quote:They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.
You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.
Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base on unfounded knowledge. It's "we" who do claim who we are, not you. You don't matter to us.
I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.
Shall we review the traits again? lol
Btw, this is the hair texture on average.
There are those of darker complexion too.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.
You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.
Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base. It "we" who do. Not you. You don't matter to us.
I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.
Shall we review the traits again? lol
So your definition of race/"Blackness" is anything a person personally feels?
You do realise you undermine Afrocentrism?
If "Black" = anything and anyone, with zero criteria, why do you claim the ancient egyptians were "Black"? What stops the "Blacks" you posting waking up and identifying as "Whites"?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:They would rather cluster with black. This is a social fact.
Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.
You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.
Of course such thing is not "scientific". But more of a social act. I don't base. It "we" who do. Not you. You don't matter to us.
I understand how it pains you. But they claim black over a so called caca-nonsense claim. And her traits destroy your caca-claim. Which is definitely scientific founded.
Shall we review the traits again? lol
So your definition of race/"Blackness" is anything a person personally feels?
You do realise you undermine Afrocentrism?
If "Black" = anything and anyone, with zero criteria, why do you claim the ancient egyptians were "Black"? What stops the "Blacks" you posting waking up and identifying as "Whites"?
You keep running like a cheap ass, making up excuses, I say, let's review what the traits are like. You made a false claim. And I provided different.
I have posted scientific matter on ancient Egyptians. And the fact is that they cluster with people from the South. A Sahara- Sahel type. And yes, the they will tell you they are black. You are desperately trying to claim cacasoid when it has nothing to do with the caucasus. It's simply retarded.
According to your euronut theory Russelll Simmons is a cacasoid. You dufus.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And this is the sheer lunacy of Afrocentrism.
Swenet, Zaharan, Troll Patrol etc who claim the ancient egyptians were predominantly "Black", cannot define what a "Black" is. Nor can they even define what an "African" entails.
Have you ever seen a single post where they outline or define a "Black"/"African"?
Nothing.
All they can do is attack what they call "Eurocentrism" or the "true negroid" model, despite the fact they fail to even define what a "Black" or "African" is...
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ And this is the sheer lunacy of Afrocentrism.
Swenet, Zaharan, Troll Patrol etc who claim the ancient egyptians were predominantly "Black", cannot define what a "Black" is. Nor can they even define what an "African" entails.
Have you ever seen a single post where they outline or define a "Black"/"African"?
Nothing.
All they can do is attack what they call "Eurocentrism" or the "true negroid" model, despite the fact they fail to even define what a "Black" or "African" is...
lol this is getting hilarious.
I wonder why it is so hard for you to reproduce your claims on which I commented with the photos of a Moroccan Berber woman.
Why is so hard to reproduce your claims. lol
See, it's you who speaks in terms of "race". I speak in terms of the Africans. And basic traits which can be found in Africans, no matter where they are from. Therefor I posted those pictures. And they destroy your euronut arguments. Simple!
Africans go by tribe/ ethnic group. Not by "race or color" as such names do not exist. As you keep repeating like a lunatic.
But if the question is addressed as you tend to do, then the answer would be black. Or simple will state African. Yes.
I've asked you several times, what is the true negro. And why? But thus far, no answer. All I get is distractions and deflections. No tribe/ ethnic group goes by "the negro"!
And here are your super cacasoid types aka "white bothers" and sister.
quote:Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors
--Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
This is why your euronut theory is obsolete and outdated
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nilotes and Nilotids are different.
I take it that your harping on trivial matters, rather than the core argument that you were supposed to address, means that you acknowledge that you were fabricating things when you said they’re adapted to hot-dry regions and that they turned tall after they migrated there?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What? If he wasn't platyrrhine he wouldn't be classified as a Nilotid (Negroid > Nilotid) in the first place.
Circular reasoning. When a paradigm is being called into question, you can’t prove the legitimacy of that paradigm, by using logic that’s inherent to that paradigm. What you’re doing is the equivalent of trying to prove Jesus made miracles happen by citing biblical passages, when the people you’re talking to are atheists and are calling the bible into question. You’re so good at using paint apps, right? Prove it, Modo-face. Prove his NB is >85% of his NL.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They are statistical abstractions, but the fact the trait complexes, as types, were once confined to geographical areas
Exactly. **Once confined to geographical areas**, meaning, they necessarily originated one time, and then spread to the rest of the world. Thanks for admitting, once again, that typology cannot even integrate simple biological concepts like parallel evolution. Per your own admission typology is pseudo-science, since science states that:
a theory is a conceptual structure used to explain existing facts and predict new ones.
Typology cannot explain and predict established and proven phenomena like drift, parallel evolution, sexual selection, etc. because it reduces all the complex changes and variations those processes bring about, to a simplistic matter of race admixture between types. You pseudo-scientists are bunch of race obsessed degenerates.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Wiercinski utilised palaeo-anthropology, as I do, to see where the trait complexes were once circumscribed.
You’re a fail. European specific traits that were once circumscribed and are now global are light eyes, and that’s about it. Khoisan, East Asians and Europeans have different polymorphisms for light(er) skin color. The latter two populations (Europeans and East Asians) have different polymorphisms for wavy-straight hair. Certain Oceanic black youngsters with blondism also have entire different polymorphisms for that phenotype than Europeans. There are also different polymorphisms for lactase persistence and, not to mention, malaria resistance (sickle cell). The list goes on and on. Typology cannot explain these parallel evolutions and neither can you with your retarded ’’once circumscribed’’ bullsh!t.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I've already shown you that Negroids don't have low NI's, small teeth, orthognathism etc.
You haven’t. All you have done is attribute examples that document the contrary, that I and others have posted, to race mixing. Indeed, all you have done is making an artificial and imaginary negroid construct, and then saying that that type doesn’t have certain characteristics. Of course it won’t have those characteristics; you’ve made sure of that by calling all skulls that do non-negroid and caucasoid admixed. Its like being adamant that you’ve won the lottery, right after having ridged your lottery ticket to read the winning combination. It doesn’t occur to you that you’re doing this (manipulating the data to come to your own artificial conclusions), because you’re as dumb as a rock.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Doesn't this guy get tired with the oids, ids, metid, zoids, rheumotoids? Is this what they teach in modern anthropology or is he a relic left over from the 18th century?
The latter-- he's a relic psychologically speaking of 19th to early 20th century debunked anthropology. Of course anthropology nowadays no longer teaches debunked nonsense, but then again Farthead is not even a student of anthropology but of 'Classical' studies!!
quote:Where is the genetic, archeological, cultural, religious proof Europeans migrated to Africa?
There's plenty of it! Greeks colonized Libya during the late Iron Age, then came the Romans who colonized North Africa and then finally in the 19th century there came European colonization all throughout Africa.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Follow theme DJ....pre-history!!.... which is Cass's belief.
-------------------- 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
^ Unless Castrated or someone else produces evidence of prehistoric Europeans in Europe, I won't even bother addressing it.
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: Thanks for proving there is absolutely nothing scientific about your posts.
You base who is "Black" on socio-cultural or political views - as does Djehuti.
You fail to realize that the use of labels such as 'black' and 'white' are by and large socio-cultural and political. Thus Moroccans and 'African Americans' of mixed ancestry like Vanessa Williams and Halle Berry are called 'black' not just by Americans but by Europeans as well including your fellow Brits. Of course I acknowledge that such political labels are not as accurate as scientific ones or those based simple observation i.e. that black skin means very dark or heavy pigmented while white skin is very pale or lightly pigmented. So MY personal usage of the label depends on the context. I take it it is the same for Troll Patrol. It depends on whether the context is cultural or scientific. Of course YOUR usage which you claim to be scientific is nothing more than pseudo-scientific bunk. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...
Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?
Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?
Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: 'black' and 'white' are by and large socio-cultural and political.....
So MY personal usage of the label depends on the context.
.
If your personal usuage might inidcate xyyman is Black and Truthcentric is White using a consistent type of terminology what are you?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?
Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?
Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!
wiki:
Caucasian
Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[3] The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785).[13] In Meiners' unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found Jews and Africans less attractive, and thus Mongolian.[14]
This racial classification did not receive much support. However, in 1795, a colleague of Meiners from the University of Göttingen, Blumenbach, one of the earliest anthropologists, adopted the term Varietas Caucasia ("Caucasian Variety"), for a new major hypothetical racial division.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[15][16] Unlike Meiners, Blumenbach based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology after deciding that there was more to racial difference than skin pigmentation. In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin".[18] Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian.Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans.[19]
The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure.[20] He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea.[21] Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.[22]
The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[9] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[10] Blumenbach wrote:
Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.
There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.
Drawing from Petrus Camper's theory of facial angle, Blumenbach and Cuvier classified races, through their skull collections based on their cranial features and anthropometric measurements. Caucasian traits were recognised as: thin nasal aperture ("nose narrow"), a small mouth, facial angle of 100°-90°, and orthognathism, exemplified by what Blumenbach saw in most ancient Greek crania and statues.[23][24] Later anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century such as Pritchard, Pickering, Broca, Topinard, Morton, Peschel, Seligman, Bean, Ripley, Haddon and Dixon came to recognise other Caucasian morphological features, such as prominent supraorbital ridges and a sharp nasal sill.[25] Some anthropologists in the latter half of the 20th century, used the term "Caucasoid" in their literature, such as Boyd, Gates, Coon, Cole, Brues and Krantz replacing the earlier term "Caucasian" as it had fallen out of usage.[26]
The physical traits of Caucasoid crania are still recognised as distinct (in contrast to Mongoloid and Negroid races) within modern forensic anthropology. A Caucasoid skull is identified, with an accuracy of up to 95%, by the following features:[27][28][29][30][31]
Little or no prognathism exhibited—an orthognathic profile, with minimal protrusion of the lower face. Retreating zygomatic bones (cheekbones), making the face look more "pointed". Narrow nasal aperture, with a tear-shaped nasal cavity. Other physical characteristics of Caucasoids include hair texture that varies from straight to curly,[3] with wavy (cymotrichous) hair most typical on average according to Coon (1962), in contrast to the Negroid and Mongoloid races. Individual hairs are also rarely as sparsely distributed and coarse as found in Mongoloids.[3]
Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones Conceived as one of the great races, alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, it was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in four groups on linguistic grounds, termed Aryan (Indo-European), Dravidian (Dravidian languages), Semitic (Semitic languages), and Hamitic (Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian).
Anthropologists generally consider the Cro-Magnons to be the earliest or "proto" representatives of the Caucasoid race, who emerged during the Upper Paleolithic. In a study of Cro-Magnon crania, Jantz and Owsley (2003) have noted that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."[37]
William Howells (1997) has pointed out that Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid based on their cranial traits:
"... the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically. ... Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples — Mladec and Abri Pataud comfortably so, the other two much more remotely."
The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation states that comprise the Caucasus today are the post-Soviet states Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian divisions include Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and the autonomous republics of Adygea, Karachay–Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. Three territories in the region claim independence but are recognized as such by only a handful or by no independent states: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia Located on the peripheries of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, the region has been an arena for political, military, religious, and cultural rivalries and expansionism for centuries. Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire conquered the territory from the Qajars.
Ancient kingdoms of the region included Armenia, Albania, Colchis and Iberia, among others. These kingdoms were later incorporated into various Iranian empires, including Media, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and Sassanid Empire. In 95-55 BC under the reign of Armenian king of kings Tigranes the Great, the Kingdom of Armenia became an empire, growing to include: Kingdom of Armenia, vassals Iberia, Albania, Parthia and a few Arab tribes, Atropatene, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Assyria, Nabataean kingdom, Judea and Atropatene. The empire stretched from the Caucasian Mountains to Egypt and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea, including a territory of 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi),
he different nationalities in the area include the Azeri, the Armenians, the Georgians and the Chechens. The Azeri are Turk and speak Turkish, the Armenians are Indo-European people and the Georgians and Chechens are often termed Paleocaucasians. Other groups include the Abkhaz, the Ingush, Avars, Lezgins, Karachi, the Balkans, the Nogais and the Kumyks. With as many as fifty ethnic groups, each differing in language, customs and appearance, Caucasus has been the hot spot of turbulence.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...
Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it.
He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That is an interesting conundrum. Castrated claims Caucasoids come in a wide range of complexions including "brun" which is how he describes the chocolate dark complexions depicted in art, yet the source I cited says the skin cells are "packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin". And these were German scientists i.e. the descendants of the Nazis! LOL
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?
Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?
Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!
You don't understand that "Caucasoid" doesn't just cover populations of Europe but Southwest, Central and northern parts of South Asia, as well as North Africa! That's the whole twist when it comes to the 'Cockazoid' classification. 'Negroid' on the other hand covers only populations of Sub-Sahara and not even all areas of that region. This is the double-think that Euronuts use to claims entire swaths of land and the native cultures as "Caucasoid" including North Africa. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dj, Not all Germans supported or support the Nazis. Anyway, I even heard/ see them claim Amerindians from North America, as cacasoid.
So, what would it make this woman.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Maybe I am slow. But I don't get Cass's argument. Does be have a problem with the words "black Africans"? Or is he stating by labeling AEians Caucasoids means Europeans migrated into NE Africans to form AE?
Is this a label thing? Is he just ranting or is he trying to make a point?
Let's call them "Caucasoids"!!!!
wiki:
Caucasian
Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia/Middle East, Asia Minor, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[3] The term "Caucasian race" was coined by the German philosopher Christoph Meiners in his The Outline of History of Mankind (1785).[13] In Meiners' unique racial classification, there were only two racial divisions (Rassen): Caucasians and Mongolians. These terms were used as a collective representation of individuals he personally regarded as either good looking or less attractive, based solely on facial appearance. For example, he considered Germans and Tatars more attractive, and thus Caucasian, while he found Jews and Africans less attractive, and thus Mongolian.[14]
This racial classification did not receive much support. However, in 1795, a colleague of Meiners from the University of Göttingen, Blumenbach, one of the earliest anthropologists, adopted the term Varietas Caucasia ("Caucasian Variety"), for a new major hypothetical racial division.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[15][16] Unlike Meiners, Blumenbach based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology after deciding that there was more to racial difference than skin pigmentation. In his earlier racial typology, Meiners maintained that Caucasians had the "whitest, most blooming and most delicate skin".[18] Europeans with darker skin he considered to be "dirty whites", admixed with Mongolian.Such views were typical of pre-anthropological attempts at racial classification, where skin pigmentation was regarded as the main difference between races. Meiners's view was shared by the French naturalist Julien-Joseph Virey, who believed that the Caucasians were only the palest-skinned Europeans.[19]
The earliest anthropologists, such as Blumenbach however came to recognize that skin pigmentation within European populations differed, without explaining it with the obsolete idea of admixture with another race. Thus Blumenbach, in the 3rd edition of his On the Natural Variety of Mankind, recognized that poorer European people (such as peasants) whom he observed generally worked outside, often became darker skinned ("browner") through sun exposure.[20] He also came to realize that darker skin of an "olive-tinge" was a natural feature of some European populations closer to the Mediterranean Sea.[21] Alongside the anthropologist Georges Cuvier, Blumenbach classified the Caucasian race by cranial measurements and bone morphology rather than prioritizing skin pigmentation, and thus considered more than just the palest Europeans ("white, cheeks rosy") as archetypes for the Caucasian race.[22]
The concept of a Caucasian race or Varietas Caucasia was developed around 1800 by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a German scientist and classical anthropologist.[8] Blumenbach named it after the Caucasian peoples (from the Southern Caucasus region), whom he considered to be the archetype for the grouping.[9] He based his classification of the Caucasian race primarily on craniology.[10] Blumenbach wrote:
Caucasian variety - I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.
There was never any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Caucasian race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.
Drawing from Petrus Camper's theory of facial angle, Blumenbach and Cuvier classified races, through their skull collections based on their cranial features and anthropometric measurements. Caucasian traits were recognised as: thin nasal aperture ("nose narrow"), a small mouth, facial angle of 100°-90°, and orthognathism, exemplified by what Blumenbach saw in most ancient Greek crania and statues.[23][24] Later anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century such as Pritchard, Pickering, Broca, Topinard, Morton, Peschel, Seligman, Bean, Ripley, Haddon and Dixon came to recognise other Caucasian morphological features, such as prominent supraorbital ridges and a sharp nasal sill.[25] Some anthropologists in the latter half of the 20th century, used the term "Caucasoid" in their literature, such as Boyd, Gates, Coon, Cole, Brues and Krantz replacing the earlier term "Caucasian" as it had fallen out of usage.[26]
The physical traits of Caucasoid crania are still recognised as distinct (in contrast to Mongoloid and Negroid races) within modern forensic anthropology. A Caucasoid skull is identified, with an accuracy of up to 95%, by the following features:[27][28][29][30][31]
Little or no prognathism exhibited—an orthognathic profile, with minimal protrusion of the lower face. Retreating zygomatic bones (cheekbones), making the face look more "pointed". Narrow nasal aperture, with a tear-shaped nasal cavity. Other physical characteristics of Caucasoids include hair texture that varies from straight to curly,[3] with wavy (cymotrichous) hair most typical on average according to Coon (1962), in contrast to the Negroid and Mongoloid races. Individual hairs are also rarely as sparsely distributed and coarse as found in Mongoloids.[3]
Skin color amongst Caucasoids ranges greatly from pale, reddish-white, olive, through to dark brown tones Conceived as one of the great races, alongside Mongoloid and Negroid, it was taken to consist of a number of "subraces". The Caucasoid peoples were usually divided in four groups on linguistic grounds, termed Aryan (Indo-European), Dravidian (Dravidian languages), Semitic (Semitic languages), and Hamitic (Berber-Cushitic-Egyptian).
Anthropologists generally consider the Cro-Magnons to be the earliest or "proto" representatives of the Caucasoid race, who emerged during the Upper Paleolithic. In a study of Cro-Magnon crania, Jantz and Owsley (2003) have noted that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."[37]
William Howells (1997) has pointed out that Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid based on their cranial traits:
"... the Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth. It is also possible to test this arithmetically. ... Except for Predmosti 4, which is distant from every present and past population, all of these skulls show themselves to be closer to "Europeans" than to other peoples — Mladec and Abri Pataud comfortably so, the other two much more remotely."
The Caucasus is one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse regions on Earth. The nation states that comprise the Caucasus today are the post-Soviet states Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The Russian divisions include Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and the autonomous republics of Adygea, Karachay–Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. Three territories in the region claim independence but are recognized as such by only a handful or by no independent states: Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia Located on the peripheries of Turkey, Iran, and Russia, the region has been an arena for political, military, religious, and cultural rivalries and expansionism for centuries. Throughout its history, the Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian Empire conquered the territory from the Qajars.
Ancient kingdoms of the region included Armenia, Albania, Colchis and Iberia, among others. These kingdoms were later incorporated into various Iranian empires, including Media, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, and Sassanid Empire. In 95-55 BC under the reign of Armenian king of kings Tigranes the Great, the Kingdom of Armenia became an empire, growing to include: Kingdom of Armenia, vassals Iberia, Albania, Parthia and a few Arab tribes, Atropatene, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, Assyria, Nabataean kingdom, Judea and Atropatene. The empire stretched from the Caucasian Mountains to Egypt and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea, including a territory of 3,000,000 km2 (1,158,000 sq mi),
he different nationalities in the area include the Azeri, the Armenians, the Georgians and the Chechens. The Azeri are Turk and speak Turkish, the Armenians are Indo-European people and the Georgians and Chechens are often termed Paleocaucasians. Other groups include the Abkhaz, the Ingush, Avars, Lezgins, Karachi, the Balkans, the Nogais and the Kumyks. With as many as fifty ethnic groups, each differing in language, customs and appearance, Caucasus has been the hot spot of turbulence.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...
Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it.
He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
Yep, and this is why I posted the pic Moroccan woman in the first place.
The last pic of the guy with the dreads, which I've posted. He is Asian, Fijian to be exact.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid?? Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I take it that your harping on trivial matters, rather than the core argument that you were supposed to address, means that you acknowledge that you were fabricating things when you said they’re adapted to hot-dry regions and that they turned tall after they migrated there?
Late UP linear/leptoprosopic Negroid crania are not found in tropical (humid-heat) zones.
quote:Circular reasoning. When a paradigm is being called into question, you can’t prove the legitimacy of that paradigm, by using logic that’s inherent to that paradigm. What you’re doing is the equivalent of trying to prove Jesus made miracles happen by citing biblical passages, when the people you’re talking to are atheists and are calling the bible into question. You’re so good at using paint apps, right? Prove it, Modo-face. Prove his NB is >85% of his NL.
The plate posted is described as platyrrhine by Dixon. And it's clear by just looking at the photo that the man has a high NI. And it's not circular reasoning if you establish where the trait complexes were once circumscribed - as i've already explained. The African fossil record shows that low NI's were fully absent during the Pleistocene. When they do finally show up by the mid-Holocene they only appear in (northern) peripheral areas where Caucasoids had settled - exactly the same for wavy hair texture. Funny that.
quote:Exactly. **Once confined to geographical areas**, meaning, they necessarily originated one time, and then spread to the rest of the world.
Yes. Hence the low fixation index (low inter-variation/high intra-variation) in any modern population today. 85-88% of variation is found among individuals in populations, not between them. The same for any phenotype-clustering by population, this is why "averages" don't work.
quote:Thanks for admitting, once again, that typology cannot even integrate simple biological concepts like parallel evolution. Per your own admission typology is pseudo-science, since science states that
Convergence never replicated an entire phenotype. A type only covers a whole set of traits, so it completely avoids this issue.
quote:Typology cannot explain and predict established and proven phenomena like drift, parallel evolution, sexual selection, etc. because it reduces all the complex changes and variations those processes bring about, to a simplistic matter of race admixture between types. You pseudo-scientists are bunch of race obsessed degenerates.
See above.
quote:You’re a fail. European specific traits that were once circumscribed and are now global are light eyes, and that’s about it.
No, there are many. However the point you overlook is that races/types aren't based on singular traits but an entire ensemble of them in polydimensional space. That is how a forensic scientist has up to 99.99% accuracy in identifying someone's racial type with a skull based on 13 metrics/non-metrics (Sesardic, 2010).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, I wonder what Fartheadbonkers makes of the following study on ancient Egyptian mummy skin:
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed...
Of course Troll Patrol and Zarahan have cited this study numerous times, but I find it funny how the Anglo-idiot seems to ignore it.
He'll simply say skin color is not a racial trait and that Caucasoids can have any skin color. Of course, in saying this he's undermining his own claims (as usual), since he has also stated that Caucasoids cannot have dark skin when he tried to keep highly melanated ''Aethiopids'' out of the Caucasoid proper category.
Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.
Aethiopids are not Caucasoid. And despite Baker (1974) 'lumping' them as Caucasoids, he notes they are 25% Negroid in traits [in actual fact other anthropologists extend this as high as 75%]. Baker's only reason for lumping was to save book space and for convenience [his magnum opus entitled Race is one of the largest and most detailed books on races ever written, he also lumped Turanids, who show Mongoloid features, as Caucasoids].
Go on any anthropology forum and you will see Aethiopids are universally considered a Negroid-Caucasoid hybrid type. As far as i'm aware no one claims Aethiopids are Caucasoid ('white') only the confused folk at Hamiticunion.
Anyway take a look at a UV index map, and you will see Eurasia has the most diversity in solar radiation/UV. High UV levels are found across parts of the Middle-East.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Late UP linear/leptoprosopic Negroid crania are not found in tropical (humid-heat) zones.
Shifting the goalpost again (as expected). You defined stature as a hot-dry adaptation, and specifically used the Nilote type as an example of this. This is the second time in a row that you try to obfuscate the fact that the remains tagged as Proto-Nilotes have always been relatively tall.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The plate posted is described as platyrrhine by Dixon.
What are you waiting for? Prove it, as requested!
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Hence the low fixation index (low inter-variation/high intra-variation) in any modern population today.
Complete bullsh!t. The further one goes back in time, the more intra populational variation one finds. Rather than seeing duplicate types in the same burials, the further one goes back in modern human history (up until 200kya), the remains show much more variations than modern humans do, even as small as the Pleistocene samples are.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Convergence never replicated an entire phenotype.
Clearly you don't even know what phenotype means, but to address your point, this is a complete red herring. Parallel evolution doesn’t need to duplicate complete European phenotypes in Africa for me to make the point that typology falsely classifies skulls who share some traits with alleged 'original trait bearers' due to parallel evolution, as ‘mixed’. Case in point: epicanthic folds in Khoisan populations.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See above.
Just seen the above and it’s a red herring, as usual.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No, there are many.
Other than light eyes, there are none. Every trait that Europeans have, that’s relevant to typology, evolved independently elsewhere, as demonstrated by the different genetic underpinnings for traits that look identical on the surface (e.g., pale skin). Genetics is nothing other than a big boot up in Typology’s ass. That's why you ignore genetics.
quote:Aethiopids are not Caucasoid. And despite Baker (1974) 'lumping' them as Caucasoids, he notes they are 25% Negroid in traits [in actual fact other anthropologists extend this as high as 75%].
Irrelevant. Even with the high estimates of up to 75% negroid traits, that's still a 25% of ''pure'' Caucasoids, while population genetics has yet to find a single physically Caucasoid Horner person, with 100% or even near 100% Mediterranean ancestry. Regardless of their physical ''type'' (i.e., Negroid, Mediterranean, Nordic), they all have an almost identical amount of African ancestry. Take Tiskoff 2009, for instance. Every vertical line represents the genetic profile of a single person, and there is not a single uniformly blue vertical line in the East African samples:
There isn't a single blue bar in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, there isn't even a single 100% blue bar in the sampled Northern Africans. If typology were scientific (reproducible) it would have no problems duplicating its observations with genetics. Instead all we see is that types have no in footing in genetic reality.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid??
Under the Cassian theory somebody who has dark skin may have had ancestors that never left Africa but may also have some features that would be classified as Caucasian
-though having no connection to the Caucus or any region outside of Africa, no 'admixture'
the Africsoid
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.
Is it me, or is the above self-contradictory? You cite Coon as saying Caucasoid skin color ranges to "almost black" but then YOU say Caucasoid pigmentation excludes excessively dark. Is not almost black excessively dark? And what are we to make of the skin cells of New Kingdom Pharaohs packed with melanin as expected for Negroids??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Coon (1982) writes "almost black (dark brown)". Caucasoid pigmentation runs through to brown shades, but excludes excessively dark.
Is it me, or is the above self-contradictory? You cite Coon as saying Caucasoid skin color ranges to "almost black" but then YOU say Caucasoid pigmentation excludes excessively dark. Is not almost black excessively dark? And what are we to make of the skin cells of New Kingdom Pharaohs packed with melanin as expected for Negroids??
It's standard per the Fitzpatrick scale, or Luschan scale.
There's 6 skin types on the Fitzpatrick scale -
1. Pale white 2. White 3. Medium White ("brown tinge") 4. Light brown 5. Medium Brown 6. Very dark brown/black
So Cass's is he a Negro , Caucasoid or Mongoloid??
You will not receive an answer. Because the hypothesis is dishonest from the start. What you will see, is the impostor responding with comparison pics of colors and ethnic groups (usually it's Non-Africans). It's always the same lame game. As the post below.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB] ^LOL at the above,
Here we go again, with the picture lunatic spam comparison!
How typical, for this impostor.
notice how Troll puts up the Fitzpatrick scale
but if examples are given that don't have the right racial stereotype all of the sudden you can't apply the color chart all of the sudden forget the whole thing and he attacks me.
Once you present this chart you should be able to apply it to any examples given.
If you can't deal with that then you shouldn't have put up the chart in the first place.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL He attacks you not because you somehow refute him, but because your idiotic picture spam without any explanation or point.
You attempt to bust the whole color scheme with folks of supposedly same or similar complexions but then you have that lightened up picture of Wole Soyinka. LMAO
That is why nobody takes you seriously and attacks you for the lying rat that you are!
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Why the fuk are you people still listening to this ^^[Anglo]idiot??
Nobody is listening to him at all so much as exposing his idiocy. Don't worry Brada, we listen to him like we do a hyper-active child with an over-active imagination. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: It's standard per the Fitzpatrick scale, or Luschan scale.
There's 6 skin types on the Fitzpatrick scale -
1. Pale white 2. White 3. Medium White ("brown tinge") 4. Light brown 5. Medium Brown 6. Very dark brown/black
The six types on one hand:
Okay. So let me guess Caucasoids cover types 1-5 while Negroids only cover 6 right? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ LOL He attacks you not because you somehow refute him, but because your idiotic picture spam without any explanation or point.
You attempt to bust the whole color scheme with folks of supposedly same or similar complexions but then you have that lightened up picture of Wole Soyinka. LMAO
That is why nobody takes you seriously and attacks you for the lying rat that you are!
cheerleading again I see
you lied here.
I have already exposed this before. You don't understand that lighter skinned brown people likw Wale Solinka look darker when they have more sun exposure.
So you lie and say the photo is "lightened"
none of thes photos are "lightened" you lying freak
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This man's skin color is the "Default" type for most African Americans(Its my Skin color), from my observations. As you can see his skin can look a Yellowish Brown, to a Dark Black Brown depending on the lighting.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [/URL] none of thes photos are "lightened" you lying freak
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
the difference here is more than just lighting. Unlike many African Americans Wole Soyinka spends time in Europe and also in Nigeria which is close to the equator and has UV higher than anywhere in the U.S. The difference is the conditions he is staying at the moment and the degree at which he tans in high UV Nigeria. Most Americans would not experience these drastic changes in environment. If you want to say that the photo of Wole Soyinka at the bottom of this post represents the "default" complexion of most African Americans if Wole Soyinka was living in Chicago he would have skin lighter then that default. He is lighter skinned than this "default" and l ighter skinned than most Nigerian males (females are more often lighter) he only reaches your default when he has been exposed to summer or Nigerian living conditions. Unless he gets enough sun Dehootie says he isn't Black. There is a color border line and some people are right near it. So conditions can push them one way or the other over the border. Somebody who is at your default to begin with experiences more subtle differences on high sun exposure but if somebody is light brown, high yellow or "white" when they go into a high UV environment for a while they have more dramatic chnages in their skin tone. Wole Soyinka is naturally around light brown high/high yellow skin tone. When he is exposed to a lot of sun he looks darker, more like an average African American.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I have seen it all....arguing over skin tone on a digital screen.
Someone remind me. What does the buttons on the side of the monitor do?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Nice skin color and skin tone pictures analysis by Troll Patrol.This black Ethiopian our Somalian is the carbon copy of the Mummy of Ramses II.
I like this one ever better.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
WHAT THE WHITE MAN MEANS BY BROWN EGYPTIANS IS HIS CAUCASIANS -- A.K.A. DARK WHITES
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Nice find Al! yeah goes to show you how the Egyptians depicted themselves. What gets me is that at this point in time Europeans could have claimed the Romans, Greeks, the British Empire, the French Empire and the Colonial and New World Cultures, so why lie about Egypt. I understand at the time their ideology of race prevented them from being truthful, going as far as claiming the Nubians to be whites. This goes to show that their approach was not scientific.
Originally posted by Tukuler: Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Originally posted by Troll Patrol: It's unbelievable, but that idiot has more of these funny imaginary troll illustrations.
How cute they even managed to include a blond man..lol
Eurocentric Delusion compared to the Original Primary Source the artist used to make his hallucination..
It amazes me the nerve and Gall of these people. I mean they were obviously lying. Its like looking at portraits of George Washington and painting him Chinese.
^ Good lookin' Jari, pinpointing the exact source. Here're some more vinters. Not a pink skin nor baldy among 'em.
Yep! Bunch of lying thieves not content with what their people/race accomplish reach back into time to steal another people's/race's civilization and then dny such people had a past before meeting them.
Note Kha em Waset's vintors are of various origins though they all are Egyptian citizens.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ..I mean really how can one look at the tomb painting and not conclude it was depicting black people?? How? I wonder what was going on in their heads as they blatantly lied to the world??
The psychology of white-wash was explained various times before, but I think it was best explained by Philip Emeagwali, the computer science genius from Nigeria. Emeagwali was one of the forefathers of high-speed internet processing.
In an autobiography Emeagwali wrote:
"Twelve years ago, a magazine hired a white man to prepare an illustration of a supercomputer wizard riding an ox. I was supposed to be the supercomputer wizard. But the white illustrator, who knew that I am black, portrayed me as a white person in his published illustration."
The first draft of a portrait that depicted Emeagwali as a supercomputer wizard driving a carriage powered by thousands of chickens (a metaphor for his 65,000 weak processors that performed the world's fastest computation). The "Negro Emeagwali" (shown in this illustration) was rejected and replaced with a "Caucasian Emeagwali" (shown below).
A "whitened" Caucasian portrait of Emeagwali was acceptable and widely published. One illustrator argued that Emeagwali has a trace of Caucasian blood and said that he could see the "Caucasian look" in his face!! [sic]
Emeagwali himself
Emeagwali wrote of the white illustrator: "I learned that the white illustrator was searching for himself in me."
And there you have it in a nutshell-- so many whites are desperate to see themselves in the peoples of great civilizations of the world. This is why back in the 19th century Euro-colonialists were proclaiming peoples from the Aztecs to the early Chinese has having "Caucasoid" ancestry. The 'Middle East' including Egypt was a hotbed of this nonsense and especially Egypt. Today while the Americas and much of Asia is purged from this nonsense unfortunately Southwest Asia and indeed Egypt and greater north Africa are not. Even Sub-Sahara is not safe and even the indigenous cultures of southern Africa are not safe from the psychotic white-wash!!
So why this need of whites like Anglo-idiot to "see themselves" in other people who are not white??
I'm no psychologist but it doesn't take an expert to know what the problem is. and I leave the answer below to Anglo-idiot and his ilk:
Bump
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Encyclopedia Britannica editions up to the 1980s if I remember they classified the art of Egypt as "Western" art.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nodnarb says: what would you make of Afro-Diasporans using symbols from a long-dead Northeast African civilization? Wouldn't it be like, say, Germans utilizing Greek symbols, or Malays playing with Chinese icons?
What you fail to realize is that Germans DO make use of Greek symbols and Malays DO play with Chinese icons and few call it cultural "appropriation." Germans use in part a modified alphabet based on some Greek models. ANd they use numerous Greek derived technical symbols and labels. Malays use Chinese icons and influences in various cultural contexts as in events and festivals.
White Americans and British use numerous Egyptian symbols in their culture- and Egyptian iconography even appears on their money. White people are the biggest copiers, borrowers and users of ancient Egyptian symbolism. But few go around talking about "appropriation."
But when a black man shows up then a double standard emerges. Egypt is an African culture developed by African peoples. Swedes or white Americans thousands of miles distant can use Greek iconography and few object. But when a black man either a few score miles south of Egypt, or few hundred on the same continent do the same then there is a "problem." When the descendants of those Africans in the diaspora do likewise then there are also alleged "problems" and "appropriation." This is the hypocritical white double standard that pervades the field.
Finally, as credible scholarship shows, much foundational Egyptian culture, including iconography rests on and derive from an African substratum (Frankfort 1948, Morkot 2005, Keita 1992, Bard 2001 et al). Egyptian iconography for example while not static and changing over time, derives from the African motifs seen in the rock art iof the deserts. In religion the cattle cults king a divine rainmaker, animal gods etc all derive from other nearby African cultures. Many Afro- Disaporan people generally don't see Egypt as the "beginning" of such things. AFRICA is the beginning from which Egypt derived. Ivan van Sertima once wrote a book entitled "Egypt: Child of Africa." It is a good title. The beginning of Egypt is Africa, just as the beginning of Kush is Africa, just as Ghana and Mali begin from African cultures. Africans don't need to "appropriate" foundations that ALREADY begin with and derive from Africa.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
As credible histories show, when Napoleon came back from Egypt with a huge ton of documentation and artifacts, Westerners increasingly realized that there was a whole other massive, advanced ancient culture that did not depend on "the West" - that was long before Greece and Rome. Hence as some academics note- it was this "Egyptian wave" that really expanded the museum in the West and made Egyptian art part of the Western canon. In other words, the West co-opted and incorporated all those artifacts as part of "the West." This is why "Egyptomania" was and is still alive in the West. Even the Romans were collectors of Egyptian art and the Greeks recognized Egypt as superior on some counts.
So basically you have a huge amount of ego, resources, money and emotion invested by white people in Egypt. Egyptian symbols even appear on their paper money. This is why they will fight tooth and nail to downplay, dismiss or distort Kemet's African roots (the "3D" strategy). They are hugely invested - body and soul in this.
-------------------- 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: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic