quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Three main divisions - Africans (Blacks and Berbers of East Africa, the Sahara & Sahel - Mediterraneans (Egyptians, Berbers of the shore, Greeks, Latins - Nordics
posted
Perhaps Coon had Sergi's African branch of EurAfricans in mind as caucasoid. Coon is not Sergi.
As in the previous post Sergi reprimanded the anthropologists of his time when they wanted to appropriate certain Sudanese and make them whites.
Sergi didn't believe in any concept remotely related to making East Africans into dark whites.
Mind you, none of this is written to promote Sergi as valid current anthropology. It's written to correct erroneous assumptions made about Sergi from scholars in print who've never so much as broke the cover of a copy of the Mediterranean Race.
I certainly do not agree with nor back everything Sergi wrote. Some of his ideas as to origins and migrations are in sync with the revelation of E3b originating in northern East Africa working its way north and northwest in Africa and on into the Balkans, Aegean, and Adriatic regions of the North Mediterranean.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps Coon had Sergi's African branch of EurAfricans in mind as caucasoid. Coon is not Sergi.
Coon isn't daft either.
It's the same *root* concept.
EurAfrican = North African caucasoid.
There are two forms of this argument, the differences are utterly superficial, the underlying ideology is the same.
* one argues for and originating Eurasian race that migrated into Africa.
** the other argues for a Eurasian race this is the original race of East Africa.
*** Both unite this imaginary Medit. K-zoid race to the Nordic K-zoid Race.
**** Both distinguish this K-zoid race from the negro race.
The Medicentrists - Dienekes and Racial Reality for example, rely largely on Sergi and Coon for their 'original east African caucasoids'.
All of this is nonsense, all of it is racist, and none of it has any credibility in modern scholarship.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
semitic - subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.
quote:Should Hamitic be defined based on the people also using a common language
-> Evergreen writes:
The Earliest Semitic Society Journal of Semitic Studies Diakonoff 1998
"The term Hamito-Semitic is unacceptable, because the linguitic macrofamily in question CANNOT be divided into a Semitic and a 'Hamitic' branch: it is currently divided into at least five families of approximately equal age: Semitic, berbero-Libyan, Kusitic, Omotic, and Chadic." Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quite well understand the concept of caucasianizing North and East Africa being introduced to it by ben Jochanan's books the Black Man's North and East Africa and Black Man of the Nile and His Family.
Sergi did not invent nor has anything to do with the concept of EurAfrican = North African cauc(asian/asoid) and it's wrong to say that he did.
In Sergi's scheme North African are only one branch of EurAfricans. Sergi's EurAfricans originate in East Africa as a black people (African division) who through natural selection become progressively depigmented as they migrate north (Mediterranean division of divers colours) and nearly depleted of pigment in the farthest north (Nordic division). The anthropologists at the time weren't at all happy that Sergi was making the bulk of European peoples mutated descendents of black Africans.
Sergi, long before Bernal, dismantled the Aryan Model of Greco-Latin civilization through the lexicon.
I can't at the moment leaf through my copy of Sergi but if you can please supply citations of Sergi being involved in the caucasianizing of dark Africans I would appreciate it.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Sergi did not invent nor has anything to do with the concept of EurAfrican = North African cauc(asian/asoid).
Again - it is the same concept. That's why Medicentrists such as the Dienekes and Racial Reality rely on it.
quote:In Sergi's scheme North African are only one branch of EurAfricans.
In Sergi and Coons scheme North African are only one branch of Caucasoid -- again -- is the same root concept.
quote: Sergi's EurAfricans originate in East Africa as a black people (African division) who through natural selection become progressivelydepigmented as they migrate north
Differs from Coon [The Races of Europe] only in that Coon originated his dark caucasians in Southern Arabia and then spread them North and South.
quote: (Mediterranean division of divers colours) and nearly depleted of pigment in the farthest north (Nordic division).
What exactly do you think Mediterranean and Nordic are sub-divisions of (?)
It is as if you are distracted by the superfluous use of EurAfrican as opposed to Caucasian but missing the central point that his racial classification scheme places Europeans and Egyptians - in one race, and "Negroes" in another.
quote:The anthropologists at the time weren't at all happy that Sergi was making the bulk of European peoples mutated descendents of black Africans.
Sergi was simply a Medicentrist attempting to counter Aryanist Nordicist in the 1940's NAZI era.
He countered their claim that blue eyed blondes were the 'greatest' by proclaing 'the Medit Race is the greatest in the world'.
Both Nordicist and Medicentrics argue that these are variation of a common Euro-centered super-race.
Both are equally racist towards Africans and Asians whose civilisations they claim were really created by Euro-centered master race - to which they claim they belong.
At any rate, you are too much taken up with defending Sergi, as a personality.
You think he was a nice/guy - well intended, I don't. His only interest was in defending southern european 'race/pride' against northern europeans, and the results are just as racist.
But what is more to the point is that his ideas of the medit. race are null and void and current scholarship. He was wrong. Period.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE] It is as if you are distracted by the superfluous use of EurAfrican as opposed to Caucasian but missing the central point that his racial classification scheme places Europeans and Egyptians - in one race, and "Negroes" in another.
Rasol, The same can be said for Semitic.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol, I understand you and appreciate your inputs. However, Semitic is viewed as a race of people seperate from negroes, blacks, or whatever.
I understand and believe there is only one race and it is the human race. However, if Hamitic is racist, Semitic is also racist.
The only diffence I see between Semitic and Hamitic now is a group of languages some people defined as semitic.
The only language in the semitic family that may be consider black, negro, or whatever is Ethio. We both know that ethiopians are classified as caucasian when it best fits their terms.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blackman: Semitic is viewed as a race of people seperate from negroes, blacks, or whatever.
By whom?
I have already provided you with a definition of semitic in which semitic in current scholarhship is a language - not a race.
Name a current anthropologist who states that Semitic is a racial classification, and idea that his not been much in favor since Hitler put a bullet in his head. (?)
posted
rasol, I think we are speaking two different terms. You are using race from one person's view and then asking me to quote race from another scientific view.
We both know today semitic is not consider to be black. Foget what you and I may view about race.
My question is: If Semitic is tied to a related group of languages, why can't hamitic be tied to a group of related languages?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blackman: My question is: If Semitic is tied to a related group of languages, why can't hamitic be tied to a group of related languages?
This question has been answered 3 times now:
quote: The Earliest Semitic Society Journal of Semitic Studies Diakonoff 1998
"The term Hamito-Semitic is unacceptable, because the linguitic macrofamily in question CANNOT be divided into a Semitic and a 'Hamitic' branch: it is currently divided into at least five families of approximately equal age: Semitic, Berber, Kushitic, Omotic, and Chadic."
Can you tell us why you ignore the answer, and keep repeating the question?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You are too taken up with lashing out against anything you feel is associated with the word cauc(asian/asoid) as evidenced by your near always misspelling of the word (kaka-zoid, k-zoid etc.).
You're choosing not to address Sergi as a separate individual due to your righteous bias against the Caucasian/Caucasoid designation that Europeans have chosen as a general self-identifier and have chosen to misapply to any and all peoples in either their physical or cultural ancestry.
So you refuse to digest, despite it being repeated, that Sergi fought against the anthropologists of his time who classified East Africans as dark whites, the proverbial "Hamitic caucasoids" (if not Caucasian indigenous Africans) by reminding them "they are black, how can they be white." I find it impossible to see how that serves to caucasianize.
Carter G. Woodson used Sergi, Dana Reynolds uses Sergi, as does a host of independent minded Afrikan scholars. Are they Medicentricists for doing so?
Population genetics sees human origins as starting black (tropically adapted) in East Africa and becoming depigmented outside of the tropics, declining as migration progressed through the temperate zone to the sub-arctic and once glacial zones. Are they too running a caucasianizing game?
If the so-called caucasoids of Europe didn't arise from East Africans then who did they mutate from and why do they have the E3b that they do?
EurAfrican doesn't equal cauc(asian/asoid) no matter how often you say it does.
Do you have citations of Sergi practicing the deceptive art of caucasianizing the East Africans who are his African division of the EurAfricans? For the third time I ask you for citations from Sergi to that effect. Can you produce any? Have you read Sergi for yourself?
Before going any further I'd greatly appreciate compliance to those requests rather than avoiding them with more subjectivity.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Again - it is the same concept. That's why Medicentrists such as the Dienekes and Racial Reality rely on it.
quote:In Sergi's scheme North African are only one branch of EurAfricans.
In Sergi and Coons scheme North African are only one branch of Caucasoid -- again -- is the same root concept.
quote: Sergi's EurAfricans originate in East Africa as a black people (African division) who through natural selection become progressivelydepigmented as they migrate north
Differs from Coon [The Races of Europe] only in that Coon originated his dark caucasians in Southern Arabia and then spread them North and South.
quote: (Mediterranean division of divers colours) and nearly depleted of pigment in the farthest north (Nordic division).
What exactly do you think Mediterranean and Nordic are sub-divisions of (?)
It is as if you are distracted by the superfluous use of EurAfrican as opposed to Caucasian but missing the central point that his racial classification scheme places Europeans and Egyptians - in one race, and "Negroes" in another.
quote:The anthropologists at the time weren't at all happy that Sergi was making the bulk of European peoples mutated descendents of black Africans.
Sergi was simply a Medicentrist attempting to counter Aryanist Nordicist in the 1940's NAZI era.
He countered their claim that blue eyed blondes were the 'greatest' by proclaing 'the Medit Race is the greatest in the world'.
Both Nordicist and Medicentrics argue that these are variation of a common Euro-centered super-race.
Both are equally racist towards Africans and Asians whose civilisations they claim were really created by Euro-centered master race - to which they claim they belong.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri You are too taken up with lashing out against anything you feel is associated with the word cauc(asian/asoid)
Actually not only is this wrong, but you have it precisely backwards....the "specific terms" are irrelevant.
It is the concept that is faulty.
That's why i'm not distracted by alterations in the terms - Eurafrican, Hamite, Caucasian, white, and am able to focus on the substance of what is being said.
In huksterism [con games, or magic tricks], various methods of destraction are used to facilitate deception.
One method might fool one half of the audience, but the other may see thru it.
Another method might fool the other half of the audience.
I am the guy trying to get the ENTIRE AUDIENCE to ignore the distractions so as to reveal the underlying trick.
Now, I'll address the rest of your post...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're choosing not to address Sergi as a separate individual
This is also incorrect.
I am choosing to not 'personalise' the matter.
I am specifically addressing the IDEAS.
You are taken up with a personal defense of 'Sergi'...which is illogical and I can show you how.....
Sergi claimed that certain groups of Africans - such as the Tutsi - were "EurAfricans", and belonged to a common race with Nordes as distinct from other Africans.
I have a simple question for you.
Do you agree with this?
Yes or no?
If yes, please present proof.
If not....
Don't tell us about Sergi - just tell us about the ideology of EuAfrican race - you either agree with this, or you do not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You refuse to address....that Sergi fought against the anthropologists of his time
Once again, a personal defense of Sergi, which refuses to confront the *ideas* in question.
quote:yet you color Sergi by yoking him to Coon
Same error, personal pity pleas for Sergi, irrelevant to the fact that his race classification system has been debunked.
quote: who classified East Africans as dark whites, the proverbial "Hamitic caucasoids" (if not Caucasian indigenous Africans) by reminding them "they are black, how can they be white."
...which merely begs the question - they are African, how can they be "Eur-African". (????)
If you see thru the semantics you will recognise that Black/whites, Eu/Africans and Caucasoid North Africans - are the same Eurocentric fallacy weilded to the same effect.
The fact is that Ancient Egyptians, like WaTutsi were Black and not white, and African and not European.
The Mediterranean race is as big a fraud as Aryan race, and that's why neither concept has currency in current scholarship.
I will dismiss any additional *in defense of Sergi* arguments you profer as personalising, and irrelevant.
You may however defend the Mediterranean race, or the EuAfrican race - if you feel so inclined, and I hear you out.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you're not going to answer any of the questions I've asked you but instead invent a position for me I've never promoted or backed.
Truly this is the finest in the art of personalizing and true debate tactic near akin to grandstanding.
Please review my posts and answer my questions just as you ask others to answer your question else find yourself guilty of the same accusations you make of those who evade your questions, thank you.
posted
well, you see, we're still discussing 'definitions' here, and essentially substantiating the point that I made, also quoting Stokely Carmichael "Those who can define are the masters"
Who gives a rat's a.. what Sergi, Coon, and other Eurocentrists had to say about the term "Hamite, etc." They didn't invent anything, but merely corrupted it; the whole point of co-opting this term was to make the Ancient Egyptians into white folks by using the euphemism "caucasian"! Any other meaning or purpose of this corrupted term is just collateral damage...
quote: If the so-called caucasoids of Europe didn't arise from East Africans then who did they mutate from?
Everyone on earth is descendant from East Africans - Australian Aborigines, Chinese....not just Europeans.
This is essential to understanding the racist ruse-fallacy of caucaZoid, which attempts to define Africans by Europe in complete contradiction to the reality of human anthropology.
I must credit Eurocentrists, in the spirit of giving the devil his due: the nubia fallacy, hamites, caucasoids....they continue to bamboozle African scholars poorly grounded in the natural sciences.
But why oh why do "we" ignore modern African scientists like Keita and Kettles and continue to quote the outdated scholarship of Eurocentric racists?
In one view the Horn was the hypothesized source of the the ancestors of nearly all Europeans except some Germans, who together with some Africans formed a taxon called ‘‘Eurafrican’’ (Sergi, 1901). In another view, the Horn was the postulated place of origin of the ancestors of supra-Saharan Africans, southern Europeans, and southwest Asians, but not most northern or central Europeans, and called the ‘‘Brown Race’’ initially (Smith, 1911, 1923).However, the theory that has had the greatest influence, and still persists in one form or another in some disciplines, was put forth by Seligman (1930), who stated that the peoples of the Horn–Nile basin and supra-Saharan regions were primarily the descendants of southwest Asian immigrants into Africa (i.e., were settler colonists), who arrived at some time in the unspecified past. These immigrants were called ‘‘Hamites’’ (a term not original to Seligman), and constructed as ‘‘dark pastoral Europeans’’ who allegedly brought ‘‘Hamitic’’ languages, narrow noses and faces, linear body builds, lighter skin coloration, and any ‘significant’’ cultural innovation to Africa, with the exception, interestingly, of agriculture (see Sanders, 1969; MacGaffey, 1966).
Dana Rynolds, the Myth of the Mediterranean race:
The anthropological concept of a Mediterranean Race or Mediterranean Type has long been used to denote long-headed gracile types of men anciently inhabiting the lands around the Mediterranean, and alleged by some of its more extreme proponents to be ancestral to modern Europeans and Caucasoid types in Asia and Africa. It is a concept that has been predicated upon erroneous idea, and sustained by fallacious notions of the processes involved in human biological evolution an morphological variation."Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: well, you see, we're still discussing 'definitions' here, and essentially substantiating the point that I made, also quoting Stokely Carmichael "Those who can define are the masters"
At least that's not a nursery rhyme.
quote: Who gives a rat's a.. what Sergi, Coon, and other Eurocentrists had to say about the term "Hamite, etc."
You do. Because you are quoting them. With great respect - you clearly do not fully understand what you are quoting.
For the last time - the definition you give comes straight from Sergi, so I guess -'he's the master'.
If you stop quoting him, then....problem solved.
For me this discussion is like discussing Nubia with Kenndo.
If only Africans would take a serious approach to the natural sciences we could get past the tendancy to rely on the outdated constructs of Eurocentrism, and accidently reinforce some of their noxious concepts [much to their delight i assure you], in the guise of opposing them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I see you're not going to answer any of the questions I've asked you.
You wish.
Did you read the articles from Keita and Reynolds?
What answer did you not understand?
What question do you have left?
quote:and true debate tactic near akin to grandstanding.
You would know.
Grandstanding is ignoring my questions, ignoring my answers to yours, ignoring the scholars and studies cited - accussing me of not answering, and then running off.
You can't even answer a simple direct yes or no question as to whether the Tutsi or Huti belong to the "EuAfrican race" or not. (?)
Why is that?
Isn't it because you know Euafricans are bogus?
If so, what then are you defending (?), a personality as opposed to and idea??
quote: [QUOTE] The Earliest Semitic Society Journal of Semitic Studies Diakonoff 1998
"The term Hamito-Semitic is unacceptable, because the linguitic macrofamily in question CANNOT be divided into a Semitic and a 'Hamitic' branch: it is currently divided into at least five families of approximately equal age: Semitic, Berber, Kushitic, Omotic, and Chadic."
Can you tell us why you ignore the answer, and keep repeating the question?
Rasol, The definition you provided 3 times is for Hamito-Semitic. I'm not talking about hamito-semitic.
I asked only for hamitic language. Is it that hamitic can not be linked to a family of languages just as semitic has been?
Who defined semitic and why you accept it?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol, The definition you provided 3 times is for Hamito-Semitic. I'm not talking about hamito-semitic.
I asked only for hamitic language.
The definition explains why languages cannot be divided into hamitic and semitic. Thus, it answers question pertaining to why there is no 'hamitic' language group.
quote:Is it that hamitic can not be linked to a family of languages just as semitic has been?
No, it's that linguists can divide Afrisan phylum into cushitic, chadic, berber, omotic, and semitic.
They cannot divide it into hamitic and semitic.
No current linguist divides african languages into hamitic and semitic.
quote:Who defined semitic and why do you accept it
Linguists, based on similarities of grammer, root morphology, verbs, nouns, word order, and other factors. I know of no linguists who rejects the existence of Semitic languages....do you?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: [QUOTE]Who defined semitic and why do you accept it
Linguists, based on similarities of grammer, root morphology, verbs, nouns, word order, and other factors. I know of no linguists who rejects the existence of Semitic languages....do you?
Rasol, I think we are starting to see more a like. So, you are saying the same can't be done for hamitic?
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The most widely spoken Semitic language today is Arabic1 (206 million speakers), followed by Amharic (27 million speakers), Hebrew (7 million speakers), and Tigrinya (6.75 million speakers). Semitic languages were among the earliest to attain a written form, with Akkadian writing beginning in the middle of the third millennium BC. The term "Semitic" for these languages, after Shem son of Noah, is etymologically a misnomer in some ways (see Semitic), but is nonetheless standard.
Please note Semitic is a misnomer. However, it is accepted.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The languages were among the earliest to attain a written form, with Akkadian writing beginning in the middle of the third millennium BC. The term "Semitic" for these languages, after Shem son of Noah, is etymologically a misnomer in some ways (see Semitic), but is nonetheless standard.
^ Correct.
quote:Please note Semitic is a misnomer. However, it is accepted.
...because it denotes a group of related languages - same as all the other language groups.
Virtually all the terms of all languages are misnomers in the sense that they do not originally represent language groups, or if they do, not the groups they presently reference.
For example Berber is originally a Greek word referencing Germanics.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't read Sergi either and wrongly mallign the man and associate him with ones he'd counter. He didn't advocate white Egyptians as you assert, nor did he label them caucasian like you say he did, nor did he corrupt the term Hamite the way you accuse him of doing.
It's simply wrong to post erroneous material no matter who's doing it. It's a sign of sloppy scholarship which takes away from the otherwise brilliant work undertaken by all serious posters here who aim to set the record straight about all things related to Africa and her people and civilizations.
Sergi precisely used Hamite per the Hebrew usage since his Hamites are the red and black Africans of East Africa and North Africa with tawny Africans of North Africa thrown in. The Hebrews only knew of some parts of East Africa and some parts of North Africa. Africa, certain Levantine regions, and at least Crete were b*nei Hham lands to the Hebrews.
When encountering anthropologists of his time who labeled the Egyptians white, Sergi's response was
quote: A celbrated anthropologist, when measuring the heads of the mummies of the Pharaohs preserved in the Pyramids, wrote that the Egyptians belonged to the white race. His statement meant nothing; we could construct a syllogism showing that the Egyptians are Germans, since the latter are also fair. De Quatrefages classified the Abyssinians among the white races, but if they are black, how can they be white?
Guiseppi Sergi The Mediterranean Race p.35
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Who gives a rat's a.. what Sergi, Coon, and other Eurocentrists had to say about the term "Hamite, etc." They didn't invent anything, but merely corrupted it; the whole point of co-opting this term was to make the Ancient Egyptians into white folks by using the euphemism "caucasian"! Any other meaning or purpose of this corrupted term is just collateral damage...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know full well my statement is in reference to E3b ancestry and descent not the first out of Africa HSS migrations.
You yourself have written plenty here about E3b working its way in to the Balkans, Aegean, and Adriatic populations.
It's a debaters trick to try to turn my words inside out to attempt to nullify them by using them otherwise than how they were given.
"Australians Aborigines, Chinese....not just Europeans" is a statement meant to distract and disarm and has nothing to do with the peoples we're examining; the East Africans directly ancestral to some North Africans and some north Mediterraneans approaching proto-historic times.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote: If the so-called caucasoids of Europe didn't arise from East Africans then who did they mutate from?
Everyone on earth is descendant from East Africans - Australian Aborigines, Chinese....not just Europeans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you continue getting it twisted the only point I'm making is that your statement
quote: Originally posted by rasol: ... Guiseppe Sergi, one of the prime author s of the North Africa caucasoid myth.
is erroneous.
Sergi has authored no work purporting any North Africa caucasoid myth and you have failed to produce any direct quote, in or out of context, directly from Sergi in support of your statement.
I continue to await such a properly cited quote as reference.
posted
What questions left unanswered you ask? Why, these here ones:
1 - can please supply citations of Sergi being involved in the caucasianizing of dark Africans
2 - Carter G. Woodson used Sergi, Dana Reynolds uses Sergi, as does a host of independent minded Afrikan scholars. Are they Medicentricists for doing so?
3 - Population genetics sees human origins as starting black (tropically adapted) in East Africa and becoming depigmented outside of the tropics, declining as migration progressed through the temperate zone to the sub-arctic and once glacial zones. Are they too running a caucasianizing game?
4 - If the so-called caucasoids of Europe didn't arise from East Africans then who did they mutate from and why do they have the E3b that they do? [AND DO NOT CHOP OFF THE CONCLUDING QUESTION PART LIKE YOU DID BEFORE]
5 - Have you read Sergi for yourself?
All this is but a coda to the song of your error in attributing the caucasianization of North Africa to Sergi. I believe my first post in protest to that explained that I don't follow Sergi in all he wrote but rather view part of his thesis as a precursor to facts uncovered by population genetics; the East African origin of E3b and its expansion to North Africa and the northern Mediterranean.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What questions left unanswered you ask?
Mine.
Are the Tutsi and/or Hutu Euafricans or not?
Yes or no?
Last time i'm asking.
If you refuse to answer but reply with more of your argumentative jibberish - - I'll just ignore you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
1 - can please supply citations of Sergi being involved in the caucasianizing of dark Africans.
Don't now what 'caucasianizing dark africans' would mean, except that you need to put words in my mouth in order to evade the dealing with sergi's words:
"the kinship of the early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race" (The Mediterranean Race)
Sergi considers EuAfricans proto-European, essentially proto-Caucazoids - he includes Tutsi and Swedes in the same Euro-centered race.
Keep pretending to 'not get it'.
It pleases me.
It simply means you know his ideas are 'garbage' and you can't defend them, so you distract with nonsense like...
quote:2 - Carter G. Woodson used Sergi, Dana Reynolds uses Sergi,as does a host of independent minded Afrikan scholars. Are they Medicentricists for doing so?
Of course not. I'm using Sergi too. I'm not a Medicentrist. Who said that "using" him makes you a medicentrist...no one. Another silly distraction from you posing as and unanswered question.
Dany Reynolds WHOLE THESIS is that that the Medit. race is a fraud. Of course you ignore this in order to continue your nonsensical and desparate 'defense of sergi'
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly my reply to your refusal to answer my questions!
quote:If you refuse to answer but reply with more of your argumentative jibberish - - I'll just ignore you.
You already know my stance on the existance of any races as well as the fact that I don't follow or entirely agree with any scholar, be it Sergi or you.
posted
Once again since you still make pretend not to get it.
You were wrong when you wrote that Sergi was into the caucasian north africa myth, wrong, wrong, wrong.
That's all.
Sergi like all turn of the 20th century anthropologists was essentially barking up the wrong tree
yet
East Africans => North Africans => to north Meds is borne out by up to date population genetics re E3b and you can't deny it.
Other things in real life to do now, see ya manana.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
1 - can please supply citations of Sergi being involved in the caucasianizing of dark Africans.
Don't now what 'caucasianizing dark africans' would mean, except that you need to put words in my mouth in order to evade the dealing with sergi's words:
"the kinship of the early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race" (The Mediterranean Race)
Sergi considers EuAfricans proto-European, essentially proto-Caucazoids - he includes Tutsi and Swedes in the same Euro-centered race.
Keep pretending to 'not get it'.
It pleases me.
It simply means you know his ideas are 'garbage' and you can't defend them, so you distract with nonsense...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri:Me, I going back over the excellent recent threads like the Naqada one and the proto-Semitic vs Ethio-Semitic one, both of which have lots of smarts to digest.
That would be a smart move finally; unfortunately you're disappointing me again: you're still around....
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You haven't read Sergi either and wrongly mallign the man and associate him with ones he'd counter. He didn't advocate white Egyptians as you assert, nor did he label them caucasian like you say he did, nor did he corrupt the term Hamite the way you accuse him of doing.
Evergreen Writes:
You make a good point. We would all be well served to go back and read his work first hand.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep pretending not to know where I'm taking you though I've clearly spelled it out time and again so let me post t again You were wrong when you wrote that Sergi was into the caucasian north africa myth, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of course the bulk of 19th/20th century race science of physical anthropology was wrong. All of us here have acknowledged that time and again.
That's no excuse to ascribe things to people that they had nothing to do with. That tactic is used by the blogs you've complained about. Why do you use the same tactic?
It's no different blaming Sergi for Coon than fingering Van Sertima for Winters. The former popularized the study of the African impact on ancient America with a partial focus on the Olmec and their probable Nile Valley connection. The latter claims that the Olmec were Mande. The anti-African bloogers say Van Sertima and Winters are saying the self same concept but always use Winter's work to illustrate their point.
That's the same thing you're doing to Sergi via Coon.
The fact is you haven't read Sergi for yourself so can't independently critique him but only parrot from others reviews, and those others haven't read Sergi either.
You were wrong when you wrote that Sergi was into the caucasian north africa myth, wrong, wrong, wrong.
That's the point I've made and quite successfully so.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Once again since you still make pretend not to get it.
You were wrong when you wrote that Sergi was into the caucasian north africa myth, wrong, wrong, wrong.
EurAfrican = k-zoid mythology. EurAfrican is what is wrong.
That's why it was dumped by anthropologist and is no longer taken seriously, and is more often cited as and example of outdated racist scholarship.
Therefore what "I" think of it is the least of your problems.
Evidently you don't think much of it either, as you cannot answer the simplist question pertaining to it.
So why should we take your nearly hysterical defense of EurAfricans seriously?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You keep pretending not to know where I'm taking you
Give it up AlTakruri. You're just making a fool of yourself. Unless you can answer questions you have nothing to say.
From G. Sergi: "[We have] - the strongest corroboration of the theory of the kinship of early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race." - p. 246
Al Takruri writes: You were wrong when you wrote that Sergi was into the caucasian north africa myth.
quote:rasol writes: AlTakruri can't even answer a simple direct yes or no question as to whether the Tutsi or Huti belong to the "EuAfrican race" or not. (?)
Why is that?
A dozen replies and going on 30 paragraphs of dissembing, but, no answer....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:AlTakruri: If so I'm in the fool line way behind you and only in your eyes
If you still advocate the Medterreanean race myth, you are behind modern anthropology. That's why you can't answer any questions about the ideology you are defending.
Not our fault that you won't update your thinking.
And since you refuse to answer my questions, I have little choice but to dismiss you as a sore loser ranting after the fact
Moving on....
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: We would all be well served to go back and read his work first hand.
Much of hiswork</a> is available on-line for free
Evergreen Writes:
Thanks!
Sergi extends his so called non-Negro Mediterranean race to even to the Mtsea of Uganda, whom he calls "EurAfricans" [page 245].
Sergi is the original Meditcentrist, he tries to deal with the issue of African admixture in Europe by conjuring up a fake Medittereanean race - and assigning Ancient Egyptians, Nubians and many other Africans to it.
His strategy, which will naturally go over the head of those WHO DUCK for cover -> attempts to deflect the reality of African admixture in southern Europe by reassigning Africans to a Euro-centered race.
This is the birth of Dienekes and Evil Euro's notion that Africa was originally populated by Medittereanean caucasoids.
This is the core Medicentric mytho/argument.
To fail to grasp this, is to completely fail to understand the nature of Eurocentrism and it's two sub-catagories - Nordicism and Medicentrism, in anthropology.
The core Medicentric/Eurocentric claim has been utterly de-bunked by modern anthropology:
Rightmire GP. Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site:
The evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean Caucasoids", as has been claimed.
Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations - Rightmire GP.
RIP the Meditterranean race excuse for African admixture in Europe.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic