a slow but steady shift from negroid to africoid. Does anybody else have anything to add I can't really think of anything better then Africoid. I have also heard of Capoid but this term is only used for the Khoisan.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Planet Asia
Member
Member # 9424

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Planet Asia     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso:
Trip,a couple of questions:
Why not West-Central African, Elongated African, Sahelian African?
Would your proposed labeling address the fact that every region of Africa is well represented by a range of phenotypes?
Most importantly how would the labels you suggest combat the temptation to think of these variations in terms of race?

In Africa its a tricky thing to name phenotypes by geographic terms because there is so much variation within each geographical are. I wouldn't disagree with any of the terms you proposed. I believe that Elongated and Broad Africoid are the extremes at opposite ends with everything in between being grades and clines of the two.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Apocalypse
Member
Member # 8587

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Apocalypse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trip, I do agree with you that terms like Negro and Negroid are unacceptable and mis-leading as are the labels Caucasoid and mongoloid.
It's important to add that not only are these terms incorrect but also the logic that lurks behind them.

Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Planet Asia
Member
Member # 9424

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Planet Asia     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Calypso:
Trip, I do agree with you that terms like Negro and Negroid are unacceptable and mis-leading as are the labels Caucasoid and mongoloid.
It's important to add that not only are these terms incorrect but also the logic that lurks behind them.

The logic behind them is misleading and often full of hypocrisy. For example, some anthropologists believe in the concept in a "Caucasoid" unity that stretches from Europe to India though an Indian and a Middle Easterners are visibly distinct from most Europeans. But get into Africa and these same anthropologists act as if Africans haves loads of discrete boundaries that separate Africans from one another. Thus Khoisan and East African Elongated types are seen as separate discrete races from West and Central Africans and not gradations of the same race of blacks as so-called "Caucasoids" have allegedly. Thats hypocrisy.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
I'm pretty sure we have al heard names like Congoid, Negroid, Negro, Paleonegroid, Negrid, and even worst like Kafrid. What would be a much better name to apply to African phenotypes?

Bio-anthropologists like Keita have already tackled this issue by using terms like tropical African, Sub-Saharan African, and Supra-Saharan African. Indigenous Africans who live in sub-tropical African regions, like the southern tip of Africa, are actually "tropical" Africans who migrated to those regions. Simple-minded individuals tend to visualize Africa's pre-history and era closer to that period, as the situation it is today, i.e., distribution of African groups in their contemporary locations. It is as though tropical Africans are static entities, and that their historic/current presence in regions outside the immediate tropical latitudes, e.g. coastal North Africa, is an anomaly. The aforementioned descriptions, such as tropical African et al., are appropriate enough, since "tropical African" encompasses all the genotypical and phenotypical variations indigenous to tropical Africa; not one physical type is singled out. For instance, what we call "Black Africans" come in varying shades of skin color, that cannot definitely be pinned down to a certain shade or even facial features, yet you instantly recognize a tropical African or someone of relatively recent tropical African descent. As an example, notwithstanding Colin Powell's skin tone, one cannot escape the conclusion that he's had relatively recent "tropical" African ancestry. The term "tropical" African effectively captures this diversity of well,..."tropical Africans", than its more social counterpart of "black" Africans!


quote:
Triple Stage Darkness:

I like the name Africoid as an adjective and as such you can have west-central Africoid, Elongated-Africoid, Sahelian-Africoid, etc. Anyone have any better alternatives?

"Africoid" while seemingly appropriate, on the other end, doesn't adequately give the impression of the diversity of Africans. For instance, you mentioned "west-central Africoid", yet there are "elongated" cranio-facial types in West Africa, not to mention that the Sahara grades into West Africa, Central and East Africa. There also seems to be inconsistency in the terminology, in that, "elongated" is an adverb while "west", "central", "Sahalien" are geographical connotations. However, terms like "tropical" Africans, "sub-Saharan" Africans, "supra-Saharan" Africans are at least consistent with their geographical or latitudinal affiliations. It is familiarity with lattitudes and associated climatic conditions, geography, people currently living in the region, and the bio-histories of the regions, that make terms like "tropical Africa et al." less ambiguous to the perceptive and the informed.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But "sub-Saharan" Africa is just a thinly veiled euphemism for "negro Africa" which was in vogue all through the colonial era and before. "Negro-Africa" was replaced by "black-Africa" right after the term "negro" was seen as a term of opprobrium(circa 1960s)--then there was the slow European preference for "sub-Saharan" Africa just to give the impression that race was not directly mentioned.

But yet the term "sub-Saharan" Africa is too broad for a proper definition. The San and Khoisans from the extra-tropical tip of South Africa immediately recognise most West Africans when they see them in South Africa. And quite obviously the San(yellow in colour) are obviously easily distinguishable from a tall, dark Dinka from the Sudan.

The term " Africoid" is preferable because it is founded not only observable phenotypical similarities between the tropical/sub-tropical evolved humans of African origin but also the boundaries of such. And further more there are millions of Africoids who live in supra-Sahara regions but would not be included under the geographic label of "sub-Saharan" Africa. Yet they would fit the definition of sub-Saharan African if they lived in that vast area.

But here are some anomalies: how would one classify the people of Madagascar, Reunion, Mauritius and Cape Verde? On either definition?

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Names are less important than understanding the concepts.

Human variation cannot be accurately demarcated in terms of race.

Race is an ideology, not a fact of bioanthropology.

Changing the terms means nothing, if you only change them to then assert the same ideology.

Progressive understandings of African physical variation were advanced by Jean Hiernaux in the 70's and his ideas have been carried forward by Shomarka Keita.

 -

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
But "sub-Saharan" Africa is just a thinly veiled euphemism for "negro Africa" which was in vogue all through the colonial era and before. "Negro-Africa" was replaced by "black-Africa" right after the term "negro" was seen as a term of opprobrium(circa 1960s)--then there was the slow European preference for "sub-Saharan" Africa just to give the impression that race was not directly mentioned.

But yet the term "sub-Saharan" Africa is too broad for a proper definition. The San and Khoisans from the extra-tropical tip of South Africa immediately recognise most West Africans when they see them in South Africa. And quite obviously the San(yellow in colour) are obviously easily distinguishable from a tall, dark Dinka from the Sudan.

The term " Africoid" is preferable because it is founded not only observable phenotypical similarities between the tropical/sub-tropical evolved humans of African origin but also the boundaries of such. And further more there are millions of Africoids who live in supra-Sahara regions but would not be included under the geographic label of "sub-Saharan" Africa. Yet they would fit the definition of sub-Saharan African if they lived in that vast area.

But here are some anomalies: how would one classify the people of Madagascar, Reunion, Mauritius and Cape Verde? On either definition?

Need to be careful as to why a term should be considered valid or otherwise. Just because Europeans have used and in various cases, continue to use the term "sub-Saharan" as a euphemism of "black Africa" or "Negro-Africa", doesn't mean that the term itself is invalid, bio-anthropologically speaking. I agree that "sub-Saharan" has its shortages, in terms of the context that people [of various educational backgrounds] use it. "Sub-Saharan" Africa is supposed to be regions below the Saharan belt, yet the West, Central, and East African nations that lie on the Saharan region, are termed as sub-Saharan nations. "Sub-Saharan" is only broad to the extent that, there are physical variations in the region, but not to the extent that these regions are predominantly inhabited by "tropical Africans".

And if you think "sub-Saharan" Africa is too broad, then "Africoid" ought to be even broader. Africoid would have to encompass the entire African continent, and as such, what does this really tell us about physical variations in Africa?

As for your example of the San and Khoisans, is there any indication that they've lost their "tropical" African physical adaptations, or adaptations that were the product of in situ evolution in their tropical African region of origin? Khoisan skin pigmentation, for example, is within the tropical African sphere of phenotype.

From the African context, IMO, I don't see why African physical diversity or variations in terms of tropical African, supra-tropical African and sub-tropical African shouldn't be understood from a geographical, latitudinal, climatic, and bio-historical consideration.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Names are less important that understanding the concepts.

Human variation cannot be accurately demarcated in terms of race.

Race is an ideology, not a fact of bioanthropology.

Changing the terms means nothing, if you only change them to then assert the same ideology.

Progressive understandings of African physical variation were advanced by Jean Hiernaux in the 70's and his ideas have been carried forward by Shomarka Keita.

Exactly!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Names are less important that understanding the concepts.

Human variation cannot be accurately demarcated in terms of race.

Race is an ideology, not a fact of bioanthropology.

Changing the terms means nothing, if you only change them to then assert the same ideology.

Progressive understandings of African physical variation were advanced by Jean Hiernaux in the 70's and his ideas have been carried forward by Shomarka Keita.

Exactly!
Here, here! I am so glad Asians don't have such problems as this. Not that Western anthropology has not used 'racial' labels against us. Not only do we still have 'mongoloid' but also terms like sub-mongoloid to describe peoples in Southeast Asia and etc.

It's time we get rid of this 'racial' nonsense!

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thought2
Member
Member # 4256

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thought2     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
"Africoid" while seemingly appropriate, on the other end, doesn't adequately give the impression of the diversity of Africans. For instance, you mentioned "west-central Africoid", yet there are "elongated" cranio-facial types in West Africa, not to mention that the Sahara grades into West Africa, Central and East Africa.

Thought Writes:

Bingo!

Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But there's some question begging going on here. If race is not a meaningful scientific concept then why not just say "African" to refer to people whose origins are in Africa, just as we now say "East Asian" to refer to people whose origins are in that part of Asia. In scientific discourse we don't say "yellow Asia" or "Asia East of the Himalayas". And of course most serious scientists feel uncomfortable using the term "mongoloid".

And again, if race is not a meaningfull scientific concept the why bifurcate Africa into "sub-Saharan" Africa and "North Africa". I have seen and mingled with North Africans in Europe they are, for the most part, easily distinguishable from indigenous Europeans. And they also, for the most part, carry tropical phenotypical markers--such as curly hair, medium pigmented to heavily pigmented skin and Africa-derived labial and nasal indices. I mention these traits only because European anthropologists have used such--especially nasal and labial indices--ad nauseam to classify racially.

For the above reasons "Africoid" would capture all the required phenotypical criteria that have been shaped by the environments of the African continent--which, despite its size, does not have the temperate and artic zone climates of Asia and the Americas.

Curiously enough Australia is a puzzling case because its temperate climate in the South did not seem to modify the tropical derived phenotype of its 50,000 year indigenous inhabitants--50,000 years were more than enough to radically transform the phenotypes of those Africans that migrated northwards into Eurasia.

Thus when using "Africoid" we would not have to exclude individuals who though excluded from the scope of the term "sub-Saharan" are easily identifiable in Europe because aspects of Africa show on their phenotypes.

Example: witness the ease with which the French police profile third generation North Africans who happen to be just walking by.

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
But there's some question begging going on here. If race is not a meaningful scientific concept then why not just say "African" to refer to people whose origins are in Africa

Indeed why not?

One of the reasons people confuse themselves over the issue of 'race', is that they are unable to unlearn that which Eurocentrism has taught them.

And African is someone native to Africa.

But that is *not* a morphology. It is not, per se, a discription of physical form, although it would be valid as a discription of -> all human phenotype native to Africa.

That is technically the meaning of Africoid.

Africoid is not a race.

So, for me, your question implies that you did not digest a previous answer:

Human variation is *not* racial variation.

I've already defined race theory in humans and explained why.

If you disagree can you offer and alternate definition of race in humans and explain, why not?

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And again, if race is not a meaningfull scientific concept the why bifurcate Africa into "sub-Saharan" Africa and "North Africa".
Indeed, ehoes -> "Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic Africanity" - SOY Keita. [Smile]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Curiously enough Australia is a puzzling case because its temperate climate in the South did not seem to modify the tropical derived phenotype of its 50,000 year indigenous inhabitants
Actually in limb ratio Australians are more like the sub-tropical San of Southern Africa than the equatorial Masai...and their skin color is typical for the latitude in which most of it's peoples have lived for most of their history.

The real mystery is their sometimes blonde hair, genetically unrelated to blondeness in Nordics, and hence too- not racial.

Their skin color is not a mystery.
 -

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Perfect Egyptian
Member
Member # 9449

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Perfect Egyptian     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
King, your comment is very stupid!

If I follow your logic, I would call Europeans, Europoids

Asians,

Asiatacoid

etc, etc, etc..............

Mass confusion, with geographic names that mean very little and add to the afroconfusion.

Both Africa and Asia are two very diverse continents with people that range from very pale to very dark and encompass several distinct racial types, Blacks, Whites, Arabs, Indians, etc,

When will people learn to actually ignore their own wishful thinking and start looking at facts??

[Eek!] [Eek!]

A

quote:
Originally posted by KING:
I am with you Triple I think that africoid would be better then negroid. I think that one of the reason you still find people talking about negroid instead of africoid, is because it is so ingrained in people, they are just use to saying it, but hopefully terms like negroid will be replaced by terms like Africoid. I see on wikipedia the use the term africoid instead of negroid. And I see some alot of websites useing the term Africoid so we can see that there is a slow but steady shift from negroid to africoid. Does anybody else have anything to add I can't really think of anything better then Africoid. I have also heard of Capoid but this term is only used for the Khoisan.


Posts: 230 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Perfect Egyptian:

If I follow your logic, I would call Europeans, Europoids

Actually some do use the term Europid to describe Europeans....which would make sense, except that often they use it to describe people who are not, never were and have nothing to do with Europeans. Their use of the term is therefore chauvinistic.



Technically the term Euro-poid would mean pertaining to the physical appearence of Europeans.

No term is any good if it is used incoherently by people who don't know what the words they use actually mean - a common problem where physical anthropology is involved.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
But there's some question begging going on here. If race is not a meaningful scientific concept then why not just say "African" to refer to people whose origins are in Africa, just as we now say "East Asian" to refer to people whose origins are in that part of Asia. In scientific discourse we don't say "yellow Asia" or "Asia East of the Himalayas". And of course most serious scientists feel uncomfortable using the term "mongoloid".

And again, if race is not a meaningfull scientific concept the why bifurcate Africa into "sub-Saharan" Africa and "North Africa". I have seen and mingled with North Africans in Europe they are, for the most part, easily distinguishable from indigenous Europeans. And they also, for the most part, carry tropical phenotypical markers--such as curly hair, medium pigmented to heavily pigmented skin and Africa-derived labial and nasal indices. I mention these traits only because European anthropologists have used such--especially nasal and labial indices--ad nauseam to classify racially.

For the above reasons "Africoid" would capture all the required phenotypical criteria that have been shaped by the environments of the African continent--which, despite its size, does not have the temperate and artic zone climates of Asia and the Americas.

Curiously enough Australia is a puzzling case because its temperate climate in the South did not seem to modify the tropical derived phenotype of its 50,000 year indigenous inhabitants--50,000 years were more than enough to radically transform the phenotypes of those Africans that migrated northwards into Eurasia.

Thus when using "Africoid" we would not have to exclude individuals who though excluded from the scope of the term "sub-Saharan" are easily identifiable in Europe because aspects of Africa show on their phenotypes.

Example: witness the ease with which the French police profile third generation North Africans who happen to be just walking by.

"Africoid" again, while certainly acceptable where Africans are concerned from a bio-anthropological perspective, how much useful is this term, when dealing with the different physical variations on the continent? I don't have a problem with the term, but I just question the extent of its use in bio-anthropological analysis. For example, as the skin pigmentation map shows, coastal northwest African groups exhibit skin tones that "generally" fall outside the tropical African sphere of this phenotype. From a bio-anthropological perspective, does "Africoid" help us see this, not withstanding that coastal North African morphologies fall within the "indigenous" sphere of morphology?

Migrations and back-migrations have ensured morphological gradation, as can be seen as one moves from tropical Africa to southern Europe. Coastal northwest African light skin, for example, has more to do with back-migration from northern Eurasia, than say, in situ adaptation to the kind of environment prevalent in North Africa. Now of course, morphological similarities [which crackpots treat as the unequivocal indicator of close biological relationship in the name of racial typology, and not factoring in or dismissing possibilities of happenstance (which is quite common)] that coastal North Africans share with their neighbors, could be a combination of happenstance and mutual gene flow between north Africa, northern Eurasia and southwest Asia [Near East].

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africoid by definition it is superset of all physical variation native to Africa. That's all it is. The term isn't lacking unless you try to make it into something more than was intended.

To further delineate African diversity you would then break this down into subsets, just as if you were discussing African languages as all languages native to Africa and then break it down into sub-sets - Afrasan, Nilo Saharan and so forth.

One objection raised is that - all humans were originally African and most of the physical variety is therefore found in Africa.

This objection is ill founded, since it would also apply to language and genes.

All languages originate in Africa as well, but we still speak intelligibly of African langauges. All lineages too begin in Africa - yet Africans have their own lineages, and AFrica's people have physical features. Of course!

Nor does the notion of Africanity, African biohistory, Africoid, imply/require uniqueness or mutual exclusivity.

That is: dark skin is a native African feature.

It is also a native Eurasian feature.

Diminuative [small] physiogamies are quite distinct in certain African ethnic groups - but it is also found in unrelated Native Asian ethnic groups.

There is no contradiction there, it's simply a fact.

Contradiction only appears to exist if you 'require' that physical variation denote race.

It does not. Therefore if you do require this, then contradiction is inherent no matter what nomenclature you use.

It's the concept of race that's flawed, not just the terms used to describe it. [Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Africoid by definition it is superset of all physical variation native to Africa. That's all it is. The term isn't lacking unless you try to make it into something more than was intended.

...which I have literally spelt out in my earlier comment. That said, would you say [as an example] that skin pigmentation in coastal northwest Africa, as shown in the map, is "Africoid"?

BTW, I agree with your premises, as per the issue of terms in association with "race". My question is directed at gauging whether most of us are on the same page, when it comes to the "context" of the terms applied here.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
which I have literally spelt out in my earlier comment. That said, would you say [as an example] that skin pigmentation in coastal northwest Africa, as shown in the map, is "Africoid"?
That's an excellent question Supercar.

No. The fair skin of some NorthWest Africans reflects European and SouthWest Asian ancestry as invariably shown via genetic study.

Fair skin is not native to Africa, but that doesn't mean the NorthWest African Berber are not.

Similarly:

Senegalese are Native to Africa but their offical language - French, unlike Tamazight, is not.

Lemba Bantu are Native to Africa, but their paternal bloodline, is not.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:


No. The fair skin of some NorthWest Africans reflects European and SouthWest Asian ancestry as invariably shown via genetic study.

Fair skin is not native to Africa, but that doesn't mean the NorthWest African Berber are not.

Similarly:

Senegalese are Native to Africa but their offical language - French, unlike Tamazight, is not.

Lemba Bantu are Native to Africa, but their paternal bloodline, is not.

Perfect demonstrations; and now, let us further examine the term "Africoid" as applied to phenotype. Knowing that the coastal northwest African Berbers are as "authentically" [as Keita used the term] or as "indigenous" as any other "indigenous" African group on the continent, and given that they exhibit a phenotype [which happens to be skin color in our example] which is understood to be a product of gene flow rather than an adaptation due to the environmental pressures of a given region of Africa, does the term "Africoid" as a term to be applied to "phenotype" [the topic of this thread] tell us much in way of this reality?

If as you said, the answer stands at "No", in terms of the application of this term to this particular phenotype, then, doesn't the term "Africoid" become somewhat misleading here?

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and given that they exhibit a phenotype [which happens to be skin color in our example] which is understood to be a product of gene flow rather than an adaptation due to the environmental
But here, you are talking about 1 morphological trait: pale skin, and then placing the burden on a term - Africoid in this case to accurately summarize the entirity of the entity in question.


No term can do that, and the Berber are perfect example: Some are Black, some are White, some are tawny.

In terms of genetic distance the Tuareg Berber are biologically East African, whereas the Kabyle are closer to Europeans than they are to East Africans.


It cannot be placed on *any term* to collectively and precisely catagorize an entire phenotype for precisely the reasons cited earlier:

For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. - American Anthropology Assoc..


In principal physical traits are no different than genes or langauges - if you can trace their origin and evolution, then you can identify and label them by their source point.

In practise populations are generally not all one thing.

As for Africoid, it is nothing but African - native to Africa, with a subtext [oid] - referencing physical traits in anthropology.

Now....

If we say that the term isn't useful to anthropology, then the concept of describing the native physical traits of Africans is also being said to not be useful.

If it *is* useful to describe such African traits, then you can always replace the term, [with probably a semantically less accurate one], but the concept would be just the same.


Notice that in the AAA's cited passage they did just this when describing variations in hair texture: all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions
[Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:


No. The fair skin of some NorthWest Africans reflects European and SouthWest Asian ancestry as invariably shown via genetic study.

Fair skin is not native to Africa, but that doesn't mean the NorthWest African Berber are not.

Similarly:

Senegalese are Native to Africa but their offical language - French, unlike Tamazight, is not.

Lemba Bantu are Native to Africa, but their paternal bloodline, is not.

If as you said, the answer stands at "No", in terms of the application of this term to this particular phenotype, then, doesn't the term "Africoid" become somewhat misleading here?
First, it is important to point out, as Rasol put it earlier,…

{Names are less important than understanding the concepts.

Human variation cannot be accurately demarcated in terms of race}

So to put things into perspective, here’s my take:

First and foremost, I am wary about physical terms that end with “oid”. But if we must employ “Africoid” as a general descriptive term for all physical variations of native Africans, then…

“Africoid” [as applied to phenotype] is the physical characteristics of “indigenous” Africans. As pointed out, phenotypes found in Africa, are largely not exclusive to Africa, but can be the product of environmental pressure, as well as gene flow. “Tropical African” in association with phenotypic description, would be description of all phenotypes ‘native’ to the tropical environments of Africa. The emphasis on “tropical” is not meant to denote “race” here, but is useful in terms of allowing us to grasp the point that there are Africans who exhibit phenotypic characteristics [however little] that fall outside of the “indigenous” tropical African phenotypic sphere. Pertaining this, something Rasol said earlier, may well be relevant here:

{To further delineate African diversity you would then break this down into subsets, just as if you were discussing African languages as all languages native to Africa and then break it down into sub-sets - Afrasan, Nilo Saharan and so forth.}

So while there are Africans who may exhibit a phenotypic characteristic(s) that fall outside the typical tropical African ranges of phenotype, this doesn’t necessarily mean that those Africans lack other phenotypic affinities with tropical Africans. As such, it entirely appropriate to refer to these “indigenous” Africans as “Africoid”, which would encompass “all” physical variations of Africans. There is no demarcation in phenotypic variation, as phenotypes found in different populations overlap. Note the clinal skin tone distributions on the Human skin color distribution map, as but just one example. Again, Rasol said something earlier, that may be worth repeating to this effect:

{Africoid by definition it is superset of all physical variation native to Africa. That's all it is. The term isn't lacking unless you try to make it into something more than was intended.}

I feel it is important the need to understand terms in an objective context, if applied in science. For instance, in courtesy of Rasol, to use his point as an example:

{Actually some do use the term Europid to describe Europeans....which would make sense, except that often they use it to describe people who are not, never were and have nothing to do with Europeans. Their use of the term is therefore chauvinistic.}

As long as “Europid” is used to describe only indigenous “Europeans”, then there should be no problem its application in that context, from an objective standpoint!

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
and given that they exhibit a phenotype [which happens to be skin color in our example] which is understood to be a product of gene flow rather than an adaptation due to the environmental
But here, you are talking about 1 morphological trait: pale skin, and then placing the burden on a term - Africoid in this case to accurately summarize the entirity of the entity in question.
Remember, the "pale" skin color was used as an example. I used it as a tactical question, pertaining to the rather "general" term of the "Africoid" in application to phenotype, and the question that was raised about the need to use "sub-categories" in association with phenotype, without implying "race". I could have used "blue eyes", or natural "blonde hair", as alternative examples of phenotype, found in some coastal Northwest African groups.


quote:
rasol:
No term can do that, and the Berber are perfect example: Some are Black, some are White, some are tawny.

Again, my emphasis is not on the question of whether "Africoid" can be used to describe African phenotypes in "general" per se, which anyone would have by now noticed through my earlier comments made here, but more to the point of its ability to give a clearer picture of the nature of physical diversity in Africa. While sub-category terms like "Tropical African" are broad in their own right, they are less ambiguous than the "Africoid" term.


quote:
rasol:
It cannot be placed on *any term* to collectively and precisely catagorize an entire phenotype for precisely the reasons cited earlier:

For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. - American Anthropology Assoc..


In principal physical traits are no different than genes or langauges - if you can trace their origin and evolution, then you can identify and label them by their source point.

In practise populations are generally not all one thing.

As for Africoid, it is nothing but African - native to Africa, with a subtext [oid] - referencing physical traits in anthropology.

Now....

If we say that the term isn't useful to anthropology, then the concept of describing the native physical traits of Africans is also being said to not be useful.

Well, if we are going to go by the definition of "Africoid" being "native" physical traits, as a result of in situ evolution from environmental pressure on the continent, then would this apply to your earlier comment?...


(Fair skin is not native to Africa, but that doesn't mean the NorthWest African Berber are not.}

Physical characteristics that arrived in Africa via gene flow from an extra-continental region, and then became part of African bio-history, don't necessarily have to be treated in the same context as those physical characteristics that did evolve in situ, without the assistance of back-migration. So if "Africoid" is to imply phsyical characteristics that are the product of African environment, excluding gene flow from an extra-continental region, then surely a question can be raised about its application here.


quote:
rasol:

If it *is* useful to describe such African traits, then you can always replace the term, [with probably a semantically less accurate one], but the concept would be just the same


Notice that in the AAA's cited passage they did just this when describing variations in hair texture: all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions
[Cool]

It might have appeared as subtle point in my earlier comment, but as I pointed out, if "Africoid" is simply meant as physical variations of "indigenous" Africans, rather than "indigenous" physical adaptations, then less questioning will arise from its application.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember, the "pale" skin color was used as an example.
Yes, but of what?

My answer is that white skin:is not an example of a native African physical trait, just as French is not and example of a native African language. That is simply a fact, whether aknowledged terminologically or not.

Whether speaking French or having white skin qualifies the "Africaness" of a population and to what extent is a subjective judgement.

To me it is not a troubling issue because I accept that human identity is complicated, multifaceted and has ironic components.

The White Berber groups of NorthWest Africa are more "African" in terms of paternal genetics than Black Lemba Bantu.

The Black Lemba Bantu are more African in terms of skin color.

The Black Berber of NorthWest Africa are just as "Berber" as the white and tawny ones.

That's just the way it is. [Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While sub-category terms like "Tropical African" are broad in their own right, they are less ambiguous than the "Africoid" term.
That's true, but that's only because one term is a sub-set of the other and therefore less ambiguous by definition.

In terms of langauge - Latin is less ambiguous than Indo-European, and French is less ambiguous than Latin.

So.....?

French cannot describe all Latin language characteristics.

Tropical African cannot describe all African physical characteristics.

Specific example: South African Khoisan - they have ultra-tropical characteristics such as steatopygia, borderline tropical/sub-tropical skin color, and lack tropical limb ratios, this reflects the fact that southern African Khoisan have biologically evolved 'largely' south of
tropical Africa.

In contrast the Khoisan of Tanzania have evolved much closer to the equator and have more tropical characteristics in terms of skin color, and body structure.

Tropical Africa as a reference to anatomy is a sub-set of Africa as a function of climate/latitute - not a replacement for it.

That's what the qualifier, tropical signifies.

Africoid is nothing but a word that means native to Africa, as a function of appearence, and includes sub tropical elements as well as tropical, and elements that are not a simple function of climate/latitude to begin with.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First:

1)The pigmenatation map posted above is just wrong! I have see hundreds of North Africans and at no time whatsover were their skin colours as unpigmented as Swedes, English, or Northern Europeans in general. Someone--I am thinking critically here--just tried to pass off a bogus map on the unsuspecting.

2) In much the same way that African Americans always claim to recognise an African American when they see one, so too the term the term Africoid can capture in cluster form those phenotypically adaptive traits when taken together characterise the human biological products of Africa's environments.

3)Simple logic: If the "sub-Saharan" Africa is adequate then so too would be "Africoid". The simple reason is that sub-Saharan Africa is a vast area with a multiplicity of environmentally adapted human types. Consider the cases of the Twa(the pejorative term is "pygmy') and the Dinka of the Sudan. If it is acceptable to apply the umbrella term "sub-Saharan African" to both then on what logical grounds would many supra-Saharan Berber groups be left out?

4) What is not being accepted in the discussion is that the environment(which includes genetic drift and assorted mating)--over thousands of years--forces organisms if they are to survive to adapt to it--whether in pigmentation, hair form, body structures, etc. The result of this is that the environment of Africa produced morphologically identifiable clusters of human geographical population clines that can all fall under the general term of Africoid or African. Same for the flora and fauna of Australia distinct from that of a proximate South Asia

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
[QB] First:

1)The pigmenatation map posted above is just wrong! I have see hundreds of North Africans and at no time whatsover were their skin colours as unpigmented as Swedes, English, or Northern Europeans in general.

You are absolutely right on this point. In fact this has been noted and 'explained' [apologised for] by Jablonski and others, as and artifact of population samples. The map does somewhat whitewash NorthWestern Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
2) In much the same way that African Americans always claim to recognise an African American when they see one, so too the term the term Africoid can capture in cluster form those phenotypically adaptive traits when taken together characterise the human biological products of Africa's environments.

Don't know about the usefulness of that analogy -claims that people make about what they appear to see, are subjective, have no value in anthropology, and are a classic source for pseudo scientific [and wrong] inferences.


We are ultimately trying to objectively identify native African physical traits, in much the same way in which one would identify cultural or linguistic traits native to Africa.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
3)Simple logic: If the "sub-Saharan" Africa is adequate then so too would be "Africoid".
Sub-saharan can be a valid and logical term.

Quite often it is not.

It references a variable phenomenon - climate, and then treats it in ancient history as a static entity. This is not a small quibble since the sahara did not exist during critical periods during the holocene, which established the source populations, languages and cultures that went on to people the Nile Valley.

Eurocentric scholarship blatantly manipulates its concept of sub-sahara to service its race ideology - by removing East Africa from sub sahara, for example. When this is done, sub-sahara is simply a euphemism for race.

This is why SOY Keita states: sub-sahara does not delimit Africanity....., if he were being more the 'prick' and less the scholar he would have added -> ....as western racist scholarship obviously intends it to do.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
4) the environment of Africa produced morphologically identifiable clusters of human geographical population clines that can all fall under the general term of Africoid or African. Same for the flora and fauna of Australia distinct from that of a proximate South Asia
I agree, if we normalise the discussion of human physical variability, instead of always linking it back to the 17th century European race constructs that "poisoned the well", it then becomes possible to have productive discussion about African anthropological history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nile Valley forum: Evolution of Skin Color - & skin color dist. maps.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again that still sneaky map. I don't see how any part of North Africa can have indigenous populations palpably lighter in pigmentation than pre-Coumbian Mexico or South East Asia.

As mentioned above "sub-Saharan" Africa has been transformed from being a term of pure geographical content to one of sheer racist assault. All the problems of Africa are confined to that vast area called "sub-Saharan" Africa as if there are not similar problems north of the Sahara. The term has been sullied and polluted by the Euro race crowd in all the social sciences, so the question is can it be rehabiliated or just junked?

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
Remember, the "pale" skin color was used as an example.
Yes, but of what?
...example of phenotype, that falls outside those spurred by "native African" natural environment, or in situ evolution!

quote:
rasol:
Whether speaking French or having white skin qualifies the "Africaness" of a population and to what extent is a subjective judgement.

To me it is not a troubling issue because I accept that human identity is complicated, multifaceted and has ironic components.

...Hence the need to "contextualize" terms. I believe that is what the opening topic is driving at.


Look, from the way folks have been going on at it, since I last posted on this topic, I would say that we are either talking past each other, or my message isn’t being made clear. And so, I’ll just repeat my earlier comment, with some tweaking (signified by italics)….


So to put things into perspective, here’s my take on “contextualizing” Africoid:

First and foremost, I am wary about physical terms that end with “oid”. But if we must employ “Africoid” as a general descriptive term for all physical variations of native Africans, then…

“Africoid”, as applied to phenotype, makes more sense as the physical characteristics of “indigenous” Africans, rather than, applied as a term that signifies phenotype that is “indigenous” or “native” in the sense that, it is the product of in situ evolution in response to Africa’s natural environment; the latter context would of course imply that physical traits that are not “Native” to Africa, are the product of gene flow from an extra-continental region, and as such, the application of “Africoid” here, is easily prone to questioning.

In further contextualizing “Africoid” the following must be understood…

As pointed out, phenotypes found in Africa, are largely not exclusive to Africa, but can be the product of environmental pressure, as well as gene flow.

In response to Lamin’s comment:

{And again, if race is not a meaningfull scientific concept the why bifurcate Africa into "sub-Saharan" Africa and "North Africa".}


The question arises as to whether the application of sub-categories to phenotype is necessary, if there is no intent to create “racial” contructs . As such, here is my explanation for the need to have sub-categories like “tropical African”, “supra-tropical African” and “sub-tropical” , and even “supra-Saharan African” and “sub-Saharan” Africa.…


“Tropical African” , as applied to phenotype, would be description of all phenotypes ‘native’ to the tropical environments of Africa. In other words, unlike the Africoid application, “tropical African” can exclusively denote physical characteristics that are the product of in situ evolution [as per random genetic mutations and environmental pressure], and hence “indigenous” in that sense, without factoring in extra-continental gene flow. The emphasis on “tropical” is not meant to denote “race” here, but is useful in terms of allowing us to grasp the point that there are Africans who exhibit phenotypic characteristics [however little] that fall outside of the “indigenous” tropical African phenotypic sphere.

Continuing with the issue of “contextualizing” Africoid…


So while there are Africans who may exhibit a phenotypic characteristic(s) that fall outside the typical tropical African ranges of phenotype, this doesn’t necessarily mean that those Africans lack other phenotypic affinities with tropical Africans. As such, it entirely appropriate to refer to these “indigenous” Africans as “Africoid”, which would encompass “all” physical variations of Africans. There is no demarcation in phenotypic variation, as phenotypes found in different populations overlap. Note the clinal skin tone distributions on the Human skin color distribution map, as but just one example.


I feel it is important the need to understand terms in an objective context, if applied in science. In other words, the need to “contextualize” Africoid as a term to be applied to **phenotype** [the topic of this thread].

Here’s the gist :
If Africoid is contextualized to just mean physical characteristics that are the result of in situ evolution, due to genetic mutations and Africa’s environmental pressure [and therefore “native” or “indigenous” to Africa in that sense], then this application of the term would be questionable, as per phenotype that are the product of gene flow from an extra-continental region. Now, knowing that people have a combination of physical characteristics, “indigenous” Africans may have a combination of physical traits that are “native” to Africa’s natural environment, and those that aren’t necessarily native to its natural environment [but the product of gene flow from outside Africa]. As such, if Africoid is contextualized to simply mean “indigenous” Africans [in other words, people in their entirety], then its contextualization here is less prone to questioning.

This is where the application of a subset like “Tropical African” as a phenotype, can differ from “Africoid”. Here, tropical African can be contextualized to mean physical traits that are “exclusively” the product of in situ evolution to Africa’s tropics. But...since, [as we have already seen from an example] there are Africans who have physical traits that fall outside the tropical African sphere of physical traits, i.e., not native to Africa’s tropics, terms like “supra-tropical” and “tropical-African” to denote “phenotype” are useful in reflecting such reality. “Africoid” doesn’t have that effect. Mind you, it is a complicated task to apply terms to phenotype, and contextualize them without appearing to be engaged in creating “racial” constructs, because as pointed out earlier, people carry “combination” of phenotypes, and phenotypes in different populations tend to overlap in some areas. While some Africans, like those in coastal northwest Africa, do carry traits that fall outside typical tropical African ranges of phenotype, they are “indigenous” Africans, and do share other physical traits with tropical Africans [overlapping of phenotypes]. Hence the need to contextualize these terms, when applied to phenotype. “Supra-tropical” African will address phenotypes that fall outside those native to Africa’s tropics. Africa just doesn’t have the type of climatic conditions necessary to create extreme bio-evolutionary deviations from tropical adaptation, and as such, physical adaptations in response to “sub-tropical” Africa, would appear to be subtle. In coastal northwest Africa, we have rather pronounced deviations from tropical adaptation, as reflected in fair skin tones, blue eyes, blonde hair, etc, amongst other characteristics that do fall within tropical African ranges, because those are largely the product of gene flow from outside Africa, rather than in situ evolution. “Supra-Saharan” can be used to the same end as “supra-tropical”, although the usage of “sub-Saharan” as used by Europeans, is problematic for reasons I stated earlier, which is that, “sub-Saharan” actually encompasses regions that fall on the Saharan belt. Nonetheless, “sub-Saharan” can be used to the same effect as “tropical-African”, in that these regions largely lie in the tropics, save for the southern tip of Africa, which lies in the sub-tropics. IMO, just sticking to terms like tropical, sub-tropical, and supra-tropical, is appropriate enough and more accurate. I hope this clarifies the need to apply latitudinal or environmental terms to phenotype, in addition to “Africoid,” if not despite it.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't see how any part of North Africa can have indigenous populations palpably lighter in pigmentation than pre-Coumbian Mexico or South East Asia.
Well, there's a part of the rub isn't it?

The map is only a reflection of the selected populations. There are Magrebian Berber who have very light skin, perhaps lighter than the average Southern European. They are clearly over-represented in the map in question. Their indigineousness is another question, since they tend to combine European maternal lineages with East African paternal ones.

Please don't forget that the map was presented with specific regards to the Australian Aboriginenes. [Cool]

As for sub-sahara, I would like to see it's use limited, rather than used to "de-limit" Africans.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As mentioned above "sub-Saharan" Africa has been transformed from being a term of pure geographical content to one of sheer racist assault. All the problems of Africa are confined to that vast area called "sub-Saharan" Africa as if there are not similar problems north of the Sahara. The term has been sullied and polluted by the Euro race crowd in all the social sciences, so the question is can it be rehabiliated or just junked?
I agree with your observation about the usage of sub-Saharan, not to mention its flawed geographical reference [to begin with]. I am not sure about "rehabilitation", but what is perhaps more important, is for Africans to understand the term purely from a geographical context, nothing more or less.


quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QB]
quote:
I don't see how any part of North Africa can have indigenous populations palpably lighter in pigmentation than pre-Coumbian Mexico or South East Asia.
Well, there's a part of the rub isn't it?

The map is only a reflection of the selected populations. There are Magrebian Berber who have very light skin, perhaps lighter than the average Southern European. They are clearly over-represented in the map in question. Their indigineousness is another question, since they tend to combine European maternal lineages with East African paternal ones.

Well, my take: "Indigenousness" here would be the question of whether these "Berbers" are largely immigrants from outside the continent. However, they are the result of crossbreeding between indigenous Africans and immigrants within Africa. They are not entities who migrated from outside [having already spent the bulk of their evolutionary development in an extra-continental region], so as to make their appearance on the African continent.

quote:
rasol:
As for sub-sahara, I would like to see it's use limited, rather than used to "de-limit" Africans.

I agree.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, my take: "Indigenousness" here would be the question of whether these "Berbers" are largely immigrants from outside the continent.
Of course, Berber is indigenous to Africa.

White skin is not.

E3b2 paternal is indigenous to Africa.

The predominent Kabyle maternal lineages are not:

The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations

Berber are complex yes, but not contradictory.

They may have maternal lineages from Europe and Asia, but Berber is defined as a multi ethnic language group - and their language is wholey African.

So I have no problem stating that the Berber are African, white, black or other - makes no difference. [Cool]

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lamin
Member
Member # 5777

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for lamin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To Supercar:

The clarifications are in order and coherent.

But here are some considerations.

The extent of "blond hair and blue eyes" among Coastal North Africans ought to seen as quite negligible. The vast majority of North Africans do not have those traits. Sit at a cafe in Casa Blanca, Morrocco and observe people as they pass by. The only blonds you will see are those with dyed hair. And with men--never. Yet I don't deny what the antropologists report--with a sizable grain of salt. Maybe Algeria--is a bit different, but I have seen very dark pigmented with tightly curled hair and olive coloured, frizzy haired Algerians, so again the blond blue-eyed thing could be some some anthropologist's hype.

So how do we classify Europeans knowing that they are chock full of extra-European genes. The "multiregion hypothesis" is as dead as a dodo--despite the proclamations of Wolpoff and a nationalist sector of Chinese researchers.

Do we go strictly on phenotype or just geography, or otherwise. But as was pointed out before, Europe is a peninsula, not a self contained geographical unit. Cavalli-Sfoza stated that Europeans are essentially hybrids of inhabitants from its 2 surrounding continents. So what does that do with the concepts of "caucasian", "white", "Europoid" and "caucasoid"?

Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lamin:
To Supercar:

The clarifications are in order and coherent.

But here are some considerations.

The extent of "blond hair and blue eyes" among Coastal North Africans ought to seen as quite negligible. The vast majority of North Africans do not have those traits. Sit at a cafe in Casa Blanca, Morrocco and observe people as they pass by. The only blonds you will see are those with dyed hair. And with men--never. Yet I don't deny what the antropologists report--with a sizable grain of salt. Maybe Algeria--is a bit different, but I have seen very dark pigmented with tightly curled hair and olive coloured, frizzy haired Algerians, so again the blond blue-eyed thing could be some some anthropologist's hype.

I share your observations on these matters. I too am quite familiar with Moroccans and Tunisians, and have come into contact with some Algerians. As I have mentioned before, concerning the social viewpoints of west Africans that I've come across, these northwest Africans [at least in parts of west Africa] are not looked as "Toubabs", which is a term equated with the "whites" of Europe. For instance, Ghaddafi isn't looked upon as such.


quote:
Lamin:
So how do we classify Europeans knowing that they are chock full of extra-European genes. The "multiregion hypothesis" is as dead as a dodo--despite the proclamations of Wolpoff and a nationalist sector of Chinese researchers.

Do we go strictly on phenotype or just geography, or otherwise. But as was pointed out before, Europe is a peninsula, not a self contained geographical unit. Cavalli-Sfoza stated that Europeans are essentially hybrids of inhabitants from its 2 surrounding continents. So what does that do with the concepts of "caucasian", "white", "Europoid" and "caucasoid"?

For one thing, I don't approve of the idea of classifying Africans via phenotype, but for the purposes of bio-historical analysis in bio-anthropology, in light of the images that European anthropology and geopolitics have historically posited of Africans, certain terminology to describe African natural physical variations from west to east, south to north, is necessary to butress those distorted viewpoints. You are already aware of "caucasoid" and "hamites" being used on Africans, to explain natural physical diversities extant on the continent. These terms presuppose that there are clear demarcations in phenotypical distributions in Africa, which of course is a grotesque distortion of reality. So in order to explain African physical variations, it may be necessary to describe them in terms of the environments prevalent on the continent. This is what I attempted to do, when I used terms like "tropical African". As such, it is generally known [at least I hope] that Africa's climate is largely tropical. Even regions of the continent that lie outside the tropics, don't warrent the kind of climatic conditions that would allow indigenous African migrants from the tropics to extremely deviate from the original tropical physical adaptations.

As you put it, coastal northwest Africans have all the features you described, many of which are indeed found in tropical Africa. However, from a bio-anthropological analysis, how do we explain the kind of physical variations seen from coastal northwest Africa to tropical Africa, without using reference words? This is where terms like "tropical African" come into play. Remember, this has become necessary due to the history of European anthropological outlook of Africans and folks across the globe. In the case of "some" coastal northwest Africans, "white" skin is an outlier physical characteristic from the African standpoint, considering the natural physical environments of Africa. But even then, there is no clear demarcations from tropical Africa to North Africa, or even sub-tropical Africa. As such, if there is any name to be applied to African phenotypes, Africoid would be adequate enough.

The skin color distribution on the continent is revealing in some ways. The transition of skin color distribution [notwithstanding the valid point you brought forth earlier] from the largely dark Africa to light in coastal northwest Africa, is a reflection of interaction between the regions on either end of the Mediterranean sea. This is also reflected in genotype. Note that the bulk of Africa, barring the coastal northwest Africa [the cause of which I just mentioned], are in varying tones of brown color. This is testament to the kind of environment prevalent on the continent. "White" [by which I mean extremely fair] skin is not a natural African phenomenon. It is an outlier in the phenotypic landscape, with respect to physical adaptations to Africa's natural environments.

As for the question of labeling Europeans, "Mediterranean" and "Northern" would not be unreasonable, since there are visible physical distinctions here too, notwithstanding the smaller landmass of Europe in comparison to the greater Asia and Africa. Darker skin, dark hair, and dark eyes, is more prevalent near the Mediterranean, not to mention typical African and southwest Asian lineages. Wetton's terminology, can be seen as another example. In the same manner that Africoid is appropriate to generally describe Africans, Eurpoid would be appropriate to Eurpeans.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kifaru
Member
Member # 4698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kifaru     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You guys seem to be talking more about morphology than phenotype. If I am correct phenotype is color not shape.
Posts: 167 | From: usa | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansa Musa
Member
Member # 6800

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansa Musa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Morphology is a form of phenotype as is skin color.

phe·no·type
n.

1. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.

Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, morphology pertains to anything related to the physical form of the organism.

It can sub-divided into cell mophology [like sickle cell blood trait], bone morphology, soft body parts, pigmentation and so on.

Phenotype is similar, although in humans phenotype is often associated with sometimes arbitrary groupings of traits.

Race-typology [race-type?] is the hypothesis that phenotype reveals lineage - which is flawed because physically dissimilar peoples sometimes have closely related bloodlines, and physically alike people are often completely unrelated.

If phenotype does not equate to lineage then race typologies are discredited.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally, I think we should not worry too much about 'naming' and grouping certain phenotypes African or otherwise. Lest we degress into the insanity we see among some Eurocentrics with Alpinism, Nordism, and Meditercentrism!!!

Regardless of the diversity in African features, they are all equally African and socially 'black'! Let's leave it at that.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ I tend to agree with you as far as social conventions go.

However anthropology is 'the business' of studying human history origins and diversity, so it is tasked to explain - why the Tutsi are tall and the Twa are small, what is the biohistorical relationship between the Sotha and San and so forth.

I do agree that when anthropology and pseudo-anthropology get carried away with labeling, the results are are often humorous ->

Paleo-atlantid-pre-proto-meditterranid type A4B-quasi-cromagnoid-brachiocephalic-atavistic-prognathic small "n" negroid..........

Oh please!

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
^ I tend to agree with you as far as social conventions go.

However anthropology is 'the business' of studying human history origins and diversity, so it is tasked to explain - why the Tutsi are tall and the Twa are small, what is the biohistorical relationship between the Sotha and San and so forth.

I do agree that when anthropology and pseudo-anthropology get carried away with labeling, the results are are often humorous ->

Paleo-atlantid-pre-proto-meditterranid type A4B-quasi-cromagnoid-brachiocephalic-atavistic-prognathic small "n" negroid..........

Oh please!

The question is where does it end?

This why we have idiots like Leba going around spouting supremacy based on "features" LOL

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3