posted
''The Hamites were a myth... Likewise the then fashionable term Hamito-Samitic for major languages in Northern and North Eastern Africa should be dropped as misleading. For these languages Greenberg coined a new term, Afroasiatic; and this has since come into general acceptance... Yet Afroasiatic can also be misleading... for the asiatic element in Greenbergs classification applies only to one of the five major groupings in this linguistic family, that of Arabic which became current in the north-eastern Africa only after the middle of the seventh century. The other four linguistic elements in Afroasiatic , are Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic in its five deritive variants, and Chadian; all of them, as you see, thoroughly African.''
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise the then fashionable term Hamito-Samitic for major languages in Northern and North Eastern Africa should be dropped as misleading
Hamite has been dropped, and is no longer a part of current linguistic or anthropological classification.
quote:Afroasiatic can also be misleading...
Agreed, Christopher Ehret has tried one approach of calling the language Afrisan, as he is trying to remove the term "Asia" from a language group that consists of African familes only.
Wally, a former discussant on Egyptsearch, makes the argument that only Hebrew and Arabic of the major languges of this family, actually fit the definition of Afro-Asiatic.
The others, including Berber, are African languages - period.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "If a gene predates the emergence of and ethnic group then it is wrong to label it with the groups name."
^ defines one part of the -many- errors associated with the term "Caucasian", in anthropology.
True indeed, in the past we discussed this with Dumb Euro.
^ he, or Dienekes would say - it's not an ethnic group, it's a race.
Which leads right back to....
"It is always important to be wary of the traps of circular reasoning."
^ both those fools could be educated by the above article, but closed minds, driven by ethno centric agenda are not receptive to education.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
"Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by nonlinguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995)...There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis...Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."
According to the work of Sforza, Green = "Caucasoid territory".
"Other studies that do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)" - Keita
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the extract above, was Angel speaking of Mechta-Afalou proto-Moors and proto-Berbers, or is it a matter of the resolution of the copy of the pages shown, and rather, that it should have read: Mechta-Afalou, proto-Moors and proto-Berbers?
I've already spoken to the shaky premises of "Mechta-Afalou" representing a type, and the discredited idea that these were the ancestors of contemporary Berber groups of coastal North Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: echoing the now *defunct* Hamitic hypothesis..."
quote:Echo - To repeat or imitate
^ Per your own citation, echo does not negate the fact that Hamitic hypothesis is now defunct - - which means no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning.
If echo meant, not defunct, then the sentense you cited would be self-contradictory.
You can't show that Hamitic hypothesis is *not* defunct, by citing Keita as saying that it is.
lol.
I doubt you can grasp that, though, base upon your history of disastrous reading comprehension error.
quote:childishly silly editing skills always ends up exposing your agenda.
^ Unlike the relationship between echo, and defunct, your lack of reading comprehension *does negate* your agenda.
And in a most devastating fashion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
Totally agree. People need to be very careful with the studies they align themselves with, some of these studies are just rebranding old racial stereotypes in the hope of seperating Africa for its Nile valley civilisations of antiquity. By quoting from these racially motivated exercises (which for some reason always seem to have extensive coverage of 'North Africa and the Nile Valley') they are perpetuating and falling into the lie of these false classifications. Just because they have exchanged the term 'Hamitic' for 'Afroasiatic' it doesn't mean there has been a shift of paradigm. The Nile Valley civilisation spanned from north, to central, to sub saharan Africa, at no point did the Nile impose a physical barrier of restraint. Its the same reason I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa. It seems that every African culture that expanded into Asia is then classified to be of Asian origin. Political correctness of the new terminologies has done nothing to erase the racist views of the old.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: By quoting from these racially motivated exercises
^ Like Keita. You have to develop a more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data, beyond choosing to quote or not quote whomever you think might be racist.
-> Keita uses Howells notoriously biased database of crania in his studies, although Howells branded African crania as -non African-, out of racial bias.
-> Keita is a -student- of Larry Angel, and sites Angel as documenting that Europeans are mixed with Blacks from Africa.... Angel uses racial terminology in his description and racial conceptions in his methods. But Keita dismisses this as irrelevant to the underlying facts that Angel was able to shed light on.
-> Virtually *all* of th older European Egyptologist of note were racist, because racism was endemic to Europe's culture.
If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.
This includes Budge, and Champollian [who deciphered the Rossetta Sonte] who are nonetheless cited by Diop as evidence that Egypt was a Black African civilisation.
And frankly, if you literally want to dismiss racially -motivated- work, then you would have to directly reject Diop, who was strong proponent of 'race'.
Keita correctly cites Sforza's Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race - even as he critiques the errors of Sforza [a non linguist] with regards to his support of the Nostratic hypothesis which tries to assign Afro Asiatic to caucasoids.
He places information into context, as a thinking person must, rather than catagorize scholars as *good* or *evil* as unthinking people lazily do, because it's a substitute for doing the hard work of assessing data.
[ever actually read Sforza's work, as Keita has??]
Keita cites Greenberg - who is the key scholar whose work led to the demise of the Hamite myth in linguistics.....
But Greenberg was also a supporter of the Nostratic hypothesis, which ultimately attempts to figure out a way in which European language/family can be the basis of other languages, and therefor escape from the current predicament of the Afro-Semitic basis of European literacy.
Context is difficult.
Someone like Akoben both lacks the intelligence to place information in context, and the integrity to even attempt to do so.
His sole concern for 'attacking' Sforza is to deny that Europeans are mixed.
^ This is the actual argument he is making, and his comments should be placed in that context, all strawmen and red herrings from him, that seek to distract from this argument should be so dismissed.
Ironically, that Europeans are mixed is something that Sforza, and Keita, and Larry Angel and most other scholars, all agree on.
From Keita: "I was a student of Professor Angel. Angel found evidence for a "Black", [if exits] genetic influence in Neolithic Europe, racialist models which deny overlapping genepools are clearly negated by Angel's work."
Their basic premise, is that anything that is not germane to an argument, cannot be used to either support it, or refute it.
* person makes claim X. * person also says Y. * Y is therefore false.
^ Fallacy.
Logical fallacy is the rule rather than the exception on the internet, because such fallacies exploit the sloppiness and intellectual laziness that is characteristic of troll infested "discussion" forums.
The favorite error of lazy trolls is the strawman argument, which is all the person you just "agreed" with ever does.
Do you know what a strawman argument is.....
* Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. *
^ Strawmen arguments work on people who do not bother to place information in proper context, which also requires some effort and intelligence.
At it's best, ES tries to elevate discussion to a higher level than that.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously. Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction. For the large part he relied on his own research and statements refuted/ignored by the Egyptological community to prove Egypt's African origin. My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence. You are correct, in your 'eat the meat, spit out the bones' argument that you present. In another thread I have referenced Gadallah who makes some flimsy and easily refutable arguments (regarding the 'Hamite' race, but this does not negate his excellent research regarding the African Migrations: off topic) But, just how 'boney' does a piece of research have to be before you dismiss it as a nonsense?
On a side note, I have noticed you have indulged a couple of strawman arguments yourself re: 'diop mistakes'. And the fact that I agree with a statement posted by akoben does not mean I disagree with the premise of the thread, hence your indulging in telling me I shouldn't do this could be classified as a strawman argument, no? Because you're making an assumption that this single note of support refutes the entire thread, and it doesn't. I have no interest in taking sides, just call it how I see it. Thanks for the heads up though, I always appreciate when people take the time to reply at length to anything I post.
On a side note, my issue with the Sforza study is because of their racist origin, it is so easy to bias the results of a genetic argument. You can bias a sample, bias the strands that you use for comparison. I saw Keita's study being misquoted to argue that the Moor's were solely Berbers and their was no black African presence in mainland Europe! If you use a biased study as a basis, then your interpretation of the results will ultimately be false. I don't want to be viewed as a troll, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again for your reply...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
Totally agree. People need to be very careful with the studies they align themselves with, some of these studies are just rebranding old racial stereotypes in the hope of seperating Africa for its Nile valley civilisations of antiquity. By quoting from these racially motivated exercises (which for some reason always seem to have extensive coverage of 'North Africa and the Nile Valley') they are perpetuating and falling into the lie of these false classifications. Just because they have exchanged the term 'Hamitic' for 'Afroasiatic' it doesn't mean there has been a shift of paradigm. The Nile Valley civilisation spanned from north, to central, to sub saharan Africa, at no point did the Nile impose a physical barrier of restraint. Its the same reason I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa. It seems that every African culture that expanded into Asia is then classified to be of Asian origin. Political correctness of the new terminologies has done nothing to erase the racist views of the old.
posted
LMAO @ rasol trying to school others on more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data!
Citing studies willy nilly and having the intelligence to comprehend what they are really saying are two different things. Unlike you, Keita does not widely quote and blindly support Sforza's bizarre claims. Yes Keita correctly cites Sforza's (I thought you insisted it was Bowcock? ) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples.
But does he agree that racial divergence occurred between the Asian and African as implied by them? Does he agree with their continental tree branching and clustering? Does he agree with their sampling methods that "do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)"? Does he agree that North Africans are genetically Caucasoid? That pretty much sums up most of Sforza's lifes work.
Yes rasol, scholarship requires context which is why you are just a faux keyboard scholar.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously. Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction. For the large part he relied on his own research and statements refuted/ignored by the Egyptological community to prove Egypt's African origin. My stance is that people approaching Egyptology objectively need to carry out their own research, or let the research of more objective Egyptologists take precedence. You are correct, in your 'eat the meat, spit out the bones' argument that you present. In another thread I have referenced Gadallah who makes some flimsy and easily refutable arguments (regarding the 'Hamite' race, but this does not negate his excellent research regarding the African Migrations: off topic) But, just how 'boney' does a piece of research have to be before you dismiss it as a nonsense?
On a side note, I have noticed you have indulged a couple of strawman arguments yourself re: 'diop mistakes'. And the fact that I agree with a statement posted by akoben does not mean I disagree with the premise of the thread, hence your indulging in telling me I shouldn't do this could be classified as a strawman argument, no? Because you're making an assumption that this single note of support refutes the entire thread, and it doesn't. I have no interest in taking sides, just call it how I see it. Thanks for the heads up though, I always appreciate when people take the time to reply at length to anything I post.
On a side note, my issue with the Sforza study is because of their racist origin, it is so easy to bias the results of a genetic argument. You can bias a sample, bias the strands that you use for comparison. I saw Keita's study being misquoted to argue that the Moor's were solely Berbers and their was no black African presence in mainland Europe! If you use a biased study as a basis, then your interpretation of the results will ultimately be false. I don't want to be viewed as a troll, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks again for your reply...
In defense of Cavalli-Sforza I don't think he was being racist at all, but what he did do is conduct his studies in such a way so as to gain the desired results and Keita addresses this as well as another author who critiqued his study:
Current Anthropology Volume 41, Number 3, June 2000
Pygmies, Khoisan, and Caucasian connections. The high-level cluster of sub-Saharan African populations contains 33 of the 49 populations of the phylogenetic tree. It is a considerably more diverse grouping than the Saharan/Northern African, with multiple subclusters at different fissioning points. The most famous "outlier" populations of traditional African ethnography are of course Pygmy and Khoisan-speaking groups, which are to varying degrees physically distinct from their African neighbors and also to varying degrees participate in foraging economies. These latter are frequently seen by Westerners as archaic, and Pygmy and Khoisan populations have often been identified as unchanged relics of earlier ages (e.g., Thomas 1959:68; Turnbull 1983:1113, 15758). Pygmy (Mbuti and Biaka) and "Pygmoid" populations are found at various points on Cavalli-Sforza et al.'s phylogenetic tree as outliers and with other groups. As Froment (1998) points out, this separation of Pygmy and other African populations is extremely imprecise; it depends to a great extent upon linguistic criteria, ignores the numerous transitional populations (not only those denominated as "Pygmoid"), and systematically discounts the fact that we know very little about the historical and physical relations between these groups over any significant period of time.
Similarly, Khoi and San populations cluster with a Somali sample (which itself is held to be out of place, given that Somali groups geographically sit within the Northern African range), while Sandawe clusters with populations from Senegambia and Hadza is an outlier between the two. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:16970, 17477, 18993) posit that especially San populations are the result of admixture between "Caucasoid" groups originating in Southwest Asia and African "Negroid" groups. This is supposed to be a different process of interaction across the Red Sea from the one that yielded the distinctive genetic and physical characteristics of Ethiopian populations; indeed, the San and Ethiopian peoples are held to be "similar to Caucasoids but ... otherwise very different [from one another]" ( p. 191). The historical mechanismsand even the demographic meaning of such multiple similarities are left unspecified. This is unfortunate, given that hypotheses of immigration into Africa by (often "Hamitic") "Caucasoids" have bedeviled African history and archaeology for much of the past century, often being advanced to explain away African cultural innovations and based on very unsatisfactory evidence. One would have hoped that consciousness of this situation would have led the authors of The History and Geography of Human Genes to substantiate this hypothesis in detail.
The nongenetic evidence marshaled in support of the hypothesis of relations between San groups and populations in the Near East is extremely weak. A putative "Asian" genetic contribution to forager groups in Ethiopia (Nijenhuis and Hendrikse 1986) is discussed only with reference to "Pygmoid" populations, although Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:174) imply that these groups are related to the San. They claim ( pp. 160, 176) that skeletal material "credibly identified as San" has been found in various parts of North and East Africa, including northern Egypt, but note only parenthetically that this assertion in Nurse, Weiner, and Jenkins (1984) is based upon a 30-year-old paper by Philip Tobias (1968 [1964]). The Tobias paper does not in fact seem to make that claim, and it is in any case disputed by more recent researchers on the basis of the characteristics of the material involved, the very fragmentary state of the collections, and known problems with the accumulation of Khoi and San skeletal reference collections (Froment 1998; Morris 1986, 1987; Rightmire 1975; 1984:19398; Schepartz 1988). In fact, the identification of this skeletal material from northeastern Africa as related to San skeletal material from southern Africa is very doubtful; the material indicates that ancient populations in the area were most closely affiliated with the present-day inhabitants.
The only widely accepted evidence of ancient Khoisan populations in East Africa is the ascription of the Sandawe and Hadza languages to the Khoisan phylum (with even less well-attested traces of Khoisan contacts in Dahalo and Yaaku [Ehret 1974:11, 88]). However, the Khoisan affiliations of Sandawe and/or Hadza are still disputed by some linguists, and in any case the available genetic data do not indicate a close relationship between Sandawe and Hadza people, on the one hand, and San and Somali people, on the other. The paradox is obvious: Sandawe and Hadza provide the only firm link between San populations and northeastern Africa (a linguistic one), but according to the genetic data that provide the basis for The History and Geography of Human Genes they are more closely related to West and Central African groups (fig. 2). There seems to be no a priori reason to associate Khoisan-speaking populations with Southwest Asia on the basis of San genetic data and not to associate Khoisan-speaking populations with Senegambia on the basis of Sandawe genetic data, but this is just what Cavalli-Sforza et al. do. It is also, of course, possible that either or both associations are spurious, especially given the small size of some of these forager groups and the attendant possibility of genetic drift....
The distinction between Saharan/Northern African populations and peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa is explained by the varying contribution of genes from "Caucasoid" populations in Europe and Southwest Asia to the former. This is very likely a contributing factor, given the archaeological and historical evidence of such population interactions around the Mediterranean. It is also quite likely that clines in gene frequencies across the Sahara are in part the result of natural selection operating upon characteristics that are not adaptively neutral in the very different environments through this region. There is a significant amount of evidence for both climatic and latitudinal effects upon different gene frequencies (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:143; Mastana, Constans, and Papiha 1996; O'Rourke, Suarez, and Crouse 1985; Spitsyn et al. 1998). The greater instability of Saharan environments through time probably offered less scope for such in situ adaptation than is the case among, for example, the Nile Valley populations examined by Brace et al. (1996).
Saharan and Sahelian groups (various Berber- and Arabic-speaking populations, including Tuareg and groups subordinated to them, such as the Bella and the Haratine and Saharan-speakers such as the Chaamba, Reguibat, Teda, and Kanembu) are not covered in detail in the work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:173), although investigations of biological variation among those populations have indicated that their anthropometric and genetic affiliations are very diverse and complex (Froment 1999). This lack of data on intermediate groups may make human physical and genetic distinctions across the Sahara appear more clear-cut than they are. The status of these populations is particularly important given that climatic change rendered significant parts of the Sahara passable (and in some cases habitable) through periods in the Holocene at least, with the result that there is abundant evidence of more extensive human contacts across the desert than have existed in historic times. Sutton (1974) and Ehret (1993) have suggested that the Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic tradition was largely the province of Nilo-Saharan-speakers. Populations speaking those languages do not, however, occupy an intermediate position between North African and sub-Saharan African populations, suggesting that either the correlations between archaeology and linguistics or those between genetics and linguistics or both are erroneous.
While Cavalli-Sforza et al. emphasize the contribution of immigrant genes to the modern genetic makeup of Saharan/Northern African populations, they do not really consider the possibility of an African genetic contribution to either Europe or the Near East. It thus appears that Africa accepts genetic contributions from other areas but does not reciprocate them. A principal-component map of 42 world populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994:82) indicates a somewhat more complex picture, with a succession of Basques, Sardinians, Near Eastern populations, and Berbers occupying a space intermediate between African and European populations, although certainly arrayed closer to European groups. This assumption is also at variance with the known history of the region, where we see evidence for two-way relations throughout the Holocene, especially via Southwest Asia and the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. People from North, Saharan, and sub-Saharan Africa have crossed the Mediterranean as settlers, conquerors, and slaves through recorded history just as have Europeans. In recent times such population flows may have tended to be from north to south, but it should not be assumed that this has always been the case. Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: LMAO @ rasol trying to school others on more sophisticated approach to the gathering of data!
Citing studies willy nilly and having the intelligence to comprehend what they are really saying are two different things. Unlike you, Keita does not widely quote and blindly support Sforza's bizarre claims. Yes Keita correctly cites Sforza's (I thought you insisted it was Bowcock? ) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples.
But does he agree that racial divergence occurred between the Asian and African as implied by them? Does he agree with their continental tree branching and clustering? Does he agree with their sampling methods that "do not use racial terminology (but usually use the same groups, because the underlying thinking is the same)"? Does he agree that North Africans are genetically Caucasoid? That pretty much sums up most of Sforza's lifes work.
Yes rasol, scholarship requires context which is why you are just a faux keyboard scholar.
Trolling deleted - Henu
Get the hell out of this thread with your jackass incessant trolling about something that was discussed in another thread, this thread isn't about Europeans being 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African so quit cyber stalking posters from the thread to thread baiting people and trolling destroying thread after good thread with good information. The mods need to step it up on this troll.
I've got this, just let me know instead of responding - Henu
quote:In defense of Cavalli-Sforza I don't think he was being racist at all,
Straw man arguement Charles.
We stress that racial thinking is not necessarily synonymous with racist thinking. The interest here is in the vestiges of typological or categorical thinking as applied to humans. - Keita
So the question really is, does Sforza's work reflect vestiges of typological or categorical thinking as applied to humans? Or as one observer puts it, "Basically, all his number-crunching has produced a map that looks about like what you'd get if you gave an unreconstructed Strom Thurmond a paper napkin and a box of crayons and had him draw a racial map of the world."
And if this thread isn't about Sforza why are you spamming in an obvious attempt at Sforza apologia Charles? Note also your spam above say about his "Berbers" "occupying a space intermediate between African and European populations, although certainly arrayed closer to European groups"
^ do you buy this?
And also note, it validates Keita's point re the absurdity of their continental tree branching and clustering. Give it up Charles. The man is Coonian. This is why you are upset.
posted
^ The moderator should ban jackass akoben if he wants to have a serious thread instead of a silly one.
Now...
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: You probably have a point with your logical fallacy statement. Perhaps I should clarify.
Indeed.
quote:''If you don't want to use the work of racist - you would have to dismiss virtually all of Egyptology.''
I agree, and I do (dismiss) to a large extent when it comes to hypothesisng the race of the Egyptians, as most Eurocentric research is usually a nonsense and should not be engaged seriously.
Diop, to a large degree used the study of racist Egyptologists to falsify and highlight contradiction.
^ No.
That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
Diop placed information into context.
This is different than trying to catagorize sources as
a) racist
b) non-racist
...and then trying to attack "racist authors", rather than deal with specific merits or demerits of an *argument.*
[this is the logical fallacy you are promoting, and which your reply does not really address]
This involves citing Egyptologists where he agreed with them, which needs no external rationale, and regardless of whether he disagreed with them on other points.
^ This is exactly what you oppose.
He cites the translations of Budge and Champollian the Younger, the reproductions of Kurt Sethe, and Richard Lepsius, and the anthropology of Fontanes, Amélineau, Chandler and others.
Diop even uses the works of Carleton Coon, and though -I disagree- with Diop's views here, he praises Coon's work wrongly, because at the time that he wrote the following Coon was a standard bearer of contemporary anthropology.
Coon's views did influence Diop's views, and in fact, they *both* advocated race.
What is ironic here, is that Diop is often subject to a broad brush attack, for promoting outdated ideas of race.
^ Broadbrush attacks are also useful to shallow trolls because they can never deal with specifics anyway, and will usually postulate cut and past attacks against scholars whom they never even bothered to read.... and wouldn't understand even if they had.
The method used here by Eurocentrists -> is the same method you advocate.
^ They take Diop out of context, and use his outdated views on race, as a strawman by which to attack all of his work.
So you can't claim that Diop never cited racialist Egyptologists, nor can you read Diop and be true to your own *tenant* to ignore the works of scholars who promote race.
Diop writes:
I am not an anthropologist, nor is the author, but I refer the reader to one of the best books on the subject of ancient Egypt: Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe (New York: Macmillan, 1939, pp. 91-98 & 458-462).
In it the racial components of Ancient Egypt are analyzed (Mediterraneans in the Preneolithic, Whites; Tasians on the Abyssinian plateau. Browns with Negroid tendency, Naq-ada, related but less Negroid; Mediterraneans of Lower Egypt, Whites; and from 3000 B.C. to the Ptolemaic epoch, the history of Egypt shows "the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt" (p. 96). The later invaders (Hyksos, peoples of the sea, Semites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks), all belong to white races, with the exception of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, of Nubian ancestry, as is known.
To be true to your own advise you need to -ignore- Coon *and* Diop.
quote:By quoting from these racially motivated exercises
^ Diop quoted from racially motivated sources, and was himself racially motivated.
The only contradiction is in your claim that did not, or was not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That isn't all he did so you are not being entirely honest.
He did not say all, he said to a large degree. It is you who is being dishonest, again. But Narmer will soon find you out as surely as I did.
But why are you building straws and trying to save face here too rasol? Is the issue really about who an author cites or whether or not their work can stand up to scrutiny? Sforza approvingly sites Dobzhansky. Go read what Keita has to say on this guy and you see his influence on Sforza and his "breeding populations".
Now since both authors, Diop and Sforza, cite works of racialists are they to be judged the same? Can the work of Sforza stand up to scrutiny as has Diop's, despite his "mistakes"?
Please rasol, stop clouding the issue to protect your white authors.
quote:he did not say all he said to a large degree
^ at issue is the original unqualified assertion, which was.....
quote: By quoting from these racially motivated exercises......
^ it is pointed out that such are in fact, often quoted, by Diop for example.
this leads to a qualifier being added...
quote:to a large degree
^ it is then shown that, that is *not all* he did, and not the only reason for citing 'racially motivated' scholars [to only contradict them].
therefore this fails to address the error in the original assertion, which is falsified by the examples provided, no matter that it was subsquently qualified. [aka backtracking]
And....
since you fail to address this this, your reply is just another strawman argument.
Which leads us to....
quote:Why are you building straws?
^ every post you ever write, such as the above, consists soley of strawman arguments, miscitations, and non sequiturs.
you really should leave this forum, so that others can have an intelligent conversation free of your trolling.
quote:Diop and Sforza, cite works of racialists are they to be judged the same?
^ As does Keita. They all do. Name the scholars of African history who never cite racialists?
You can't.
Because there are none.
And because - TROLLS NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS.
^ They just ignore questions, and keep trolling.
What a scholar, like Diop and Kieta does, is place information into context.
A troll is not inclined to.
Akoben = troll.
And this is why you can't learn and never have and will never contribute anything intelligible to this forum.
quote: stop clouding the issue to protect your white authors
^ Stop trolling the threads with your GARBAGE POSTs.
Don't litter
Insults deleted; Just ignore & report trolling. - Henu
quote:it is then shown that, that is *not all* he did
Obviously you don't know the difference between "all" and "to a large degree". Shame. This alone should convince Narmer that you are indeed the forum clown.
But look at yourself rasol. In your short exchanges with Narmer you already accused him of dishonesty and now want to bait him into a semantic argument.
Like I said, he will soon find you out. Yes trolls never answer questions which is why you have yet to say whether or not Diop and Sforza should be seen in the same light. Should a "scholar" who echoes the Hamitc myth be judged the same as the Pharaoh of African studies? Should a "scholar" who's sampling reflects the "true negro" criteria be judged the same as the Pharaoh of African studies?
The answer is obvious. Diop, no matter his "mistakes", is far more credible than Sforza. It hurts you, but its the truth.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But look at yourself rasolowitz. Blaming others for your lack of basic comprehension skills and uncritical love of Sforza.
No one here has said that Sforza's work is without problems. In fact rasol himself has described Sforza as "brilliant but biased", which is far from a sign of "uncritical love". Rather, we think some of his work has merit. That doesn't mean it is without flaws. Every scientist makes mistakes as well as valid contributions; the job of the scientist's critic is to distinguish the mistakes from the facts.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ of course, this is why information has to be placed in context.
this requires thinking, and requires that you address specifics which takes effort.
on Eurocentric forums Keita and Diop are both ridiculed as "Afrocentric", which is absurd, but it provides pseudos with a method of not actually addressing information that they don't like and can't refute.
that is why the approach of 'appeal to motive' is a form of logical fallacy, and not a legitimate critique of Keita, or Diop, or Sforza either.
Sforza was among the 1st to discover, contrary to his own prior beliefs, that Europeans did not model as a distinct 'race', but rather as hybrid of prior diverged Africans and Asians.
this is correct.
One can rant against this 'forever', but the ranting is completely irrelevant -> unless you can show that subsequent genetic study demonstrates that this is not the case.
trolls cannot show this. they can only commit elementary fallacies of logic, and hope for naive' audiences who don't know any better, and so credit them with something more fallacy/trolling.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Akoben, either discuss the actual topic of this thread or get the hell out!! Do not ruin another good thread with your donkey sh*t, keep that mess in their original threads!
Insults deleted - Henu
[ 03. January 2009, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Henu ]
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just got through reading the entire excerpt, and I absolutely agree. The paper is nothing more than a confirmation of what multidisciplinary research has been saying all along. You cannot concieve the biological status of early Afrasian speakers without first accepting the FACT of the great biological diversity of indigenous African populations in general! And of course a major part of this diversity are craniofacial features. This pretty much obliterates the faux racial notions of "caucasoid" or "caucasian", let alone the old 'Nostratic' origin theories of Afrasian.
Ironically while Western scholars in the past try to emphasize Eurasian influence in the African continent and specifically Afrasian origins, the opposite is actually the case and I feel not enough research is made to find out about these early African populations that migrated to Arabia and Southwest Asia!
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ give me a break. where did you delete other poster's insults and pictures? i maintain you should be banned for censorship and taking sides!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Indeed; I don't let you get away with your stupidity or lying. If and when the new poster does that, then he might start to sound like me to you.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I just don't know why some pretend "scholars" want to pretend as if the Hamite myth has been "dropped".
[i]"Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by nonlinguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995)
Great, you post fourteen year old studies trying to solidify scholars still using the Hamitic hypothesis? You're very clever.... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I gather that like you, she has to unnecessarily invoke me in conversations that have nothing to do with me, because she has the hots for me. She being female, that's understandable and I can take that, but you...quite a different story.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henu: I don't care about your opinion, akoben. Only how you present it.
thanks for deleting some of the offending posts.
suggest, don't allow the troll to cry crocodile tears on the forum.
they crave the attention of moderators, and invariably protest that the moderator is biased.
you are opening a can of worms for massive amount of whiny misbehavior, baiting you to act on it, and calling you biased if you do.
that's what trolls do next - it's in their limited handbook.
the most effective moderators delete offending posts without comment, and if it continues, ban the poster - again without comment, as this denies them the attn. they seek in the 1st place.
once you make an example of them, in this respect, it tends to have marked impact on the improve behavior in the forum in general. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who ever is banned it will not negate the fact that the Hamites were a myth and myth makers such as Sforza are merely "echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis". Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehret's spelling is Afrasan which to me still has too much Asia in it and why I proposed Afrisan as a spelling that injects more of the sound of AFRIca into the descriptor.
quote:The development of Afrisan
1530 - kinship noted between Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic 1702 - Ludolf notes affinity of Ethiosemitic with [the above listed] languages 1887 - Muller links Egyptian, Semitic, Berber, Cushitic, and Hausa 1963 - Greenberg introduces Afroasiatic to replace Hamito-Semitic name 1988 - Diakonoff coins Afrasian a short form for Afroasiatic 2002 - Ehret proposed Afrasan to take Asia out of superphylum's name
I use Afrisan to inject more of the sound of AFRIca into the name Outside of the far northeast tectonic extension of Africa now known as the Mid-East, this language family is spoken nowhere in Asia out side of religious introduction.
Agreed, Christopher Ehret has tried one approach of calling the language Afrisan, as he is trying to remove the term "Asia" from a language group that consists of African familes only.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take it Philips is the editor of a book containing the given passage from Keita? Also, can you please post the footnotes as the article is incomplete without them.
Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
S.O.Y. Keita Afro-Asiatic Speakers: An Exploration
taken from the book,
Writing African History By John Edward Philips Published by Boydell & Brewer, 2006
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you explain to me why if Ge'ez is indeed proto-Semitic that would preclude its birth and development in Africa?
It seems to me that if anything that if Ge'ez is proto-Semitic and Ethiopia has the greatest number of Semitic languages that the birth (Ge'ez) and the development (Ethiopia's plethora of Semitic languages) adds up to nothing else than Semitic being African.
Semitic is the name of a language family that does not likewise name a geographic region or area unlike say Niger-Congo which is not merely a name for a language family but a vast region encompassing a wide expanse of west and central Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: ... I started that Ge'ez thread that insists this ancient Ethiopic language is 'proto-Semitic' in spite of all the evidence suggesting it was birthed and developed in Africa.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) Nuclear DNA studies as contributing to the deconstruction of race by showing their "Caucasoid" sample as consisting of specific percentages of their Chinese and Pygmy samples. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
The moderator should ban jackass akoben if he wants to have a serious thread instead of a silly one.
Don't litter
Printer-friendly view of this topic