posted
Because SOME racialist groups and organizations insist on using those terms doesn't make it so.
It is simple logic. . .A sub-set of Africans CANNOT be non-African. Do you get it now!?
Europeans are simply a select group of depigmented Africans. Depigmentation taking place in the northern latitudes. They are adapted to live in that specific environment.
ALL genetic material(phenotype) Europeans are noted for is also found in Africans.
If you read enough you will know that. The Blonde hair, red hair, blue eyes and thin lips is African. eg , If your read enough you will know that the red hair of Neanderthals is found on a different gene locus compared to Europeans. For the idiots - this means Europeans did not get their red-hair from Neanderthals tsk! tsk! no matter how much your schizoid ass wants to believe it.
I will throw you a bone -(smile) - I do agree original humans may be similar in color to the San. see Mekova study on the UPenn website. her 20page dessertation.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is my last response. I have more important things to do.
Still don't get it. . .do you? One last time!!
What the below map shows is YES, their are holistic differences. It is called genetic drift or demic diffusion. Groups that live together for thousand of years WILL cluster together. . .FIRST. But ALL the genetic material and phenotype is found in Africa.
It is called selective sweep and/or purification. ie taking place in Europe. Now please go educate yourself before you think of discussing these issues with me.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ .
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
1. Were these terms(Caucasoid etc) used by the authors? 2. Are they, the authors, reputable? 3. The context these terms were used?
you are always caught lying and mis-quoting
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Caucasian Berber tribes? Still waiting for any one before the 16th century
It assumes there are Caucasians
and that some of them are in Berber tribes after the 16th cent
(however Kabyles with Vandal and other non-African influences to go back further than that)
Don't like the word "Caucasian" ? The argument proceeds replacing the term with "European" A things you don't see in Africans much or at all is the limp flat lying hair in Euroepans and Asians and the greater degree of body hair in some Arabs, Iranians, Europeans etc. Supposedly limb ratios are also different in people in the more Northern regions
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: He uses the word "Caucasians" at least 5 times in every post. Repeat it ofen enough and the ignorant will believe it. . . .
You do realise the word itself is irrelevant, its what it defines or denotes as a physical or racial type what is important. Caucasoid was coined in the late 18th century by Blumenbach, it could have been any other word... the word itself is not at all important. Its just used though as it has stuck from the 18th century, it would be complicated if there were loads of conflicting words for the same racial type.
Now look who we got here - Blumenbach - another crackpot racist bigot. Man I told you that you and the likes are pathetically desperate
Now if I am not mistaken it was Blumenbach or if not its one of his ilks, who claimed that "no notable ancient civilizations were created by anyone other than those with white skin"
Do the math
Posts: 40 | From: usa | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I haven't read your study . .
but three questions
1. Were these terms(Caucasoid etc) used by the authors? 2. Are they, the authors, reputable? 3. The context these terms were used?
you are always caught lying and mis-quoting
genetics clusters 3 main seperate geographical populations.
Cluster 1: Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, parts of South Asia.
Cluster 2: Eastern Asia, parts of South-East Asia.
Cluster 3: Sub-Sahara Africa
1 = Caucasoid, 2 = Mongoloid, 3 = Negroid
If you go to these seperate regions the populations that fall in these genetic clusters resemble each other in morphology and phenotype.
In other words genetics is on the side of the race realists who divided the world up into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid over a hundred years ago. Genetics has validated the reality of race.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Fool there is no genetic study that cluster North Africa with Europe. If you have one provide it. North Africans are always intermediate between Africa and Europe reflecting their heterogeneity.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: dana came up with the thread title:
Caucasian Berber tribes? Still waiting for any one before the 16th century
It assumes there are Caucasians
and that some of them are in Berber tribes after the 16th cent
(however Kabyles with Vandal and other non-African influences to go back further than that)
Don't like the word "Caucasian" ? The argument proceeds replacing the term with "European" A things you don't see in Africans much or at all is the limp flat lying hair in Euroepans and Asians and the greater degree of body hair in some Arabs, Iranians, Europeans etc. Supposedly limb ratios are also different in people in the more Northern regions
True lying _SS - people like Anglo should not be coming here talking about "Caucasians" especially in the sense of black ones. The hamitic notion is dead, if not the Caucasian one still used by racist geneticists. European or Eurasiatic is preferable but even that needs to be qualified considering who most of the neolithic ones were.
Obviously the near black NEGROIDS portrayed thruout Europe designated as "Moors" "Moorman", "MORINI" "MORELLI" ETCETERA with kinky or woolly hair and bands around their heads are the same near black people that still wear bands around their heads as at Siwa and other places in MODERN North AFrica.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRFnop0fWo&feature=plcp Why is it many of the blacker Berbers STILL WEARING BANDS AROUND THEIR HEADS look a lot like the Moors in Europe whom later European scholars try to say were not the bulk of the Moors in early Spain.
They look like their doing old African American folk dancing.
We have to put two and two together here. NEGROID MOORS of MEDIEVAL EUROPE equals NORTH AFRICAN BERBERS !
Furthermore I have recently found that the surname of Zamor or Azzemour which is linked to these NEGRO heads in the coat of arms comes from a town or village in the Middle Atlas region in Morocco which dates back to a 1000 years ago. This proves again that the Negro heads are representing the BERBERS of 7 to 1000 years ago who evidently settled in many places in Europe as Christians and Muslims (probably originally Jewish).
Why pretend that these people did not exist when they are still around now in all of southern parts of North Africa less influenced by contact with Romans, Syrians, Persians, Turks, Central Asian and Eurasian slave women.
Do you understand these people are still the bulk of the Berbers?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is my last response. I have more important things to do.
Still don't get it. . .do you? One last time!!
What the below map shows is YES, their are holistic differences. It is called genetic drift or demic diffusion. Groups that live together for thousand of years WILL cluster together. . .
[QUOTE]
Thank you. That last sentence is so true. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: this thread seems racist against Neanderthals. What if neanderthals were actually more peaceful and we killed them all?
Believe me noone killed them all. Are you not writing on this board? Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I haven't read your study . .
but three questions
1. Were these terms(Caucasoid etc) used by the authors? 2. Are they, the authors, reputable? 3. The context these terms were used?
you are always caught lying and mis-quoting
genetics clusters 3 main seperate geographical populations.
Cluster 1: Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, parts of South Asia.
Cluster 2: Eastern Asia, parts of South-East Asia.
Cluster 3: Sub-Sahara Africa
1 = Caucasoid, 2 = Mongoloid, 3 = Negroid
If you go to these seperate regions the populations that fall in these genetic clusters resemble each other in morphology and phenotype.
In other words genetics is on the side of the race realists who divided the world up into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid over a hundred years ago. Genetics has validated the reality of race.
This individual is literally the dumbest person I have ever come across.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ Genetic clusters have proven the classic tripartite Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid racial divisions.
The only thing that was challenged is that Amerindians who are Mongoloid, appear in their own genetic cluster, but this is to be expected considering they have branched off and lived in the Americas for 15,000 or so years isolated.
Here are the clusters based on 52 population samples:
Rosenberg et al 2002, cited in Excoffier, Laurent. (2003) Human Diversity: Our Genes Tell Where We Live. Curr Biol; 13:R134-R136
lol at the pathetic above, a fascist will attempt everything.
^ ...On the contrary, this study estimates that, if you consider two genes from two individuals in the same geographic region, they are on average only 4% more similar than two genes drawn from individuals belonging to different regions...
... It does not correspond at all to the real nature of human groups, which incorporate new immi- grants each generation, and which are all made of indi- viduals of mixed ancestry [17].
It is thus likely that statistically reconstructed pop- ulations do not correspond to real entities. The defini- tion of these virtual entities actually depends on the sampling scheme, the number of genotyped loci and the variability of the markers used [7,8,16,18]. Finally, the definition of groups (case-control or others) in epi- demiological studies on a pure genetic basis may be problematic, because disease susceptibility genes or genes controlling drug responses might interact with social or cultural factors that can be readily identified from simple queries, leading to potentially false genetic associations if missing [19]...
Khaled K Abu-Amero et al.
Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula
Two potential migratory routes followed by modern humans to colonize Eurasia from Africa have been proposed. These are the two natural passageways that connect both continents: the northern route through the Sinai Peninsula and the southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait.
Recent archaeological and genetic evidence have favored a unique southern coastal route. Under this scenario, the study of the population genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the first step out of Africa, to search for primary genetic links between Africa and Eurasia, is crucial.
The haploid and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule has been the most used genetic marker to identify and to relate lineages with clear geographic origins, as the African Ls and the Eurasian M and N that have a common root with the Africans L3.
"Particularly, Yemen has the largest contribution of L lineages (30). So, most probably, this area was the entrance gate of a portion of these lineages in prehistoric times, which participated in the building of the primitive Arabian population."
Viktor Černư1 et al.
Migration of Chadic speaking pastoralists within Africa based on population structure of Chad Basin and phylogeography of mitochondrial L3f haplogroup
Quote:
We use high-resolution genetic data to investigate the genetic and linguistic support for hypotheses concerning the population history in the Chad Basin. The mitochondrial L3f3 haplogroup is found almost exclusively in Chadic speaking populations and its TMRCA corresponds well with archaeological and linguistic dates of the proposed migration of Chadic speaking pastoralists from East or North East Africa to the Chad Basin.
Haplogroup L3f is defined by the coding variants
3396-4218-15514-15944del and the control region motif 16209–16519 with a TMRCA of 57,100 ± 9,400 YBP. This haplogroup diversifies into sub-haplogroups L3f1, L3f2 and L3f3. The most geographically widespread sub-haplogroup is L3f1, which is distributed across the African continent [3] and also Arabia [32,33] and has a TMRCA of 48,600 ± 11,500 YBP.
..."The youngest clade, L3f1b2, seems to be more frequent in the Middle East. L3f1a seems to be older (37,700 ± 10,000 YBP) than its sister sub-haplogroup L3f1b and is also less diversified. A few samples from Chad belong to these sub-haplogroups: two to L3f1a and one to L3f1b3."
"We then estimated pairwise FST genetic distances between populations (Additional file 4) and displayed these on a MDS plot (Figure 3). Interesting results are immediately evident – while Chadic populations form a relatively homogeneous group, the Cushitic populations split into two completely different clusters. The first group is composed of Horn of African populations, such as Ethiopian and Somali Cushitic populations, which are close to neighbouring Ethiopian Semitic speaking groups and relatively close also to Chadic people from the Chad Basin. The second Cushitic group is composed by more southern groups from Tanzania, i.e. Burunge and Iraqw, who occupy outlier positions even within the Afro-Asiatic MDS plot. In the MDS plot, geography is more strongly associated with genetic distance than is linguistic affiliation.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
We have to put two and two together here. NEGROID MOORS of MEDIEVAL EUROPE equals NORTH AFRICAN BERBERS !
blackamoors like St. Maurice and many "Moors" used in heraldry were not Berbers, not really true Moors. And in many cases they were generic mascot-like symbols not actual people.
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
''We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity''
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 76:000, 2005
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted bt Troll Patrol: Repost for this arrogant ignorant idiot.
Indeed Patrol. Contrary to the whining of assorted idiots, continental ancestry is not the same as "race" and calling continental ancestry "races" does not make them so.
All the Tang et al study shows is that for the American samples they took, participant gene patterns map with self-declared ethnicity. This is something decades old. In the US, mapping such groups is relatively easy- since US social history has clearly defined groups of African, East Asian, Hispanic and European ancestry. This is news for the "Captain Obvious" among us.
THe key arena is not the US or Britain where large majority white populations, have smaller proportions of non-white minorities in place, but places like ultra-diverse Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world. But this reality totally goes over the heads of the idiots.
RECAP:
1-
2
quick templeton race debunk
And "biodiversity types who keep hollering about "race," hypocritically switch their tune to race denial when it is pointed out that some of the very same scholars they quote show that whites are not a separate race at all but mixed breeds between Africans and Asians.
And speaking of white hypocrisy and double standards - on race- DIop said it best- and it bears highlighting and repeating:
"But it is only the most gratuitous theory that considers the Dinka, the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognizing as white-only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be, to a European, an attitude that maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the same race." -- Cheikh Anta Diop, 'Evolution of the Negro world', Presence Africaine (Vol. 23, no. 51, 1964), pp. 5-15.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5920 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world.
Its genetically the most diverse because its been inhabited by different racial stocks for thousands of years. Heck even Australo-Melanesians colonised Madagascar and coastal parts of south-east Africa.
Europe in contrast is the most genetically homogenous because its only ever been (until very recently) inhabited by Caucasoids.
The diversity in Africa is not indigenous. Its because its been a melting pot of many different races.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognizing as white-only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese?
Simpleton, Southern Europeans cluster in morphology with Scandinavians.
Nordids are IDENTICAL in bone structure to Atlanto-Mediterranids.
Diop had no credentials in anthropology to understand the basics.
He had a degree in egyptology and nuclear physics, completely bogus fields. The guy knew nothing about physical anthropology.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world.
Another straw-man.
Meds + Scandinavians are identical in morphology.
In contrast, E Africans and W Africans sharply differ in their bone structure, craniofacial features and hair texture.
E Africans are heavily Caucasoid admixed, hence their less broad (Negroid) traits.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world.
Its genetically the most diverse because its been inhabited by different racial stocks for thousands of years. Heck even Australo-Melanesians colonised Madagascar and coastal parts of south-east Africa.
Europe in contrast is the most genetically homogenous because its only ever been (until very recently) inhabited by Caucasoids.
The diversity in Africa is not indigenous. Its because its been a melting pot of many different races.
Africa is genetically most diverse because it holds parent clades.
Europe in contrast holds sub clades!!!!
That's why, dumbass!!!!!!
R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (470%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia. lol
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Back to reality...
Tang et al 2005 -
''We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (White, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity''
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 76:000, 2005
Do you remember this one? lol
quote:
Racial factors in themselves, of course, do not assist in explaining the development or distribution of cultures in Africa, since scientists have long since disproved popular assumptions of inherent racial differences in the capacity to create and maintain culture.
quote: We also recognize that the anthropometric and somatological criteria by which the five races have been distinguished are themselves becoming increasingly suspect as physical anthropology comes to lay its main emphasis upon genetic factors.
quote: Unfortunately, the distribution of 0, A, B, and AB blood groups is rather similar in all five African races, and other genetically precise data are not yet available in sufficient quantity to render much assistance.
quote:What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognizing as white-only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese?
Simpleton, Southern Europeans cluster in morphology with Scandinavians.
Nordids are IDENTICAL in bone structure to Atlanto-Mediterranids.
Diop had no credentials in anthropology to understand the basics.
He had a degree in egyptology and nuclear physics, completely bogus fields. The guy knew nothing about physical anthropology.
That is because they are less diverse than Africans and Asians.lol
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world.
Another straw-man.
Meds + Scandinavians are identical in morphology.
In contrast, E Africans and W Africans sharply differ in their bone structure, craniofacial features and hair texture.
E Africans are heavily Caucasoid admixed, hence their less broad (Negroid) traits.
One, East Africans are NOT extensive mixed with non-Africans.
Two, Africans are most diverse, which is a proven fact. lol
You are so stupid, it's a crying shame!
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ TP, it's no use. Trying to educate the Anglo-Idiot in matters of biology is like trying to teach a rat how to read. It's virtually impossible.
The guy claims to have a degree in 'Classics' yet he talks about bio-anthropology all the time. He even gets sh|t wrong in his own field of study so why bother?
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
In 1946, at the age of 23, Diop went to Paris to become a physicist. He remained there for 15 years, studying physics under Frédéric Joliot-Curie, Marie Curie's son-in-law, and ultimately translating parts of Einstein's Theory of Relativity into his native Wolof.[2]
Diop's education included History, Egyptology, Physics, Linguistics, Anthropology, Economics, and Sociology.[3]
While studying in Paris, Diop studied under André Aymard, professor of History and later Dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Paris through which he "gained an understanding of the Greco-Latin world. As a student of Gaston Bachelard, Frédéric Joliot-Curie, André Leroi-Gourhan, and others" Diop "acquired proficiency in such diverse disciplines as rationalism, dialectics, modern scientific techniques, prehistoric archeology and so on." Diop was also "the only Black African of his generation to have received training as an Egyptologist." "More importantly" he "applied this encyclopedic knowledge to his researches on African history."[4]
In 1948 Diop edited with Madeleine Rousseau, a professor of art history, a special edition of the journal Musėe vivant, published by the Association populaire des amis des musées (APAM). APAM had been set up in 1936 by people on the political left wing to bring culture to wider audiences. The special edition of the journal was on the occasion of the centenary of the abolition of slavery in the French colonies and aimed to present an overview of issues in contemporary African culture and society. Diop contributed an article to the journal: "Quand pourra-t-on parler d’une renaissance africaine" (When we will be able to speak of an African Renaissance?).
He examined various fields of artistic creation, with a discussion of African languages, which, he said, would be the sources of regeneration in African culture. He proposed that African culture should be rebuilt on the basis of ancient Egypt, in the same way that European culture was built upon the legacies of ancient Greece and Rome.[5]
In 1951, Diop submitted a Ph.D. thesis at the University of Paris in which he argued that ancient Egypt had been peopled by Black people. His supervisor was Marcel Griaule. Diop specified that he used the terms "negro", "black", "white" and "race" as "immediate givens" in the Bergsonian sense, and went on to suggest operational definitions of these terms.[6]
He said that the Egyptian language and culture had later been spread to West Africa. At first he could not find a jury of examiners for his thesis, but in 1954, he published many of his ideas as the book Nations nègres et culture (Negro Nations and Culture). It made him one of the most controversial historians of his time.[7][8] While continuing to study nuclear physics in the laboratories of the Collège de France, he continued to work on his thesis. He finally obtained his doctorate in 1960.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ TP, it's no use. Trying to educate the Anglo-Idiot in matters of biology is like trying to teach a rat how to read. It's virtually impossible.
The guy claims to have a degree in 'Classics' yet he talks about bio-anthropology all the time. He even gets sh|t wrong in his own field of study so why bother?
Even funnier is, he claimed to have a degree in basic anthropology. And is now a student at some prestige Univeristy at the department of Anthropology, in GB. lol
I am not in that field, yet I correct him on basics. lol
And Swenet put him to shame when he wanted to go deep. He was only familiar with terms dealing with the racial-eugenics theory.lol
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Are you serious? When did he claim to have a degree in anthropology?! I missed that one. Can you link me the thread? LOL It's obvious this guy is a liar. He doesn't know sh|t about either 'Classical' Greco-Roman writings OR anthropology other than the outdated Coonian nonsense. This guy is a liar as well as loser. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Are you serious? When did he claim to have a degree in anthropology?! I missed that one. Can you link me the thread? LOL It's obvious this guy is a liar. He doesn't know sh|t about either 'Classical' Greco-Roman writings OR anthropology other than the outdated Coonian nonsense. This guy is a liar as well as loser.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Are you serious? When did he claim to have a degree in anthropology?! I missed that one. Can you link me the thread? LOL It's obvious this guy is a liar. He doesn't know sh|t about either 'Classical' Greco-Roman writings OR anthropology other than the outdated Coonian nonsense. This guy is a liar as well as loser.
If you were here a while back, i posted a news article where i won an award for my department in anthropology. Numerous people saw it here.
I don't exactly see how the credentials of people behind the net are relevant anyway. I merely point out Diop was a charlatan, he knew nothing about anthropology and had degrees in bogus areas.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Are you serious? When did he claim to have a degree in anthropology?! I missed that one. Can you link me the thread? LOL It's obvious this guy is a liar. He doesn't know sh|t about either 'Classical' Greco-Roman writings OR anthropology other than the outdated Coonian nonsense. This guy is a liar as well as loser.
If you were here a while back, i posted a news article where i won an award for my department in anthropology. Numerous people saw it here.
I don't exactly see how the credentials of people behind the net are relevant anyway. I merely point out Diop was a charlatan, he knew nothing about anthropology and had degrees in bogus areas.
1). You are dumb as hell and a nobody, which is a proven fact. The only charlatans here are you and your eugenics masters.
2). Dr. Diop was a Prime Scholar internationally recognized for his works.
He received a standing ovation at the Unesco Conference held at Cairo, after lecturing, during that symposium. His works will always be remembered as Great and Outstanding Scholarship.
You can't even make it into the building as a toilet or floor manager. lol
By the way, I have never seen any of what you claim, since it is RUBBISH!
But what I did witness was Swenet handing you out like crazy. And I have to admit it was quite amusing.
For the sake of your joke, what's the name of the prize you've won that particular day?
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: [QB]If you were here a while back, i posted a news article where i won an award for my department in anthropology. Numerous people saw it here.
posted
Some Berber videos. Now tell me that some of these folks don't look identical to many ethnic European groups from the South East (Albania, Romania, Serbia, etc).
All of which shows that the idea of Berbers not being mixed with Europeans is nonsense. And if some are mixed with Europeans then they cannot all be the "original" populations of North Africa and that Berber is not a single "genetic" marker as different genes from different places are part of the Berber population.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: [QB]If you were here a while back, i posted a news article where i won an award for my department in anthropology. Numerous people saw it here.
What is taking him so long to repost that "article"?
I mean he has an account where he uploads biased pics of Africans, and manages other facist activities. Which he has posted countless time.
One would think, it wouldn't be a problem to repost the article with the winning award.
Posts: 22248 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: 1). You are dumb as hell and a nobody, which is a proven fact. The only charlatans here are you and your eugenics masters.
2). Dr. Diop was a Prime Scholar internationally recognized for his works.
He received a standing ovation at the Unesco Conference held at Cairo, after lecturing, during that symposium. His works will always be remembered as Great and Outstanding Scholarship.
You can't even make it into the building as a toilet or floor manager. lol
By the way, I have never seen any of what you claim, since it is RUBBISH!
But what I did witness was Swenet handing you out like crazy. And I have to admit it was quite amusing.
For the sake of your joke, what's the name of the prize you've won that particular day?
Of course Diop not only has a degree in anthropology but physics. Even his work pointing out the inconsistencies and discrepancies in physical anthropology at that time due to Eurocentric bias is a landmark. As TP pointed out, the guy spoke at an international symposium, what the hell as the anglo-idiot accomplished? Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by castraded-idiot: I have a foundation degree (Higher National Diploma) in forensic anthropology, no where near a masters. I never claimed to have a masters.
Race is a key aspect of forensics, its why i laugh at poser anthropologists like Just call me jari who comes on this forum claiming races don't exist. These idiots have never set foot in a forensic lab and have no understanding of science and how it has proven race is biologically valid.
WRONG! Bio-anthropology and in particular, genetics has disproven the notion of biological 'race' altogether. When it comes to forensics, PHENOTYPE or a set of physical charactersitics does NOT equate to 'race', moron!
In fact here is a statement from the American Anthropological Association (AAA) on 'race': In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Of course you are not American but British, but I assume even the Brits and other Euros have caught on to the major findings on human population genetics.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lol, on schooling this fool. Where Anglbatty is concerned, somewhere in Britain, a village is missing its idiot..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5920 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world.
Its genetically the most diverse because its been inhabited by different racial stocks for thousands of years. Heck even Australo-Melanesians colonised Madagascar and coastal parts of south-east Africa.
Europe in contrast is the most genetically homogenous because its only ever been (until very recently) inhabited by Caucasoids.
The diversity in Africa is not indigenous. Its because its been a melting pot of many different races.
Please find me a single phrase in any source before the 15th century referring to a fair-skinned Berber tribe. That is what I am looking for. First of you Euronuts to find it receives all the glory any Aryan could ever need. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
We have to put two and two together here. NEGROID MOORS of MEDIEVAL EUROPE equals NORTH AFRICAN BERBERS !
blackamoors like St. Maurice and many "Moors" used in heraldry were not Berbers, not really true Moors. And in many cases they were generic mascot-like symbols not actual people.
I am sorry Neanderwoman, but St. Maurice means st Moor and he was called Moor long before the word blackamoor was used for him.
I used to think like u, before I found out that the Djerawa "Berbers" of history books and Wangarawa were the same people and obviously these men were meant to be Berbers i.e. Moors who gave birth to people like the Imraguen and probably the original Borghu or Berghawata branch of the Masmuda and Zaghawa branch or kabila of the Zanata Berbers.
They are still found throughout the southern part of North AFrica where they fled in the time of the first Arabian invasions.
BTW - according to something I saw recently on Youtube many of the Siwans are said to be descendants of fleeing Numidians.
Sorry but Tuareg were not the only Berbers and many Berbers just like many Arabians were in fact what we ur folk like to call NEGROES. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either lyinass is demented having some form of early Alzheimer's (which I doubt) or her ass is lying again, since I know for a fact that I myself have cited sources on St. Maurice showing that the very etymology of his name Maurice is the same as 'Moor' AND that St. Maurice wasn't Berber but he was still North African, specifically Egyptian! Thus her claims of blacks only being restricted to 'Sub-Sahara' is null.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Please find me a single phrase in any source before the 15th century referring to a fair-skinned Berber tribe. That is what I am looking for. First of you Euronuts to find it receives all the glory any Aryan could ever need.
LMAO Yeah, I'm still waiting for that Aryan glory.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Either lyinass is demented having some form of early Alzheimer's (which I doubt) or her ass is lying again, since I know for a fact that I myself have cited sources on St. Maurice showing that the very etymology of his name Maurice is the same as 'Moor' AND that St. Maurice wasn't Berber but he was still North African, specifically Egyptian! Thus her claims of blacks only being restricted to 'Sub-Sahara' is null.
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: Please find me a single phrase in any source before the 15th century referring to a fair-skinned Berber tribe. That is what I am looking for. First of you Euronuts to find it receives all the glory any Aryan could ever need.
LMAO Yeah, I'm still waiting for that Aryan glory.
I guess nobody wants the glory? Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
We have to put two and two together here. NEGROID MOORS of MEDIEVAL EUROPE equals NORTH AFRICAN BERBERS !
blackamoors like St. Maurice and many "Moors" used in heraldry were not Berbers, not really true Moors. And in many cases they were generic mascot-like symbols not actual people.
I am sorry Neanderwoman, but St. Maurice means st Moor and he was called Moor long before the word blackamoor was used for him.
you stupid bitch the etymology of a word does not define it's contextual use historically historically. If the word "Moor" means "black" and the following brown person is black:
then this no less dark person is also black:
^^^^ Our modern American racial concepts are irreleavant, to ancient writers both of the above people would be called "black"
It's stupid to use the word "Moor" to mean any brown skinned person or stupid to use it to mean any brown skinned person born in Africa.
The term "Moor" has a historical and cultural context which has come to be associated with Muslims of North Africa with origins in what is now part of Northern Algeria and a part of northern Morocco, people who invaded Iberia. St. Maurice was supposedly an Egyptian and has no shown association with the Muslim invaders or Moorish culture and he was a Christian who died trying to protect Christians at a time when the Moors were thoroughly Muslim.
The term "Moor" has a historical and cultural context. It is stupid take it out of context, be entirely literal and say it means "black". If you want to be an idiot and play that sort of word game the majority of Africans are brown not literally black and a number of people who are not Africans from places like the Middle East and India even South East Asians can be as dark as indigenous Africans. What are they all Moors now because "Moor" means "black"? fools.
Also it is stupid to say "Moor" means "any Black African"
The term "Moor" should be affiliated with the historical context the Moorish culture of ancient Mauretania, Numidia and Al-Andalus and the various indigenous and immigrant populations that comprise the loosely termed Moors and Berbers. People in these regions who are of exculsively indigenous African should not be called by these European terms "Moor" and "Berber" they should be called by their local African tribal names. Although many of the Moors were African and there is an African component to Arabians the Moors were ultimatly led by Arabian Muslims not Africans. Look at the earlier art, prior to the 14th cent depicting Crusaders in conflict with Moors. Were all the Moors pitch black, or all very dark? No that came later when Europeans dumbed down the term Moor to mean any African and stereotyped Moors, Africans in general as being exclusively pitch black. This begins with Christanized converts and former Muslims who became employees of the white Holy Romans and culminates in the "blackamoor", a cute charaicature of a defeated Islam with it's balls cut off and "exotic" black skin If this is the definition you want then you might as well say a Tanzanian is a Moor and that any culture in Africa is "Moorish"
enough word games
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ More lyinass b.s. Obviously the worm is wriggling like crazy.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ More lyinass b.s. Obviously the worm is wriggling like crazy.
in other words in have no argument so you'll make a completly useless cheerleading post hoping someone official will help you and validate your pom pom routine.
Posts: 43014 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
We have to put two and two together here. NEGROID MOORS of MEDIEVAL EUROPE equals NORTH AFRICAN BERBERS !
blackamoors like St. Maurice and many "Moors" used in heraldry were not Berbers, not really true Moors. And in many cases they were generic mascot-like symbols not actual people.
I am sorry Neanderwoman, but St. Maurice means st Moor and he was called Moor long before the word blackamoor was used for him.
you stupid bitch the etymology of a word does not define it's contextual use historically historically. If the word "Moor" means "black" and the following brown person is black:
then this no less dark person is also black:
^^^^ Our modern American racial concepts are irreleavant, to ancient writers both of the above people would be called "black"
It's stupid to use the word "Moor" to mean any brown skinned person or stupid to use it to mean any brown skinned person born in Africa.
The term "Moor" has a historical and cultural context which has come to be associated with Muslims of North Africa with origins in what is now part of Northern Algeria and a part of northern Morocco, people who invaded Iberia. St. Maurice was supposedly an Egyptian and has no shown association with the Muslim invaders or Moorish culture and he was a Christian who died trying to protect Christians at a time when the Moors were thoroughly Muslim.
The term "Moor" has a historical and cultural context. It is stupid take it out of context, be entirely literal and say it means "black". If you want to be an idiot and play that sort of word game the majority of Africans are brown not literally black and a number of people who are not Africans from places like the Middle East and India even South East Asians can be as dark as indigenous Africans. What are they all Moors now because "Moor" means "black"? fools.
Also it is stupid to say "Moor" means "any Black African"
The term "Moor" should be affiliated with the historical context the Moorish culture of ancient Mauretania, Numidia and Al-Andalus and the various indigenous and immigrant populations that comprise the loosely termed Moors and Berbers. People in these regions who are of exculsively indigenous African should not be called by these European terms "Moor" and "Berber" they should be called by their local African tribal names. Although many of the Moors were African and there is an African component to Arabians the Moors were ultimatly led by Arabian Muslims not Africans. Look at the earlier art, prior to the 14th cent depicting Crusaders in conflict with Moors. Were all the Moors pitch black, or all very dark? No that came later when Europeans dumbed down the term Moor to mean any African and stereotyped Moors, Africans in general as being exclusively pitch black. This begins with Christanized converts and former Muslims who became employees of the white Holy Romans and culminates in the "blackamoor", a cute charaicature of a defeated Islam with it's balls cut off and "exotic" black skin If this is the definition you want then you might as well say a Tanzanian is a Moor and that any culture in Africa is "Moorish"
enough word games
Now lyin'ss - this is the second time you have flown into rages just because of the use of the word Neanderwoman/Neanderdull. Is it the weight or the whiteness that hits the nerve. lol!
Although I've noticed you've been doint this with Djehuti too in the last few days. BTW - pamprin should be less than 10 dollars even if you do live Sweden.
By far the majority of Moors for centuries were black people known as Berbers or Beriberi both in their own language and those of the Latins. That is historically European documented fact. And as you rightly pointed out however the early leaders among these Moors were the black lava colored people from the Arabian peninsula from the Hijaz al Harra and the Yemen. Their tribal names are as follows Sulaym, Hawazin, Azd, Qays, Tamim, Quda'a Juhayna, QURAYSH, Kinanah and other black to near black kinky to woolly haired AFROASIATIC-SPEAKERS.
We must give credit where credit is due.
Why does this information anger you so though is real important question. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient sources were already provided on Caucasoid Libyans (North Africans). They are described as blonde or red haired, and fair skinned. Obviously not Negroid.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Doug the lyinggrass has no knowledge whatsoever what she is talking about. She has no reply to Dana"s post, challenging Euronuts: Please find me a single phrase in any source before the 15th century referring to a fair-skinned Berber tribe. That is what I am looking for. First of you Euronuts to find it receives all the glory any Aryan could ever need. [Roll Eyes]. lyinghynie,is Bozo the clown the wackiest clown in town.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic