posted
The folowing words seem to be ambiguous when used in discussing issues of natural science, specifically genetics and physical anthropology, and actually should not be used, correct?
White Black Yellow Caucasian Negroid Mongoloid Race Aryan
A country label? A cultural label?
I know there are others. Please add.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I beg to differ on the usage of white or black, providing the context is known. We all know such a thing exists such as 'white' Europeans, and so is the case for 'black' Africans. We all know that these are social terms, and that they shouldn't be taken literally, meaning that these folks are actually these colors, although some folks come closer to approaching them than others! From a physical description standpoint, these would merely be euphimisms for levels of melanin, as a response to the environment. It is when understood from the context of racial typology, that the problem lies. Is there a reason you feel that most native Europeans shouldn't/couldn't be called 'white' or that tropical Africans shouldn't/couldn't be called 'black Africans'? I mean, I understand that the folks called 'black Africans', are actually tropical Africans, a fully functional term you'll come across in scientific studies.
I also beg to differ on 'Caucasian', as long as it is put in the proper context, i.e., I have no beef with the inhabitants of Caucasia being referred to as such.
Matter of fact, science still uses social terms; e.g., Africa, Europe et al., are all socio-political terms. In any case, those who feel that by removing the term 'black' will enable them to run away from ancestry from what is now referred to as 'sub-Saharan' Africa or tropical Africa, might want to rethink that prospect.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: The folowing words seem to be ambiguous when used in discussing issues of natural science, specifically genetics and physical anthropology, and actually should not be used, correct?
White Black Yellow Caucasian Negroid Mongoloid Race Aryan
A country label? A cultural label?
I know there are others. Please add.
White - a social term that has some meaning to certain cultures but is not very objective. Black - see White Yellow - see White Caucasian - can be both a social term as well as an objective one. People descended from the IndoEuropean group that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe and parts of the Levant and Northern India are referred to properly as Caucasian. Negroid - never was an objective term of much meaning and quite defunct. Mongoloid - a defunct term since it refers to people of mixed ancestry as if they were a people all originating from a single location in Mongolia. Oriental people are a very diverse group. Race Aryan - This term means Pure. This is meaningful to cults who have faith in their pure ancestry but objectively there are no PURE races.
Genesis 6:1-4 "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."
Not even the Angels are pure.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've had this discussion before. But I am afraid this topic was started, in the guise of discussing what terms are not scientific, specifically as an avenue of not having to deal with the term 'black', in regards to ancestry. It was on this premises, that I made my earlier response. Fact is, one may choose not to use the term 'black', but it doesn't change the reality of tropical Africa, or ancestry from there...and that is the bottom line. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Caucasian - can be both a social term as well as an objective one. People descended from the IndoEuropean group that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe and parts of the Levant and Northern India are referred to properly as Caucasian.
I don't agree with this.
As was indicated in another thread the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked.
Like SuperCar, the only people I'd consider to be Caucasian are ethnic groups who actually live in the Caucasus region.
What evidence is there that proto-Indo-European and the peoples who speak such a language, originated in the Caucasus Moutains?
By that logic because Ethiopia is the posited homeland of Afroasiatic, all Afroasian speakers can appropiately be called Ethiopian!
^ This is more myth than history.
Modern Europeans are predominately descended from the Kurgan culture from what I understand, which is in the Russian steppes, near but not in the Caucasus mountain region.
Certainly some waves of Modern Europeans likely came to Europe through the Caucasus mountain from Central Asia but calling them Caucasian merely reinforces the racist myths of an Aryan master race, which is loosely based on linguistic and genetic affinity with Iranians and Indians.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I beg to differ on the usage of white or black, providing the context is known. We all know such a thing exists such as 'white' Europeans, and so is the case for 'black' Africans. We all know that these are social terms, and that they shouldn't be taken literally, meaning that these folks are actually these colors, although some folks come closer to approaching them than others! From a physical description standpoint, these would merely be euphimisms for levels of melanin, as a response to the environment. It is when understood from the context of racial typology, that the problem lies. Is there a reason you feel that most native Europeans shouldn't/couldn't be called 'white' or that tropical Africans shouldn't/couldn't be called 'black Africans'? I mean, I understand that the folks called 'black Africans', are actually tropical Africans, a fully functional term you'll come across in scientific studies.
I also beg to differ on 'Caucasian', as long as it is put in the proper context, i.e., I have no beef with the inhabitants of Caucasia being referred to as such.
Matter of fact, science still uses social terms; e.g., Africa, Europe et al., are all socio-political terms. In any case, those who feel that by removing the term 'black' will enable them to run away from ancestry from what is now referred to as 'sub-Saharan' Africa or tropical Africa, might want to rethink that prospect.
Agreed. Although I don't know what to make of the 'yellow'. Sure some northern Asians have a yellowish tint but I find it strange and no doubt they would find it inappropriate to be called yellow. In some of those cultures, yellow is a sign of cowaridice.
Besides, I myself as well as many of my relatives would be described as 'brown' as in hispanic brown.
Posts: 26266 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ... But I am afraid this topic was started, in the guise of discussing what terms are not scientific, specifically as an avenue of not having to deal with the term 'black', in regards to ancestry. .....
This is an untrue statement. There can be no rebuttal. Only I can determine my motive with any degree of certainty.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Genesis 6:1-4 "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."
Not even the Angels are pure.
Actually, if you're going by that bit of scripture it depends on what you mean by 'pure'.
Obviously the Angels of heaven are pure since non of them have any human blood or ancestry. That piece from the Old Testament (Torah) you just cited refers to Angels who mated with mortal women. The resulting offspring were called Niphilim and legends say they were beautiful people of giant statures and great strength as well as possessing forbidden knowledge (magic) and caused great havoc on Earth. According to accounts the Angels who fathered these beings were punished by God while the Niphilim were all destroyed.
Posts: 26266 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Agreed. Although I don't know what to make of the 'yellow' Sure some northern Asians have a yellowish tint but I find it strange and no doubt they would find it inappropriate to be called yellow. In some of those cultures, yellow is a sign of cowaridice.
Besides, I myself as well as many of my relatives would be described as 'brown' as in hispanic brown.
Well, from a practical usage, i.e., in terms of physical description, a.k.a. melanin levels, I wouldn't use the term. I am fully aware that even the terms 'black' or 'white' are social, but that they can make sense, when used strictly as a euphemism for melanin levels. I suspect Southeast Asians with light skin tones, were called such, to distinguish them or separate them from Europeans. In reality, some of these Asian groups exihibit melanin levels comparable to at least southern Europeans.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Caucasian - can be both a social term as well as an objective one. People descended from the IndoEuropean group that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe and parts of the Levant and Northern India are referred to properly as Caucasian.
I don't agree with this.
As was indicated in another thread the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked.
Correct. Mind you, there is very little evidence supporting Indo-European origins in the Caucasus Mountains anyway. Evidence tends to point to either Anatolia or the Russian steppes but most likely the latter.
As for India, it is correct that there was no actual 'invasion' by Indo-Europeans. Perhaps a small migration but one so insignificantly small that no actual genetic print was found left to associate with Indo-European peoples. Then again, the same is true with Europe.
quote:Like SuperCar, the only people I'd consider to be Caucasian are ethnic groups who actually live in the Caucasus region.
This is correct, both politically and literally. The only true Caucasians are the natives of this region.
quote:What evidence is there that proto-Indo-European and the peoples who speak such a language, originated in the Caucasus Moutains?
This is one of various theories on the Indo-European homeland. More specifically Armenia but somewhere in the Caucasian hinterlands but again, the evidence is weak.
quote:By that logic because Ethiopia is the posited homeland of Afroasiatic, all Afroasian speakers can appropiately be called Ethiopian!
Good point!
quote:
^ This is more myth than history.
This is a map of the Armenian theory right here. While there is some evidence, it is not as great as the Kurgan evidence.
quote:Modern Europeans are predominately descended from the Kurgan culture from what I understand, which is in the Russian steppes, near but not in the Caucasus mountain region.
It depends on what you mean by 'descended'. European culture may be descended from the Kurgan in some ways, but again genetically speaking there is no marker yet discovered to be associated with the Kurgan or any other Indo-Europeans.
quote:Certainly some waves of Modern Europeans likely came to Europe through the Caucasus mountain from Central Asia but calling them Caucasian merely reinforces the racist myths of an Aryan master race, which is loosely based on linguistic and genetic affinity with Iranians and Indians.
European ancestors probably did originate from the Caucasus and Central Asia but mostly in prehistoric times, but you are right that it is ridiculous to tie in any notions of an "Aryan" race.
Posts: 26266 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: This is an untrue statement. There can be no rebuttal. Only I can determine my motive with any degree of certainty.
I said so based on successive discussions with you, i.e., your responses that follow whenever the term black appears. Then, you don't have a problem with 'black African' or 'tropical African' ancestry linked with, for instance, E3b?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, "white" and "black" are socially constructed terms. But there must be a reason that East Asians are not called "yellow" in polite or scientific parlance. Or what about the term "red" as in "Red Indian" or "the Redman" commonly used by the European settlers in the past but not used these days either in the ethnic or scientific sense? Or South Asians: in the sociolgical and s cientific literature they are never referred to as "brown Asians" as distinct from "yellow Asians".
Yet the terms "black Africa" is still routinely used in the social science and scientific literature. Explanations?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: This is an untrue statement. There can be no rebuttal. Only I can determine my motive with any degree of certainty.
I said so based on successive discussions with you, i.e., your responses that follow whenever the term black appears. Then, you don't have a problem with 'black African' or 'tropical African' ancestry linked with, for instance, E3b?
Absolutely not. Not anymore. In my opinion, and as I learn more, the evidence is slowly to my mind becoming irrefutable. I just didn't understand how this could be and therefore have been reluctant to accept the definite views of others. Let me make something very clear - I would not change one drop of makeup of how I got my body - I don't care where it came from. I am very satisfied. Well, I could be better looking. I don't want to get into the reasons I have been resistant...it is embarrassing. Who wants to be thought of as ignorant.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Absolutely not. Not anymore. In my opinion, and as I learn more, the evidence is slowly to my mind becoming irrefutable. I just didn't understand how this could be and therefore have been reluctant to accept the definite views of others. Let me make something very clear - I would not change one drop of makeup of how I got my body - I don't care where it came from. I am very satisfied. Well, I could be better looking. I don't want to get into the reasons I have been resistant...it is embarrassing. Who wants to be thought of as ignorant.
Good to hear about the progress you've made. On that note, I am sure from now on you'll understand, when I say that lineages like E3b or E3a, as examples, trace back to a distant black African ancestor, or that it originated among Black Africans at a time, when Europeans had already exhibited 'depigmentation'. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Absolutely not. Not anymore. In my opinion, and as I learn more, the evidence is slowly to my mind becoming irrefutable. I just didn't understand how this could be and therefore have been reluctant to accept the definite views of others. Let me make something very clear - I would not change one drop of makeup of how I got my body - I don't care where it came from. I am very satisfied. Well, I could be better looking. I don't want to get into the reasons I have been resistant...it is embarrassing. Who wants to be thought of as ignorant.
Good to hear about the progress you've made. On that note, I am sure from now on you'll understand, when I say that lineages like E3b or E3a, as examples, trace back to a distant black African ancestor, or that it originated among Black Africans at a time, when Europeans had already exhibited 'depigmentation'.
Yup...got it. Now I want to focus more on how they got to Europe. Whether there was any Paleolithic contact (pre LGM?) or just Neolithic? If only Neolithic, what time frame and from where? What were there major migration routes, did they move with other types...actually who were these few courageous people that ventured out in small groups (rather than demic diffusion) and melted with the indigenous people? I have many questions to pursue. Also, in that vein, I am getting a deep clade done by FTDNA. We have already determined I am E3b, that is M35 positively. It will be interesting to see what comes up.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Sure, "white" and "black" are socially constructed terms. But there must be a reason that East Asians are not called "yellow" in polite or scientific parlance. Or what about the term "red" as in "Red Indian" or "the Redman" commonly used by the European settlers in the past but not used these days either in the ethnic or scientific sense? Or South Asians: in the sociolgical and s cientific literature they are never referred to as "brown Asians" as distinct from "yellow Asians".
Yet the terms "black Africa" is still routinely used in the social science and scientific literature. Explanations?
It probably has something to do with African-Americans trying to take back the word 'Black' and turn it into something positive.
I suppose the mainstream can't be bothered to avoid something that is no longer considered to be offensive.
It was once polite to call people of tropical African descent "Negro" and Black itself was considered to be pejorative. Now that has been reversed.
We in the USA live in a screwed up society. I have encountered White people who reluctantly refrained from using the word "Black", one guy in particular would say "African-American...to be politically correct" as if he'd rather say Black but found worried that it was offensive
Still other White Americans enjoy calling each other "niggas" to emulate rap and don't understand why "Black" people would be offended by such a word.
Native Americans are trying to eliminate mascots that bare their image from sports, "Redskin" is to some of them a racial epithet on par with the N-word.
I've heard East Asians argue over the offensiveness of the term Oriental, with some vehemently opposed to it and others considering it to by silly to be offended by it.
Sub-continental Indians used to be called "Brown men" (as if they were the only brown-skinned people in the world ) now they are called South Asians in some circles.
"Black Africa" has been replaced by the euphmism "Sub-Saharan Africa" when we all know this is an attempt to divide Africa into North African Caucasoid and Negroid Africa. Apparently Congoid is a term that even further attempts to put the "True Negro" in a special box.
It's all semantic gibberish.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Yup...got it. Now I want to focus more on how they got to Europe. Whether there was any Paleolithic contact (pre LGM?) or just Neolithic? If only Neolithic, what time frame and from where? What were there major migration routes, did they move with other types...actually who were these few courageous people that ventured out in small groups (rather than demic diffusion) and melted with the indigenous people? I have many questions to pursue. Also, in that vein, I am getting a deep clade done by FTDNA. We have already determined I am E3b, that is M35 positively. It will be interesting to see what comes up.
Much of your questions have been addressed here time and again. You might want to review past discussions [of which there are many, and hard to miss] using the search function, and if there is something new you'd like to bring to the table, we would be happy to analyze or explore further. BTW, demic diffusion is the moving in of people, along with their culture. Thus, Neolithic cultural diffusion occurred via demic diffusion.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Caucasian - can be both a social term as well as an objective one. People descended from the IndoEuropean group that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe and parts of the Levant and Northern India are referred to properly as Caucasian.
I don't agree with this.
As was indicated in another thread the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked.
Like SuperCar, the only people I'd consider to be Caucasian are ethnic groups who actually live in the Caucasus region.
What evidence is there that proto-Indo-European and the peoples who speak such a language, originated in the Caucasus Moutains?
By that logic because Ethiopia is the posited homeland of Afroasiatic, all Afroasian speakers can appropiately be called Ethiopian!
^ This is more myth than history.
Modern Europeans are predominately descended from the Kurgan culture from what I understand, which is in the Russian steppes, near but not in the Caucasus mountain region.
Certainly some waves of Modern Europeans likely came to Europe through the Caucasus mountain from Central Asia but calling them Caucasian merely reinforces the racist myths of an Aryan master race, which is loosely based on linguistic and genetic affinity with Iranians and Indians.
I didn't say that Caucasians come from the Caucasus region I said that they crossed the Caucasus mountains to enter Europe. Either way its where the term comes from. I think we are just splitting hairs.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Genesis 6:1-4 "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose."
Not even the Angels are pure.
Actually, if by going by that bit of scripture it depends on what you mean by 'pure'.
Obviously the Angels of heaven are pure since non of them have any human blood or ancestry. That piece from the Old Testament (Torah) you just cited refers to Angels who mated with mortal women. The resulting offspring were called Niphilim and legends say they were beautiful people of giant statures and great strength as well as possessing forbidden knowledge (magic) and caused great havoc on Earth. According to accounts the Angels who fathered these beings were punished by God while the Niphilim were all destroyed.
You misunderstood what I meant by pure. Pure in the sense of only reproducing within their own "race". Where men and women can breed they will regardless of race and thus pureness is impossible to maintain or assume.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I didn't say that Caucasians come from the Caucasus region I said that they crossed the Caucasus mountains to enter Europe. Either way its where the term comes from. I think we are just splitting hairs
You said a litte more than that.
It's one thing to say that the word is legitimate when speaking of people coming [I]from[/I} the Caucasus, but when you start mixing stuff about the Levant and India that is what I was objecting to.
Persoanlly I think Modern Europeans came through Mesopatamia, around the Caspian Sea, through the Russian steppes to settle in Europe, not just through the Caucasus, as demonstrated in this map .
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Aryan - This term means Pure. This is meaningful to cults who have faith in their pure ancestry but objectively there are no PURE races.
quote:Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit, and Vedic term Arya, meaning noble.
It's true that Aryan was used has been used by groups like the Nazis to perpetuate the myth of a pure race, however the original term meant noble and was used by groups like the Persians to profess a noble lineage.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rossi: Yup...got it. Now I want to focus more on how they got to Europe. Whether there was any Paleolithic contact (pre LGM?) or just Neolithic? If only Neolithic, what time frame and from where? What were there major migration routes, did they move with other types...actually who were these few courageous people that ventured out in small groups (rather than demic diffusion) and melted with the indigenous people? I have many questions to pursue. Also, in that vein, I am getting a deep clade done by FTDNA. We have already determined I am E3b, that is M35 positively. It will be interesting to see what comes up.
Much of your questions have been addressed here time and again. You might want to review past discussions [of which there are many, and hard to miss] using the search function, and if there is something new you'd like to bring to the table, we would be happy to analyze or explore further. BTW, demic diffusion is the moving in of people, along with their culture. Thus, Neolithic cultural diffusion occurred via demic diffusion.
That is my intention and I actually started last night. FTDNA has a fellow who has done some statistical analysis to predict subclades. Seems solid. Found out I will probably fall at E3b1 alpha cluster. We will see when I get my test results back. I immediately started searching for information and of course this forum came up bigtime. Such ad hominem arguing though. But, no different than elsewhere I have been. Anyway, I will review cultural and demic diffusion to get a better understanding and search the forum for information as well as follow the scientific data.
Posts: 151 | From: Venice, Florida, United States | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Aryan - This term means Pure. This is meaningful to cults who have faith in their pure ancestry but objectively there are no PURE races.
quote:Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit, and Vedic term Arya, meaning noble.
It's true that Aryan was used has been used by groups like the Nazis to perpetuate the myth of a pure race, however the original term meant noble and was used by groups like the Persians to profess a noble lineage.
Noble often means a person of high morale character. A person who is pure is a person who is faultess and sinless. Essentially if you are noble you are also pure of heart.
In the feudal systems of Europe nobility was something heriditary. IE: Noble birth. Essentially it lost its original character meaning and began to be part of the cult of ethnotheology. So it no longer meant someone of a pure heart but rather someone of a pure lineage.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I didn't say that Caucasians come from the Caucasus region I said that they crossed the Caucasus mountains to enter Europe. Either way its where the term comes from. I think we are just splitting hairs
You said a litte more than that.
It's one thing to say that the word is legitimate when speaking of people coming [I]from[/I} the Caucasus, but when you start mixing stuff about the Levant and India that is what I was objecting to.
Persoanlly I think Modern Europeans came through Mesopatamia, around the Caspian Sea, through the Russian steppes to settle in Europe, not just through the Caucasus, as demonstrated in this map .
I am only explaining where the term Caucasian comes from and how it can be used legitemately to describe people who migrated into various areas through the Caucasus. I never said that Indians were IndoEuropeans, however, IndoEuroepans did migrate into Northern India though their genetic imprint is not significant. We also know that significant number of females who can trace their migration through the Caucasus made it into the Levant via the White Slave trade. I may be mistaken, but didn't IndoEuropeans also raid Mesopatamia from the Caucasus area? Is not Mesopatamia considered part of the Levant? And then there's the NorthWest African issue with significant female mtDNA that is Iberian in origin. I would consider this also Caucasian since they likely migrated through an area close to the Caucasus before entering Europa in ancient times.
I should clearify, I consider IndoEuropeans and Caucasians to be essentially the same group.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am only explaining where the term Caucasian comes from and how it can be used legitemately to describe people who migrated into various areas through the Caucasus.
People such as who?...
quote:I never said that Indians were IndoEuropeans, however, IndoEuroepans did migrate into Northern India though their genetic imprint is not significant.
Yes but Indo-Europeans haven't left a significant genetic print anywhere, not even in Europe.
quote:We also know that significant number of females who can trace their migration through the Caucasus made it into the Levant via the White Slave trade.
Which slave trade was this?..
quote:I may be mistaken, but didn't IndoEuropeans also raid Mesopatamia from the Caucasus area?
It was a people called the Kassites. At first these people were thought to be Indo-Europeans based on the fact that they introduced the horse and chariot to Mesopotamia, but their language was not Indo-European. Whether these people had any connections or contact with Indo-Europeans is another question that is not clearly answered.
quote:Is not Mesopatamia considered part of the Levant?
No. Mesopotamia is part of the 'Fertile Crescent' which the Levant (coastal region betweem Sinai and Turkey) is also a part of.
The Levant makes up the western half of the Crecent and Mesopotamia makes up the eastern half.
quote:And then there's the NorthWest African issue with significant female mtDNA that is Iberian in origin. I would consider this also Caucasian since they likely migrated through an area close to the Caucasus before entering Europa in ancient times.
The first Europeans migrated from Central Asia. As to how they entered Europe, I am uncertain but there is more than one point of entry than besides the Caucasus.
quote:I should clearify, I consider IndoEuropeans and Caucasians to be essentially the same group.
What made you come to this conclusion?!
Posts: 26266 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Which slave trade was this?..
I read that there was a significant trade of Slavic females into Islamic held territories.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I should clearify, I consider IndoEuropeans and Caucasians to be essentially the same group.
Ok, I simply question your justification for doing so.
Again as I said earlier:
quote:By that logic because Ethiopia is the posited homeland of Afroasiatic, all Afroasian speakers can appropiately be called Ethiopian!
Caucasian has traditionally been considered to be an anthropological term, because based on craniofacial morphology Modern Georgia (which is in the Caucasus region) was found to have skulls that were considered to the ideal prototype for Modern Europeans and therefore that region was classified as the origins of the European race.
If you are going to insist that the linguistic term Indo-European should = Caucasian, you are going to cause alot of confusion.
NorthWest Africans such as light-skinned Berbers who you say should be considered to be Caucasian because of a genetic relationship with Europeans do not speak an Indo-European language.
Neither do most people native to the fertile crescent.
There is no solid evidence that proves that proto-Indo-European originated in the Caucasus or that the "White" phenotype evolved in that region.
I don't consider anyone to be Caucasian except for ethnic groups native to the Caucasus region.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I read that there was a significant trade of Slavic females into Islamic held territories.
But I thought most of them came through Turkey, not just the Caucasus.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
I should clearify, I consider IndoEuropeans and Caucasians to be essentially the same group.
On what basis?
Are you trying to say that I claim that the use of Caucasian is accurate when used to describe Europeans in general? I didn't say that. I said that those that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe are properly considered Caucasian. Europeans who did not enter Europe this way or from this area are not prooperly referred to as Caucasian.
----------------------------
I consider Indo-European and Caucasians as essentially the same group because the Indo-European family is so named because at one time its individual members were prevalent mainly in an area between and including India and Europe, although not all languages spoken in this region were Indo-European. The Caucasus mountains are part of this region. As a result I inter-changeably consider Indo-Europeans and Caucasians as essentially the same group.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you trying to say that I claim that the use of Caucasian is accurate when used to describe Europeans in general? I didn't say that. I said that those that crossed the Caucasus mountains into Europe are properly considered Caucasian. Europeans who did not enter Europe this way or from this area are not prooperly referred to as Caucasian.
The question is exactly which European people are you referring to??
----------------------------
quote:I consider Indo-European and Caucasians as essentially the same group because the Indo-European family is so named because at one time its individual members were prevalent mainly in an area between and including India and Europe, although not all languages spoken in this region were Indo-European. The Caucasus mountains are part of this region. As a result I inter-changeably consider Indo-Europeans and Caucasians as essentially the same group.
We know that proto-Indo-European originated somewhere between Europe and India which is exactly why the language phylum is called Indo-European. The problem is that we don't know exactly where that is. There is only one Indo-European language spoken in the Caucasus and that's Ossetian but there is little evidence that it originated there in that vicinity.
Evidence does lend strong support to origins somewhere in the Russian steppes but other than that, it's not certain.
Posts: 26266 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) now they are called South Asians in some circles.
Printer-friendly view of this topic