quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: For any poster here who doubt that Black Africans do exist and are aware of their identity(it's native and not imported), I had many leucoderm friends from the Maghreb, even to this day Arab and Berbers mingle with Black Africans in social settings...same thing with Arab Sudanese(they are all Africans anyway)...BUT:
Grim New Turn Likely to Harden Darfur Conflict(New York Times) By LYDIA POLGREEN Published: October 23, 2006
ON THE CHAD-SUDAN BORDER, Oct. 20 — Haroun Abdullah Kabir stepped from one bloodied corpse to another on the parched, rocky battlefield. He searched the soldiers’ decomposing faces for an aquiline nose, fair complexion or fine, straight hair: telltale Arab features.
An unidentified Sudanese soldier, left, and Nireen Mina, a rebel, both victims of a battle on Oct. 7, were treated last week in the Darfur region. More Photos »
Instead Mr. Kabir, a field commander of the Darfur rebels fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government, found among the Sudanese soldiers his men had felled only the dark-skinned faces of southern Sudanese and Darfurians. He looked away in disgust.
“You see, they send black men to kill black men,” he said. “We are waiting for them to send Arabs for a real fight.”
The question I have is: Were these Sudanese soldiers from the south or 'Darfurian'?? Remember, that the vast majority of Sudanese so-called 'Arabs' have little to no Arab ancestry at all.
Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent, Nos. 2266, 2270, 2273–76, JuneAugust 2004, Paris
During its colonial rule, France enlisted West Africans to fight on its behalf in regiments called the Tirailleurs Sénégalais. One of the battlefields was the Maghreb, the Arabic word for the region comprising Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. The French did not create racial enmity in the region—Moroccan dynasties brought subSaharan Africans north as soldiers and slaves centuries earlier—but they exploited and exacerbated it for their own ends. Today, as fresh waves of migrants make their way to the region, old patterns of mistrust are reemerging.
Thousands of subSaharan Africans fleeing poverty and political strife have arrived in the Maghreb in recent years. This influx has garnered much attention in local media, but what receives less attention is Maghrebi hostility toward the new arrivals and the patterns of discrimination toward darkskinned Maghrebis upon which it builds. Last summer, the Parisbased magazine Jeune Afrique l’Intelligent launched a fivepart series titled “Are Maghrebis Racist?” to provoke debate about this taboo subject. The magazine itself is no stranger to controversy. It was founded in Tunisia in 1960 and associated with the nationalist and panAfrican projects of that period. The magazine once critiqued Moroccan regimes, but it is now criticized by independent Maghrebi media for being too close to the state.
Maghrebi racism is highly controversial because it contradicts national ideologies of tolerance, as well as constitutional and religious doctrines of equality. The testimonials that make up the bulk of the series focus on this hypocrisy. Staff writer Cherif Ouazani...
The independence of Zanzibar and the ensuing revolution were not an accidental occurrence. The people needed to govern themselves; they wanted to be free to determine their own destiny without the interference of any other sovereignty.
The 1963 Independence Conference was therefore convened. The conference involving both the government and opposition sides was held at Lancaster House in London from 20th to 24th September, 1963 to deliberate on the issue. It was agreed that Zanzibar should become fully independent on 10th December, 1963.
The proceedings were under the chairmanship of the British Secretary of State and the ideas that came about were adopted. One of the most significant changes was that the Sultan would be declared the Head of State of Zanzibar (British government, 1963).
On 10th December, 1963 the British government declared the Independence of Zanzibar and handed sovereignty to the Sultan, hence cementing Arab domination of the islands.
That is how the efforts towards true independence for the African majority by constitutional means came crashing to a halt shortly after it had been declared.
But the British colonialists left behind a political mess and a complete failure to deliver justice of which they surely could not boast about.
Disgruntled with what had happened alternative ways had to be sought by the victimised African majority and the final solution was to come through the 1964 revolution.
Although they had traded along the Coast for centuries, the Arabs were among the latter settlers in Zanzibar when it already had a substantial population.
It therefore defies logic even to contemplate that Zanzibar could possibly grow to an authentic Arab state.
It is evident that the colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state lacked any historical, ethnographic or linguistic support. It was merely an expedient political decision forced upon Africans so that they could be effectively kept forever under Arab subjugation.
The justification underlying the revolution, that is the bold decision of the courageous Zanzibar African youths to organise and carry out the revolution of 1964 was a precursor to centuries of oppression, subordination and humiliation of Africans by foreign rulers.
In other words the revolution was a byproduct of polycentric considerations which included the slave master sentiments.
Africans had continued to suffer from the most dehumanising slave/master relationship to which they were subjected to in the 18th and 19th centuries in the form of slavery.
They continued to suffer from residual effects even after the abolition of the slave trade.
These experiences entrenched themselves in Zanzibar during the whole period of struggle for independence, reaching the level of racial injustice.
Another reason that caused the revolution was the long and rather deep- rooted desire by Arab rulers and the British colonialists to make Zanzibar an Arab state.
As a matter of fact a British colonialist Ingram had described Zanzibar ``an Arab state`` as far back as 1926.
Sir Alan Pim had also claimed that Zanzibar was ��an Arab state both in origin and constitution,`` whereas Sir Vincent Glendley had visualised Zanzibar as ``an Arab Sultanate``.
The colonial desire to develop Zanzibar as an Arab state was therefore a pure fantasy that lacked any logical support from historical, geographical, linguistic and racial perspectives.
Zanzibar was for Zanzibaris, the only people who had African origins and not the Arabs or any other foreigners.
Segregation of the Africans in Zanzibar especially in access to social services was another factor that compounded further the already lop-sided relationship which finally blew up into a revolution.
There was tangible discrimination in the delivery of education, medical treatment, housing and water services, only to mention but a few.
For instance, exorbitant medical fees charged in hospitals could only be afforded by the rich Indian merchants and Arab landlords.
Different grades for medical services rendered were introduced, with the African natives assuming the last grade.
But segregation was also felt in the social associations formed along lines of racial bigotry.
However, such attitude could not continue further as a wind of political change for independence was blowing across the continent of Africa and Zanzibar was no exception to this tide of historical necessity.
It is no wonder that in the prevailing circumstances, the people of Zanzibar were fed up and could not in any possible peaceful means whatsoever, resolve the political crisis except through the barrel of the gun.
And, that is exactly what happened at the zero hour on the material day. The revolution remains to be the sole historical milestone and an impregnable guiding spirit that serves to explain in no terms of incertitude, Zanzibar`s present and future development.
After Independence, the revolution and the formation of the Union what next for Zanzibar?
Zanzibar should now forge ahead with invigorated dedication. Much as it opposed racial bigotry and attendant isolationist tendencies in the past it must not let them loosely creep in again.
With a dedicated and strong political leadership that Zanzibar enjoys at the moment, I harbour no doubt at all in my mind that great progress will be made in the interest of the people of Zanzibar and Tanzania in general.
The British colonialist administration is long gone and the Sultanate hegemony long toppled.
The bitter historical record should now be transformed into an avenue of meaningful progress and development.
Long live Zanzibar as she proudly marks her 43rd independence anniversary amidst remarkable achievements and progress made despite the attendant challenges and shortcomings encountered.
* SOURCE: Guardian
[quote]Keep in mind that Black African Zanzibari were Muslims but they knew that Arab and Europeans had a common interest: the oppression of Black Africans. The same thing happened in Mauritania were the leucoderms (Arabized and Europeans) united against Black Africans...same story in Sudan...Arabs and Europeans slept in the same bed for along time while plotting against Black Africans...
Of course, when two groups share the same interest (in this case, supremacy over blacks) then it would be natural to get in the bed together, so to speak. Posts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...the history of migrations and colonization that brought Eurasians from the Neolithic to the present time into North Africa
Could you possibly elaborate on this--bearing in mind the specific meaning of the term "Eurasian"? Maybe we can also learn--in terms of numbers--the significance of such migrations.
Re What to call the people of Africa
Why not be economical and consistent in the whole matter. For example, South Asians and East Asians differ significantly in terms of phenotype yet when described colour terms and eye shape terms are never brought up. Why not just speak in terms of regions--when it comes to Africa--West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa and North Africa. Talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa is sheer racism--because as you wrote it is just euphemistic racist code for all the world's ills--maximally exaggerated for racist effect.
But to be more accurate one can use the same techniques as animal and plan biologists: an African would simply be a member of the human species whose phenotype offers evidence of being shaped by the environments of Africa. A significant phenotypical marker of such would be "hair form"--of which the African variety seems unique to Africa--coupled with a pigmentation range from very dark(Sudan) to yellow(some of the populations of North and Southern Africa).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Neth-Athena wrote:
quote:...the history of migrations and colonization that brought Eurasians from the Neolithic to the present time into North Africa
Could you possibly elaborate on this--bearing in mind the specific meaning of the term "Eurasian"? Maybe we can also learn--in terms of numbers--the significance of such migrations.
Re What to call the people of Africa
Why not be economical and consistent in the whole matter. For example, South Asians and East Asians differ significantly in terms of phenotype yet when described colour terms and eye shape terms are never brought up. Why not just speak in terms of regions--when it comes to Africa--West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa and North Africa. Talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa is sheer racism--because as you wrote it is just euphemistic racist code for all the world's ills--maximally exaggerated for racist effect.
But to be more accurate one can use the same techniques as animal and plan biologists: an African would simply be a member of the human species whose phenotype offers evidence of being shaped by the environments of Africa. A significant phenotypical marker of such would be "hair form"--of which the African variety seems unique to Africa--coupled with a pigmentation range from very dark(Sudan) to yellow(some of the populations of North and Southern Africa).
I am no expert but from what I have understood by browsing through this forum during the Neolithic Sea Peoples went to the African coast and mixed with the local (Black - should go sans saying) population. Am I wrong? If so, please correct me.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movement of peoples throughout the world within the time periods that it takes for new genomic muatations to arise has been traced by the signatures left by haplotypes. In the case there is little evidence that Eurasian or West Asian haplotypes entered North Africa in any significant way before 1000 BC. After 1,000 BC Persians, Greeks, Romans, Turks then assorted Europeans entered North Africa which did transform the genomic profile of that period. but nothing as far back as the Neolithic as you claim.
Check out the movements of R, I, J, and E3 hapotypes plus the Ls and U6 into North Africa over time to confirm or disconfirm my point.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This indigenous White Africa issue really belongs in a new thread or one of the nmerous old ancient "Libyan" or modern North Africa threads.
Creamy colored "Libyans" appear before 1000 BCE in 18th Dynasty tomb paintings. These paintings are roughly contemporaneous to Sea Peoples migrations thus whatever lightened this particular sub-population of ancient "Libyans" seemingly happened before the Sea Peoples advent.
Minoan art leads me to presuppose regular back and forth contact between Libya and the Aegean. But it was further west where the ancient "Libyan" Meshwesh (whose ethnonym ends in "esh" as did the ethnonyms of select Sea Peoples) lived.
Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Then there's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?
Population geneticist's reports oalone would have one conclude the lightening is a result of demic movements in wake of Islam. If the slave trade is what lightened coastal North Africa, that leaves us to surmise some genetic mutation as responsible for dynastic Egypt era "whites" in North Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Thenthere's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?...
LOL Takruri, what is it with you and ancient African men 'attaining' white women?? Are you fascinated by the prospec of "Jungle Fever"? LOLPosts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is it with you trivializing my take on how littoral North Africans' coffee got creamed? That's the issue here the seeming anomally of indigenous "white" Africans long before geneticists say any kind of white people got there in numbers enough to lighten up the original dark complexions. And unless extra-African males had a different temperment than they do today -- since North African language, custom, attire, etc., doesn't reflect much of anything non-African as extra-African dominant males would have imposed -- the overwhelmingly unbalanced bulk of the miscegenation was African males on extra-African females.
Nothing to do with this stupid pop culture concept Jungle Fever.
I never said squat about African men -- an indiscriminate all encompassing generality ensnaring the entire continents' male population -- attaining white women and I really don't appreciate you misrepresenting my proposal and twisting it into something I can't recognize as my authorship in the least.
My proposal is specific to a scenario on the Mediterranean coast of Africa and something those specific groups of men have been doing from the stone age to today whether as ancient "Libyans", Phoenician colonials, Greek colonials, Roman colonials, Byzantine colonials, Arab colonials, or as free men of whatever era of their history.
I'm sorry dawg but it nuh funny (though it was kinda "cutesy" the first time you said it many moons ago).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Thenthere's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?...
LOL Takruri, what is it with you and ancient African men 'attaining' white women?? Are you fascinated by the prospec of "Jungle Fever"? LOL
Why does the black side of the equation have to be the males? Why not white men and black women?
Posts: 7098 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Because of the simple fact that contemporary North Africans are overwhelmingly of indigenous African TMRCA PN2 lineages, which tells us that the original proto-Tamazight groups who migrated into coastal North Africa from the African interior, were dark skin people, and not pale skinned people. There is no such thing as indigenous tropical African white people.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ In other words, the male lineages are African whereas the female lineages are European.
Posts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol, How does your previous post that declares the following: Southern African San-speaking people are not tropically adapted, agree with the following extract?
Modern human, early modern human and Neanderthal limb proportions A.M.W. Porter * Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey, UK
*Correspondence to A.M.W. Porter, Redcrest, Heath Rise, Camberley, Surrey GU15 2ER, UK
Keywords limb abbreviation; brachial index; crural index; thermoregulation; Neanderthal; humans; early modern humans
posted
^What page number is this in the cited link, that details what is involved here. For instance, what is the "Upper portion" supposed to mean here?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, they are referring to the "upper portion of the temperate range of variation". Now, it makes relatively more sense, in terms of how it is supposed to be relevant with respect to what Africa highlighted in his citation. That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum, where body sizes and body plans are concerned. But then again, your post was not meant to address this.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Rasol, we all here to learn, I have the following question: on page 448, in the Table 19.2 Brachial and Crural Indices are shown for populations living in different climates...How can we interpret that table with respect to Koisan speaking people? Is the Brachial Index more important than the Crural Index in bio-anthropology?
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum,
Tropical African continuum is a buzzword, not a morphology.
You can say that Greeks and Swedes and Chinese are a part of the "tropical African continuum" if you like.
Why not -> Greeks have olive skin tones, and sickle cell, Swedes have intermediate limb ratios, [in between eskimo and africans] Chinese have San-like Eyefolds.
You are still trying to turn a morphology into and ethnicity, which then forces you to *fake* the definition of the morphology. [
SA KhoiSan migrated outside the tropics thousands of years ago, and their morphology reflects that reality.
Calling them tropical *anyway* contradicts this reality for political purposes, which makes it a fake - wished-for-ethnicity, posing as a morphology.
I've already explained why this is a complete waste of time.
But, it's your time to waste, so....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right let's got back to facts...Please check the page I mentioned and please give it a scientific answer...unlike other posters I just care about science not about semantic...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
So Khoisan people are NOT tropically-adapted? I would think that, since the portion of southern Africa currently occupied by these people has a subtropical climate like Egypt and the northern Sahara (as opposed to truly temperate like the northern USA), that they would retain tropical limb proportions.
Rather strange that Ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios, but not Khoisan, considering that they live at similar distances from the Equator.
Posts: 7098 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather strange that Ancient Egyptians had tropical limb ratios, but not Khoisan, considering that they live at similar distances from the Equator.
It's not strange at all. Some choose to not understand the geography of Africa, the climate or the history of it's population origins and movements.
Now, I've already answered the questions about the origins of Southern Africans as pertains to climate in this thread.
Go back and read earlier posts.
I refuse to repeat the same basic facts over and over again for lazy people who won't read. Laziness and ignoring what was already said is the ultimate form of rudeness in civil discourse.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Try claiming Israel as a part of the Arab world... and see how far you get, before you are "corrected" by the United States Military among others.
LOL! True. Not to mention the first doing the correction would the Israel themselves. LOL! Also aren't half of the Jews living in Israel today post WWII European and American Jews?
Posts: 53 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That side, I don't see anything that particularly stands out in the Khoisan body build from that contained in the tropical African continuum,
Tropical African continuum is a buzzword, not a morphology.
Tropical African is a bio-anthropological term for Africans who are indigenous to the tropics.
quote:rasol:
You can say that Greeks and Swedes and Chinese are a part of the "tropical African continuum" if you like.
These people have non-African TMRCAs and have developed traits that are not necessarily a product of the tropical environment. And so, it is not the question of one picking and choosing, but more to the point of what is scientifically valid to say so.
quote:rasol:
Why not -> Greeks have olive skin tones, and sickle cell, Swedes have intermediate limb ratios, [in between eskimo and africans] Chinese have San-like Eyefolds.
Just told you why, like a dozen times now.
quote:rasol:
You are still trying to turn a morphology into and ethnicity, which then forces you to *fake* the definition of the morphology.
For the nth time, 'tropical African' is reference to biological continuum of Africans. You proclaimed to have read Keita's work, and yet, it seems that you still cannot comprehend this concept. You've charged me with trying to make a bio-anthropological term into an ethnic term several times now without success, because each time you've done it, you were asked to produce the citation. I'd ask you to do so again, but I know, it won't be done...because it is plainly a lie.
quote:rasol:
SA KhoiSan migrated outside the tropics thousands of years ago, and their morphology reflects that reality.
Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan body plan and size that is supposed to stand out from the tropical African range.
quote:rasol:
Calling them tropical *anyway* contradicts this reality for political purposes, which makes it a fake - wished-for-ethnicity, posing as a morphology.
I gave you several biological points, which you have still to address. Instead, you simply don't respond, because somehow you feel that it allows you to make empty claims like this.
quote:rasol:
I've already explained why this is a complete waste of time.
But, it's your time to waste, so...
My time is well spent,....demonstrating that you are trying to make something out of nothing, about Khoisans being "not tropically adapted".
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan body plan and size that is supposed to stand out from the tropical African range.
quote:From rasol's original post Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Quite plainly, the above says that the limb ratio data clearly show that Khoisan, as long-time residents of the subtropics, have limb ratios typical of temperate, not tropical, propulations, unlike tropical Africans. All you're doing is challenging to prove a statement when he already gave you the proof.
Well then, it shouldn't be as hard as it seems for more than several posts now, to demonstrate what it is about the Khoisan **body plan** and **size** that is **supposed to stand out from the tropical African range**.
quote:From rasol's original post
Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Quite plainly, the above says that the limb ratio data clearly show that Khoisan, as long-time residents of the subtropics, have limb ratios typical of temperate, not tropical, propulations, unlike tropical Africans.
Quite plainly, the link shows only populations living in the temperate latitudes, and quite plainly, the link also specifically says this:
Interestingly, the Khoisan brachial indices are not positioned in the upper portion of the temperate range of variation but seem to follow the temperate regression line quite closely.
^and now compare that with what rasol is cited on:
Intererstingly the Khoisan brachial indices are *not* positioned in the Upper portion but seem to follow the -temperate- line quite closely.
Since you've plainly read the link by yourself, and not just taking in stuff like a programmed robot, please tell me specifically what this link says about the specific contemporary tropical Africans studied and compared with the Khoisans, and how the Khoisan limb ratios are supposedly unique from the values in the African tropics. Thanks.
quote:tyranno: All you're doing is challenging to prove a statement when he already gave you the proof.
And all you're doing, is not making sense, and not being able to read in the first place.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thanks Rasol, we all here to learn, I have the following question: on page 448, in the Table 19.2 Brachial and Crural Indices are shown for populations living in different climates...How can we interpret that table with respect to Koisan speaking people? Is the Brachial Index more important than the Crural Index in bio-anthropology?
Please Rasol, I would like to have an answer regarding the above comment.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol, I'm seriously interested to know your opinion on the questions I posted earlier...I hope you have enough time to answer...
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea of how to gauge the relative 'importance of Brachial index, vs. Crual Index, vs Nasal Index, vs any other kind of index in bioanthopology.
Nor do I know of anywhere to find a list telling us why one should be more important than the other.
Important how? Why? To whom?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently Crural Index is as important as Brachial Index in anthropology in the study of human skelettons and the following data included in this message indicated that Khoisan speaking crural index is more similar to Europeans rather than to other Africans, we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
The body form is measured by numerous indices such as the crural and brachial indices which are measurments of the limb lengths. The crural and brachial index quantizes Allen's rule. The crural index is defined as "the length of the tibia/ the length of the femur". One can multipy by 100 if he wants but it doesn't matter. Bergman's rule is measured by the robusticity of the bones. This is because a being with greater body mass needs more robust bones to support the extra weight. So, when looking for differences between modern and Neanderthal we need to look at these types of measures.
Here is how these rules apply to the Lagar Velho child. When we examine various populations, fossil and modern, we find a range of values for the brachial, crural and robusticity indices. Unfortunately the Lagar Velho child's radius is incomplete so the brachial index can't be studied. Here is the data presented by Stringer and Gamble (once again I want to use STringer's data so that the skeptic's data is in play). This data is taken from a chart on page 92 of Stringer and Gamble.
crural index Tibia/Femur length modern peoples 79% in Lapps 86% in Black African groups crural Mean annual temp C index Lapps 79% .25 modern Inuit 81.5% 4 average Neanderthal 79% Belgium 82.5 10 S.African white 83.2 8.5 Yugoslav 83.75 8.4 American white 82.6 9.8 Kalahari Bushman83.4 18 New Mexico Indian 84.6 14 S.African black 86.4 17 Arizona Indian 85.5 18 Melanesian 84.8 23 Pygmy 85.1 24.2
Egyptian 84.9 26.1 American Black 85.25 26 ~ Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.92
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is. P.S.:It's clear that the height is not an issue in measure the adaption to subtropical climate as someone suggested in an early post...Body form is
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Apparently Crural Index is as important as Brachial Index in anthropology in the study of human skelettons and the following data included in this message indicated that Khoisan speaking crural index is more similar to Europeans rather than to other Africans, we can conclude that based on crural and brachial indices, Khoisan speaking people are not tropically adapted:
According what source, and according what study gauging the full range of measurements across Saharo-tropical Africa, supra-troprical and sub-tropical Africa, because it ain't certainly based on what you just posted:
The body form is measured by numerous indices such as the crural and brachial indices which are measurments of the limb lengths. The crural and brachial index quantizes Allen's rule. The crural index is defined as "the length of the tibia/ the length of the femur". One can multipy by 100 if he wants but it doesn't matter. Bergman's rule is measured by the robusticity of the bones. This is because a being with greater body mass needs more robust bones to support the extra weight. So, when looking for differences between modern and Neanderthal we need to look at these types of measures.
Here is how these rules apply to the Lagar Velho child. When we examine various populations, fossil and modern, we find a range of values for the brachial, crural and robusticity indices. Unfortunately the Lagar Velho child's radius is incomplete so the brachial index can't be studied. Here is the data presented by Stringer and Gamble (once again I want to use STringer's data so that the skeptic's data is in play). This data is taken from a chart on page 92 of Stringer and Gamble.
crural index Tibia/Femur length modern peoples 79% in Lapps 86% in Black African groups crural Mean annual temp C index Lapps 79% .25 modern Inuit 81.5% 4 average Neanderthal 79% Belgium 82.5 10 S.African white 83.2 8.5 Yugoslav 83.75 8.4 American white 82.6 9.8 Kalahari Bushman83.4 18 New Mexico Indian 84.6 14 S.African black 86.4 17 Arizona Indian 85.5 18 Melanesian 84.8 23 Pygmy 85.1 24.2
Egyptian 84.9 26.1 American Black 85.25 26 ~ Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p.92
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is.
^Also, where is the link to this source, detailing the methods and subjects of the samples, and the areas studied?
In the meantime, here are some outstanding questions you chose to dodge:
*In the Hiernaux piece, the Khoisans are noted for relative prevalence of steatopygia. Do you think that this is a sub-tropically adapted trait?
*What can tell us about the environment to which Khoisan peppercorn hair is an adaptive response to?
*Is the Khoisan dark skin a remnant feature of their tropical African origin, or is it adaptation of the sub-tropics? If so, citations backed with links, and according to what set of unique determining lineages that are known to be only in subtropical regions?
*While you are at it, can you tell us about Khoisan lineages, how they don't seem to be typical of those that originate and directly descend from tropical Africa? In other words, new sets of distinctive phylogenetic lines delineated from preexisting tropical African macro-haplogroups like say Hg A, Hg B, Hg E and so forth.
Shoot for answers...and good luck.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
One sees at once that the subtropical peoples have a higher crural index than those living in cold climates. This amazingly even applies to the pygmies. Shortness is not at issue here. Body form is.[/i] P.S.:It's clear that the height is not an issue in measure the adaption to subtropical climate as someone suggested in an early post...Body form is...
This is also misleading, because as one can clearly see, the so-called "super-tropical body plan", as in the slender build type, clearly height is a discernable trend, where slenderness usually goes hand in hand with increase in height. Even your own source, which you refuse to link to for obvious reasons, as you do with all your almost exclusively plagiarized documentations, notes this:
What is meant by this is that in hot countries there is a selective pressure in favor of body shapes that allow heat to be removed. The classic heat tolerant body form is that of the Watusi, a tall skinny people. Such body forms have a high surface area/body mass ratio.
...and the piece goes onto say:
Contrary to the anatomically modern peoples, Neanderthals were short and squat. This is widely beleived to have been due to the millennia of living in cold,glaciate Europe Neanderthals were also hyper robust. This means that their bones were exceptionally thick compared with anatomically modern peoples. I want to use Stringer's words to illustrate what I think is a bit of a double standard in anthropology.
And this...
Bergman's rule is that body weights of an animals will tend to be greater in colder climates. And Allen's rule is that their limb proportions will be shorter. These rules have a wide application across many species. Thus Stringer accepts the climate-induced selection pressure that created the Neanderthal physique. How do we measure body form?
*Africa, do you imagine that shorter limb proportions translate into tall people?
*If Khoisans aren't tropically adapted to any extent, then why the traits I mentioned earlier in the questions, that you simply refuse to answer for obvious reasons?
*Your citation speaks of "Black African groups", and then points out 'pygmy' and 'Kalahari Bushman" separately, along with Egyptians; do we have to then take this to mean, that these folks are supposed to be not 'black'?
*What are we told about the full range of crural and brachial indices studied across Saharo-tropical Africa?
Please get back to us on the answers to these, and then, there will be questions awaiting you.
And oh, almost forgot to post the link that Africa refused to post, for his source:
posted
^ I understand what Mystery said, but I don't understand you, AFRICA.
Posts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: the overwhelmingly unbalanced bulk of the miscegenation was African males on extra-African females.
Nothing to do with this stupid pop culture concept Jungle Fever.
I think someone didn't get the genious put into prior alTakruri jokes aimed at trolls, which was basically messing with thier heads about the oh-so-dreaded
threat of mescegination with the black males lol.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So where is the threat of miscegenation with the black female?
Posts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Mauritania is not a black African country. It's an African country. It's social hierarchy is one of Yemini Arab invention but there on the spot in Africa.
Hassaniya the language of Mauritania is a dialect of Yemini Arabic used by the Banu Hassan who conquered the land. It's infused with Zenaga Tamazight and is unintelligible to Yemini Arabs back in Yemen.
Let's be serious. The definition of "black Africa" makes the term no more than an euphemism for "negro Africa" It's a word to divide Africa into colour and culture dichotomies.
Like Hamite black Africa(n) is a term to be jettisoned from the vocabulary of progressive Africana students and scholars, In my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The word 'Moor' is derived from the Greek word Maure meaning black. Hence it is the root word for the name of the modern country of Mauritania, which is a black African country. Moor was used by the Spanish and other Europeans during Medieval times to describe the black North African Muslims. The lighter skinned Berber and Arabs were called Saracen. Moor was eventually adopted by many North Africans regardless of color due to the prestige it carried due to powerful Moorish dynasties such as the Almoravids.
This issue was discussed all too many times before. I suggest you look in the archives.
Well said - then. I suppose instigating makes one potentially look brighter. Why bother? Once a smart one always a smart one =unless one takes to playing the part of the diseased skeptic.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Maahes, skeptic, does not describe him. Some people just like to put things in perspective ... when it comes to certain things they notice... and don't like.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct. Takruri's point is that the indigenous peoples of Africa are black but the indigenous people of Europe are white. So why is there a 'black Africa' but not a 'white Europe'??
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and for Africa to be color labeled and not Europe or Asia is a sign of racial bias indeed.
Posts: 26318 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup, indeed it is bad that black in Africa being turned into something limited to you-know-where (sub-sahara).
That's like if the same marginalization were to happen to Europeans, especially Rome or Greece.
So many things could be flipped around, lol.
Example:
"Those weren't Grecians, those were white Grecians; they weren't true Grecians."
or
"Everyone knows greeks weren't pure white Europeans, but were South European Negrids and Mediterranean Negroes, though no doubt there was some white presence."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic