posted
Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was just the beginning of the problems of the 'black' crowd. What do you do when people akin to the ancestors of pale northwestern Europe had dark skin somewhere within the range of African Americans during most of their stay in Europe? What implications does that have for the premise that "white" and "black" are fundamentally opposite and the idea that 'black' neatly excludes European ancestry/people?
quote:[T]he new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
Please critique and analyze what I wrote when you have time. I worked very hard on that and on writing that information.
The point you have to understand is, there is a huge time gap, too huge between neolithic DNA and settlers of Europe and NOW! In that sort of time gap, North America went from being majority Amerindian to within majority White within a few hundred years.
So logic tells us that you cannot use Neolithic and early pre-modern samples to make guesses as to how Europe's population became what it is today.
The fact of the matter is that White Europeans are not Europeans, and that Europe underwent several major demographic changes and shifts.
Most of Europe, mostly Northern and Central Europe did not have major population centers and civilizations.
White Europeans did not originally have literacy or settled civilizations when they entered Europe in major waves as Central Asian nomadic barbarian tribes.
And since Northern Europe was a backwater at early points in history, and Whites were mostly illiterate nomads, we don't know much about that time period and how Whites came to be the major population.
You had major climate shifts like the mini-ice age that killed off Europe's Black original populations.
You had plagues like the Bubonic plague and black death that also killed off Europe's original black populations and population centers.
You had racial wars like the Thirty years war, between Black European Catholics and Protestant Central Asian whites that depopulated Central and Northern Europe of it's original Black European population.
At several major points in Europe's history, the original Greek, Etruscan, Minoan, Roman, Italic ?European civilizations declined and were made extremely vulnerable to outside barbarian invasions.
These were the major points when Whites also began taking over these places and the entirety of Europe. AT EXACTLY THESE INSTANCES AND POINTS! It is even written on records that Whites began taking over DURING THESE POINTS! Is that a coincidence? I think not..
Simply put, Black Europe was demographically swamped and taken over by more virile and more numerous Whites from Central Asia and Northern Europe.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
In regards to Bronze Age demographics, check out Herodotus' statement where he says that the argument that Colchians were Egyptians because they had significantly more darker skin and tightly coiled hair (than the Greeks) didn't mean much to him because "others had those traits too".
He then went on to name cultural commonalities as presenting stronger evidence for the idea that Colchians were ethnically Egyptian. Darkbrown skinned people in and around Asia Minor, the Levant and other places must have been common to the extent that the ancients felt that it would be presumptive to automatically invoke Africa and not also consider nearby populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Aye... I was actually was looking for that exact text from Herodotus around the net. I heard(don't know if true) of "black Caucasian" in Russia. Again don't know if that's true.
Please read my quote, I accidentally didn't provide the link to the ESR thread post in that thread I linked to.
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
For me, the part where he says "But that doesn't mean much, because others had those traits, too" is far more meaningful than just his reference to Colchians. Together with other Greek texts and Bronze Age Anatolian and Syrian skeletal remains, it speaks to Herodotus' implied familiarity with dark skinned people (other than the Colchians), close to the Aegean.
He didn't explicitly mention those implied dark skinned populations, because his audience would have immediately understood whom he was talking about. In fact, were it not relevant to his intention to discuss the obscure origins of the Colchians, Herodotus probably wouldn't even have mentioned the physical appearance of all three populations in that passage. Apparently, it was not something that would have needed excessive treatment in those days, because it was obvious.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this is a silly question, but could it be said that pale skin in Homo-Sapiens is more of a recent thing?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Just looked at your post. Major demographic changes from outside are not necessary to explain why Europeans look the way they look.
Look at the ancestors of native Americans. The American continent is a useful example because it was isolated (at least for our purposes). Many ancestors of native Americans arrived looking like Australian absoriginals (e.g. Luzia woman), some arrived looking more like Polynesians and the Jomon (e.g. Kennewick man). Both had Amerindian genetics. Features from both morphotypes are present in living Amerindian populations, with some taking more after one of the 'founding population' and others more after the other 'founding population'. But they generally all have features in common that emerged after the settlement.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Mindovermatter. Major demographic changes from outside are not necessary to explain why Europeans look the way they look.
Look at the ancestors of native Americans. Many arrived looking like Australian absoriginals (e.g. Luzia woman), some arrived looking more like Polynesians and the Jomon (e.g. Kennewick man). Both had Amerindian genetics.
YES IT IS!
BECAUSE WHITES ARE NOT NATIVE TO EUROPE AND REALLY HAD NO PART IN BUILDING ANCIENT EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONS LIKE GREECE AND ETRURIA OR IT'S MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS!
Dude I can't still believe you are sprouting that garbage about Whites turning White due to climate which has been debunked countless times already c'mon now!
WHITE EUROPEANS ARE NOT NATIVE TO EUROPE! THEY ARE ALBINO'S FROM CENTRAL AND SOUTH ASIA! THAT IS WHERE THE R1a GENE ORIGINATES FROM! THEY ARE HYBRIDS OF INDIAN ALBINO'S AND AFRICAN ALBINO'S AND YOU CAN LOOK AT A GENETIC TABLE TO SEE THIS!
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT WHITE EUROPEANS ARE NOT ANCIENT EUROPEANS AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM BECAUSE THE LAYMAN AND IGNORANT ASSUME THE MODERN WHITE EUROPEAN POPULATION HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ORIGINAL EUROPEANS!
THE ORIGINAL EUROPE WAS A DARK AND BROWN SKINNED MAJORITY PLACE WITH ALBINO POPULATIONS IN THE NORTH AND IN FORESTED/ISOLATED AREAS!
THESE BLACK/BROWN EUROPEANS WERE KILLED OFF IN THE WAYS I DESCRIBED AND BRED OUT OR SENT AWAY BY INVADING WHITE CENTRAL ASIAN BARBARIAN TRIBES WHO OUTNUMBERED THEM POPULATION WISE DUE TO CLIMATIC SHIFTS AND EPIDEMICS/WARS!
THESE INVADING WHITE TRIBES TOOK OVER ONCE ALL THESE EVENTS HAPPENED AND BEGAN POPULATING THE ENTIRETY OF EUROPE WHILE BECOMING EUROPE'S WHITE FACE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD!
What I'm stating is nothing but evidence that refutes the assumption that Ancient Europeans turned into modern White Europeans, which itself is silly since Ancient Europeans have genes that ARE NON-EXISTENT IN MODERN EUROPEANS AND HAVE A DIFFERENT DNA MAKEUP ENTIRELY THEN MODERN WHITE EUROPEANS! Therefor modern White Europeans have NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT BLACK EUROPEANS!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
If that's what you subscribe to, knock yourself out and more power to you. Genetically speaking, I wouldn't know how to reconcile that with all genetic evidence.
Yes you're right. Indo-European speaking tribes entered Europe from elsewhere, but you're forgetting one thing. Those Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe were 'white' then, but they too would have been dark skinned at one point. So, you may reject that dark aboriginal Europeans morphed into 'white' living Europeans over time. But those 'white' invaders most definitely went from dark to pale. What you dismiss as "turning white due to climate" had to happen somewhere, whether in Europe or in Asia.
You're merely shifting the problem, like Darwinists who try to solve the problem of life by proposing it came out of space. But guess what, they still have to explain how dead, inanimate matter became alive. Saying it came from space doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
You are right though about Y-DNA R. Its ancestor (K-M526) seems to have originated much closer to the Pacific than to Europe.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Herodotus is simply saying there are many black peoples. He says black. He does not say darker skinned nor does he say dark brown. To say he does is a deliberate falsification as is putting black in parenthesis. Basil Davidson gave up on using that old tired Colchis statement to mean other than what it in fact says, that there are many black skinned woolly haired nations. Herodotus is without any ambiguity calling Egyptians black. Only 19th and 20th century melanophobes tried to twist it to mean anything different.
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Since for the last 3000 years black has meant Old World peoples whose lands border the Indian Ocean as well as Africa the drive should be to restore the time honored usage not to embrace the calculated pigeonhole new fangled one.
Indians are still black. When Iranians agreed to release black hostages they were referring to a black American and an Indian. The black American refused to go. He didn't want to be freed if it was due to racial discrimination (no lie).
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology. I mean, ****, besides Iranis sticking to the time honored meaning of black Greeks & Turks still refer to Arabs as black using their word for nigger as the accepted adjective. So not even all Euros ate buying this "only African Americans and their African source populations are black" bullshit.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here we go again. Why must I always take the fall for people's loose grasp of the material discussed?
1) I'm certainly willing to review any evidence put forth that 'melas' and its variants mean 'black' and that the Greeks made no distinction between certain jet-black Africans (like Pygmies and certain Sudanese) on the one hand, and brown to dark brown Egyptians, Garamantes and certain northern Sudanese on the other hand.
2) I've consistently said that early European farmers (though generally in possession of the derived SLC24A5 allele) weren't 'white' and that UP Europeans weren't 'white'. I've also consistently said that modern Europeans have ~33% African ancestry, and was dismissed back then for it by the same people who today accuse me of spreading Eurocentric falsehoods. Funny how the accusations change over time.
3) People like Carlos invoke the "pigeonhole new fangled" definition themselves by insisting that ancient Egyptians would have been classified as 'black' using WESTERN, and specifically, US, standards. The current US use of 'black' is narrow, whether anyone likes it or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
None of you guys are crazy. You guys have your theories and I have mine.
Pale skin would have most definitely been needed for much colder climates. . People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to incorporate vitamin D in their skin. Which forced the mutation for pale skin. Pale skin people who by the way still have "melanin".
You don't have to agree with this, but fact is this isn't apart of this thread.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] @Mind over matter
"If that's what you subscribe to, knock yourself out and more power to you. Genetically speaking, I wouldn't know how to reconcile that with all genetic evidence."
No it's not what I subscribe to, IT IS THE FACTS! It's not my problem if you can't accept them; simply put this is what one comes to the conclusion to WHEN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL AND RESEARCH DATA!
"Yes you're right. Indo-European speaking tribes entered Europe from elsewhere, but you're forgetting one thing. Those Indo-Europeans who invaded Europe were 'white' then, but they too would have been dark skinned at one point."
EXCEPT THEY WERE NOT! First they were MULTIPLE to MASSIVE MIGRATIONS OF THEM, FROM THE CENTRAL ASIAN STEPPES! There WERE LARGE POPULATION MIGRATIONS OF THEM INTO EUROPE, OBVIOUSLY THIS CHANGED EUROPE'S DEMOGRAPHICS AS LOGIC DICTATES!
It's like how Mexicans are invading the South-west of the U.S, Mexicans are out-breeding and outnumbering White Americans, but once Mexicans take over the South-west, does that imply that long ago it was primarily Mexicans that BUILT ALL THE ORIGINAL MODERN LANDMARKS, INFRASTRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS THERE IN THE PAST? HELL NO!
Same logic applies to the Indo-European migrants into old Europe! And THEY WERE NOT DARK SKINNED! THERE ARE RECORDS DESCRIBING THEM AS NOT BEING DARK SKINNED!
THEY WERE ALBINO SOUTH ASIANS FROM CENTRAL ASIA! THAT IS WHY THEY HAD BLOND/RED/BROWN HAIR AND LIGHT FEATURES! BECAUSE THEY WERE A COMBINATION OF OCA-1, OCA-2, OCA-4 majority ALBINO'S! THIS IS WHERE ALL THOSE OLD RED HAIRED AND LIGHT FEATURED OLD GREEKS COME FROM!
THE EARLY INDO-EUROPEANS MIXED WITH THE ORIGINAL BLACK GREEKS AND ITALIANS AND WERE ABSORBED INTO THEIR POPULATION CREATING A MIXED RACE BROWNISH/BLACKISH MULATTO SOCIETY!
"So, you may reject that dark aboriginal Europeans morphed into 'white' living Europeans over time. But those 'white' invaders most definitely went from dark to pale. What you dismiss as "turning white due to climate" had to happen somewhere, whether in Europe or in Asia."
"You're merely shifting the problem, like Darwinists who try to solve the problem of life by proposing it came out of space. But guess what, they still have to explain how dead, inanimate matter became alive. Saying it came from space doesn't solve the fundamental problem."
No now you are just using false analogies and red herring arguments to rationalize away why I am right and you are simply wrong. The facts and research data is there, and IT SIMPLY PROVE MY CLAIMS AND CONCLUSIONS TIME AND TIME AGAIN! The fact of the matter is that White Europeans are albino's and are the result of albinism like in the story I linked to and is NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE AND NEVER WAS IN THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT!
That's why cold climate NATIVE POPULATIONS, like the populations I named dropped ARE ALL DARK SKINNED DESPITE LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES!
"You are right though about Y-DNA R. Its ancestor (K-M526) seems to have originated much closer to the Pacific than to Europe."
Yes, but these were not the Indo-Europeans, they most likely branches of Indo-Europeans expanding into Siberia. I myself have theorized that early Indo-European albino Indian tribes in Central Asia expanded into Siberia and caused the Native American tribes to move to North America in another thread.
Because Indo-European albino Indian tribes invaded several places in history at around the same time frames and time periods. You have the Aryan migration period into India, you have the Tocharian expansion into Western China, you have the Scythian/Ossetian migrations in the Middle East, you have the Dorian/Italic/Latin tribes expanding into Southern Europe etc etc.
So they changed the population makeup and demographics of several areas, areas they were not originally native to in the first place, AS THESE AREAS DECLINE IN CIVILIZATION OR UNDERWENT MAJOR CLIMATIC SHIFT LIKE IN THE INDUS VALLEY CASE!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Just remember to try and get rid of the dark. no skin color is dark..Black skinned, Blacker skinned, Deep Black etc.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Blessed, pale skin is a symptom of albinism, I thought by now you have would realized this. White Europeans are basically OCA-1 and OCA-2 and OCA-4 majority albino's.
Mike is not crazy and neither are the other people on this forum when they say White Europeans are albino's, THERE IS LOADS OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT!
And you are obviously being tricked by whites when you imply that Pale skin is an "evolution"; IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE TO IT!
EVEN IN NORTHERN AND COLD CLIMATES, the people ARE NORMALLY DARK SKINNED! Just look at the Inuits, the Canadian Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Nepalese, Tibetan people, the natives of Terra tel fuego, the Chuckchi tribes, the original Saami people etc etc etc.
THEY ARE ALL DARK SKINNED AND HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THESE CLIMATES LONGER THEN WHITES, YET ARE STILL DARK SKINNED!
None of you guys are crazy. You guys have your theories and I have mine.
Pale skin would have most definitely been needed for much colder climates. . People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to incorporate vitamin D in their skin. Which forced the mutation for pale skin. Pale skin people who by the way still have "melanin".
You don't have to agree with this, but fact is this isn't apart of this thread.
NO PALE SKIN IS NOT NEEDED FOR COLD CLIMATES!
The TIBETAN PEOPLE, CANADIAN NATIVE AMERICANS, NORTH AMERICAN PLAINS INDIANS, ALASKAN INUITS, THE CHUKCHI TRIBES, THE NATIVES OF TERRA TEL FUEGO, THE NEPALESE WERE ALL COLD CLIMATE ADAPTED PEOPLE!
THEY HAD LIVED IN THESE CLIMATES AND ENVIRONMENTS LONGER THEN EUROPEANS! AND YET THEY ARE STILL DARK SKINNED TO THIS DAY!
THEREFORE IT IS A FACT THAT PALE SKIN IS NOT NEEDED FOR COLD CLIMATES AND WITH RESEARCH DATA AND LOGIC SUPPORTING IT! THEREFORE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY, I AM STATING NOTHING BUT FACTS WHEN I SAY PALE SKIN IS NOT ADVANTAGE IN COLD CLIMATES!
quote: Expeditioners to Antarctic train for freezing temperatures and social isolation, but a study has found there is something else to be wary of -- sunburn.
The recent joint study by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency found that more than 80 percent of researchers to the South Pole were potentially exposed to ultraviolet (UV) rays in excess of the recommended limits.
Almost a third received more than five times these limits.
The study showed that in some cases the UV exposure levels in Australian Antarctic stations can reach an index level of 8 or more, making exposure levels there similar to what lifeguards in Australia's sunny Queensland state potentially receive.
Almost a third received more than five times these limits.
The study showed that in some cases the UV exposure levels in Australian Antarctic stations can reach an index level of 8 or more, making exposure levels there similar to what lifeguards in Australia's sunny Queensland state potentially receive. "It's the first study that we have done to look at the personal doses of solar UV radiation of Australians working in Antarctica," AAD Chief Medical Officer Jeff Ayton, co-author of the report, told Reuters.
Measurements were carried out during unloading of two vessels while they were at Australian Antarctic stations Casey, Davis and Mawson. Participants wore UV-sensitive badges on their chests for the duration of the working day, which ranged from five to 10 hours but could be as long as 14 hours.
Their face, hands and in some cases more of their limbs were uncovered and subjected to UV exposure.
"Despite sun protection being provided to the workers, a large portion of them reported feeling sunburnt," Ayton said.
There is a large variation of UV radiation in Antarctica. In winter, when there's very low levels, vitamin D deficiency is a real threat.
But in summer, the study found that the extended duration of sunlight, the hole in the ozone layer and the light's reflection off the ice and water contributed to the high levels of UV radiation exposure.
This meant a higher risk of UV damage to the skin and the eyes, with long-term effects including potential skin cancers, Ayton said.
A team of 10 Australians from The Mawson's Huts Foundation Expedition for 2009/10 is currently working in East Antarctica, conserving the base of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-14 organized and led by Sir Douglas Mawson.
Even the coldest, most Sun-Deprived place on the Earth, is not safe for White people!
And you get this too:
Look at the absurdly high cancer rates in NORTHERN EUROPE OF ALL PLACES COMPARED TO SOUTHERN EUROPE WHICH HAS MORE SUN LIGHT THEN NORTHERN EUROPE! NORTHERN EUROPE IS A REALLY DARK ENVIRONMENT!
THEREFORE IT'S A FACT THAT WHITES ARE NOT AN ADAPTATION TO COLD ENVIRONMENTS! YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T EVENTUALLY AND THAT MY CLAIMS AND MY "OPINION" IS AN ACTUAL CORRECT FACT!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I couldn't care less who embraces The "only African Americans and Their African source populations Are black" misconception.
I have explained it is NOT universal. Accepting it as universal is tantamount To supporting Euro global hegemony In terminology is capitulating to a Simon Says mentality no matter Who it is that agrees to black Means African negro.
EuroAmerica is not the world and The world's peoples obviously do Not accept nor recognize that Misconception as universally Valid.
Has nothing to do with ES Personalities or demagoguery
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Again @Mindovermatter I'M NOT DEBATING THIS.
You are not because you simply can't, every single supporting evidence that you have for your "opinion" can be refuted EASILY! I don't have an OPINION, I HAVE A FACT! I am right and I have the factually correct claim, and you are simply wrong in disputing it. What I'm stating is NOTHING BUT FACTS!
And what you are DISPUTING AND DISAGREEING WITH IS NOTHING BUT FACTS! FACTS THAT CAN BE EASILY PROVEN BY A QUICK SEARCH AND SIMPLE LOGIC!
Therefore you cannot refute me so you have to leave the argument!
Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged |
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology.
Why do you say the "Western pink man" and not the white man?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
More strawmen. How can I "accept it as universal" when I have abandoned the term and don't even use it (as I've said many times). All I've done is provide commentary on how its used in various traditions and whether various African populations would be consistent with different traditions of the term.
Fact of the matter is, when you debate western opponents who don't have any other concept of the term than the western one (as Carlos tries to do), you're automatically going to invoke the narrow one. When you make bold sweeping claims about what population x would look like to modern US citizen eyes (as Carlos tries to do), it's even more self-defeating, because you'd be invoking the narrow one yourself. He's willfully setting up the conditions for self-fulfilling prophesies to happen and then cries "racism" when it actually does, like a chicken without a head.
Interesting that I'm being accused of accepting the narrow definition of 'black' (which I don't), when it is Carlos who is accepting the US census bureau one--albeit modified to some degree. Even down to the one drop rule and primarily considering dark skinned Africans (i.e. excluding certain Maghrebi groups and only begrudgingly considering dark skinned Asians when called out for being inconsistent). Right Carlos?
"musician Goldie and swarthy modern Egyptians are 'black'" --Carlos Oliver Coke
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm not addressing yyou only So If you do not accept it as Universal then good for you
You tend to talk out both Sides of your mouth in Order to shift weight When exposed
I'm not foolish enough to Engage s demagog on a Popular forum where ideas Are judged by buddie camps
I will continue to address The topic for anyone Interested in "the West And the rest of us' Else I'll shut up and Go away. Whichever Pleases me at the Moment.
Anyway I am pleased to Havevcountered erroneous Ideas and promulgate that black rightfully Defines AEs since AE Writings and writings Clear up to Napoleon All agree on AE blackness And ad Volney shows AE blackness is no different Than any other African's Blackness (especially the Transplanted enslaved Varieties) and blackness Is not monolithic since It varies quite widely From the CCape to The pre-sahara.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
Amazing how no one anywhere argues pink Euros contemporary to AEs were not white and shouldn't be thought racially white in today's terms.Yet negroes vehemently rail against use of black.
Supporting the Western pink man's sleight of hand current definition of black (only thode peoples ripe for the slave trade) is fiddling for white is right domination of global terminology.
Somebody please tell us why Tukuler calls white Europeans "pink"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I got it from star trek Where blue aliens Keep calling whites Pink
Now go ahead and Say well if whites Are pink then blacks Are brown you troll you
posted
How bizarre. I guess googling evidence for Herodutus' 'melas' necessarily meaning 'black' must not have went according to expectation.
For people interested in investigating the history of excessively narrow applications of 'black' and related terms to African territories and people, I suggest looking up:
--The meaning of 'melas' as applied to the Egyptians and how that contrasts with other skin color terms that were applied more often to Aethiopians --The selective application of jet-black paint in ancient Egypt --The term bilad as sudan as applied by Arabs --The term Zanj as applied by Arabs and others --The application of the term 'Aethiopia' in Greece, which went from referring to the lands of all dark skinned Africans and Asians to just referring to a small patch of land. Something similar happened eventually with the people formally called Aethiopians. In later times it often only included jet-black people. --A similar shift in Hebrew literature in regards to the term 'Kush' and related terms.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Bizarre? Nigga please
number one I don't Go wher you point
Number two I addressed That years Ago and it's Still in ES Archives
Number three U just proved My point you Are nothing More than A demagog Carefully A voiding The salient Issues
Number four You will now Indulge in more Demagoguery
I don't see anybody Else engaging me In discussion so I've successful ly Made my points Clearly whether Or not readership Agrees
It's unimportant they Agree as we all hold Differing opinions.
All thats important Is readers get my Points not bow Down to them
At this point I await Questions comments And criticisms from BBHorus and others Who are not your FB Psychophants
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Declaring oneself "black" is legitimates declaring oneself "white"
That's why Europeans invented the negro concept, what in English we call 'black', to legitimize them being white. It's a duality system
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Okay as a "newbie" I noticed a ranging war going on and I want to include my 2 cents. Before I go on I hope I do not misinterpret both camps arguments.
In my opinion using the term, "black" is not useless. It's just that the term or ANY modern day racial terms have any use in science/anthropology. And trying to make them relevant in that field is futile. Scientific Anthropologist refrain from using racial terms. "Race" is not biologically defined and this is nothing new. So I don't get why SOME people on here are having a hard time grasping this. No anthropologist will out right say the Ancient Egyptians were "black"! That is just a fact neither would they say the Ancient Egyptians were white or whatever.
Keita for example who is a well known anthropologist refrains from using racial terms. He never in any of his works outright said the Ancient Egyptians were "black" and yet by reading his work and using common sense we know what he is saying.
Anyways poster Swenet hit the nail with this post from that Sir Clair Drake thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
A subset of dynastic Egyptian samples squeezed in between Abyssinians and Cretans, Etruscans and Sardinians and showing considerable ties with the biblical inhabitants of the Judaean city of Lachish. No competent western, middle eastern or oriental academic who has seriously looked into this is going to use the term "black" (in a racial sense) when applied to dynastic Egyptians (although they might do it in a pigmentation sense, by saying they would have been dark brown). And in the occasion they do use 'black' in a racial sense (usually when they speak in an informal context), they're likely to say that they think that the ancient Egyptians were half black/half non-black based on their position in cranio-facial analysis.
This is the obvious peril/risk you run when you engage opponents trying to repurpose and reinvigorate old prejudiced terms (i.e. "black" as applied in the west) as opposed to focusing on the real issue, i.e., the question whether they were indigenous Africans or not. Of course, someone's position in multivariate space is going to determine how lay people perceive their "race", so the "forget science, I'm just focusing on what lay people would say" escape, is a deliberately deceptive fallacy. Craniofacial analysis uses measurements that the lay public intuitively uses when assigning race.
But to expand on further what Swenet meant...
Who are those people? Are they African? If that was your answer than you are wrong! Those are the Adamanese people of Indian. They look what you would call "black" or even "black African". Yet they are not only NOT African, but distant from Africans.
These mixed Dominicans are more "African" than those Adamanese will ever be.
Yet the Adamanese people are "blacker" in terms of phenotype.
This is why Swenet, Keita and other anthropologist refrain from using black in scientific discussions. This is the mess you run into. And from experience with arguments with laymen it's been a very frustrating time explaining to them how "black" Asians/pacific Islanders are distant from Africans.
Now I don't think the term black is completely irrelevant. The idea is separating historic discussions from scientific discussions.
History is different, because history is well just history.... Saying we shouldn't use "black" in a historical discussion is like saying we shouldn't use black when having a historical discussion about the Civil Rights or the Haitian revolution. History is just the study of past events and even what terms they used back then.
For example I don't not see a problem with arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were black in a historical discussion considering that Greek and Roman writers referred to them and the Nubians as black(though not a racial sense like modern times), but still black nonetheless.
Also using black in historical discussions involving the Moors is not only relevant, but very important considering the term "Moor" meant black.
My point is we should know when and when not to use "black" in discussions. Basically by separating historical discussions from scientific ones.
Again just my 2 cents.
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism. To state that there is some 'other' reason for this is nonsense. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then what reason is there to call it anything but a duck? The same applies here. Note how there is no other civilization where this problem exists other than those in Africa which has been 99.9% populated by black people for over 200,000 years. I don't need to go all over the earth finding examples of folks who are mixed an 'could' possibly be called not black and have various ways of self identifying not labeling themselves as black. That isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the population of the Nile Valley in what is now called Egypt prior to 800 BC. That is the only population that needs to be looked at and the only language and self identity that matters. And on that point the evidence is clear that they were physically and self identified as 'black', as the name they gave themselves means literally "black people" KMT= black nation = black people. Case closed. The only people who have a problem with this are people who have little relevance, namely white people from Europe and frankly don't matter as they are not the same people and don't count whatsoever.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops, incompetence and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way I can think of would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Ancient documents from populations with a familiarity with Egyptians and other Africans should also be used. This issue is much more easy to settle than people are making it out to be. Another good question to ask is: did the ancient writers treat ancient Egyptians different from the Africans who are today considered 'black'. The answer to these questions aren't up for discussion, and can be answered today.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Swenet, your personal communications with so and so scientists don't change the facts I presented. The history of Egyptology as a white institution founded on principles of racism and white supremacy are clearly and unambiguously documented by the whites themselves who created said institution. Those today who are part of that institution are following the same course whether they admit it or not. But again, what they think doesn't matter. As I said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and then calls itself a duck, where is the discussion? There is none. What cows think doesn't matter no matter whether they claim to be liberal are cowcentric doesn't matter. Ducks are ducks and specifically these animals called themselves ducks. That is the point as it relates to Nile Valley history. The facts on the ground are the only thing that matter and the facts point to black as the only appropriate label and term that applies and there is no other way to look at it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That's the same attitude I've had for years, until I got the chance to see some of these professors' private emails and saw my own assumptions about them fall apart of front of my eyes. Flip flops and inconsistencies, yes, but placing the blame squarely on racism? That's a hefty accusation.
Simply screaming racism isn't going to be enough. Conspiracy theories aren't falsifiable. To come to a conclusion about what is going on, the best way would be to look at western coverage of African populations with a similar range of phenotypes as the dynastic Egyptians, and see if there is a difference in coverage.
There are plenty of living populations to choose in the Sahel and Sahara that fit the mold. Take your pick and let's see how much a reluctance to attribute civilization to Africans (assuming that's what you meant) has to do with it.
Swenet, your personal communications with so and so scientists don't change the facts I presented. The history of Egyptology as a white institution founded on principles of racism and white supremacy are clearly and unambiguously documented by the whites themselves who created said institution. Those today who are part of that institution are following the same course whether they admit it or not. But again, what they think doesn't matter. As I said, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and then calls itself a duck, where is the discussion? There is none. What cows think doesn't matter no matter whether they claim to be liberal are cowcentric doesn't matter. Ducks are ducks and specifically these animals called themselves ducks. That is the point as it relates to Nile Valley history. The facts on the ground are the only thing that matter and the facts point to black as the only appropriate label and term that applies and there is no other way to look at it.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but your generalizing conclusions about physical anthropologists today doesn't work for me. I'm ready if you want to take up that challenge. We can look at media coverage of northern Sudanese, Tuareg, etc, from multiple sources, and see if and how the attribution of race differs, compared to ancient Egyptians. It should be easy. The more the racial narratives differ along the lines of who is 'civilized' and who isn't, the more it's suggestive of prejudice and racism.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.
Doug's definition of black is
"any brown skinned person who is indigenous to a tropical or sub tropical climate"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Would you consider it necessarily 'racist' if western lay people or bio-anthropologists found depictions with these facial profiles racially ambiguous and fundamentally harder to place 'racially' than certain other Saharan rock art?
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I would direct you to the Thread proving the right Worshipful Almighty Whitey academicians Have never abandoned Caucasian as descriptor For the whites and it's Corollary Caucasoid for Blacks and others they Want to appropriate.
But I'm still waiting your Comments on my posts Which request So far You've ignored who Knows why
The way I see it, people in the so-called "afrocentric" community have catching up to do, not just the establishment you're talking about.
When it comes to accepting OOA, most people in this community are all gung ho. But they don't want to admit that a caveat comes with this. That is, that there are going to be extinct and extant Africans who are going to look 'racially' intermediate to SSA and Eurasians due to something called 'isolation by distance'. Such evolutionary processes often mimic admixture (i.e. makes populations halfway such clines look hybrid without any need for backflow).
Describing these intermediate populations or populations affected by them, and finding something fundamentally different about them is hardly racist. Although I agree that this has often worked to the advantage of racists.
But to know when you're dealing with racists and when not should be determined on a case by case basis. I have read more than enough papers to know that scholars who apply 'black' or 'Sub-Saharan' in ways people here would disagree with, are not always racist. Anyone who claims this simply betrays their ignorance.
Can't have your OOA cake and eat it, too.
quote: My eye was drawn to one villager, the man in this picture, above. He had a piercing look, striking facial features and an Afro hair straight style out of the 70’s. I knew we had never met but he still looked very familiar. I wracked my brain to remember where. The closest I could recall was a friend from the Solomon Islands in the South pacific who had a similar style.
But, no. That was not it.
The answer came to me an hour later just when we were about to leave. I noticed the unique curved stick that that the Handadawa people use to heard their animals. It is quite short and not really very useful for herding animals or even as a walking aid.
Considering how practical their life is, how could they have invented such an inefficient implement?
Suddenly it struck me, the stick looked like a stylized ‘boomerang’ the one used by the Aborigines of Australia. I was in fact told the men and boys sometimes use it to hunt birds and small animals in a similar way to the Australian first people.
That is when I remembered where I had seen the Afro sporting man before. He reminded of an Australian Aborigine musician I met in Perth Australia two years ago.
I have always been struck by the unique facial features common with many Aboriginal men and women. They are really distinctive. Many have piercing eyes, and sharp angled facial features, almost Caucasian, but with the black skin of Africans. Even the back skin color is different somehow, sometimes lighter on the surface, ‘off black’ but almost blue in other cases. The hair is long and not as curly as for most African people. I have never seen Africans who look exactly like Aborigines, until now.
Would you consider it necessarily 'racist' if western lay people or bio-anthropologists found depictions with these facial profiles racially ambiguous and fundamentally harder to place 'racially' than certain other Saharan rock art?
I am not talking about rock art. This issue has nothing to do with rock art. We are talking about the overwhelming amount of facts from all disciplines which is how you reach a conclusion on something like ancient Egypt. Like I said the facts are clear that Egyptology as an institution has been founded as an arm of white supremacy since its creation. The artifacts, rock art, language, physical remains, colors of the spectrum, language are not the problem, it is the racists that are the problem. I am just calling it like it is. Whether 'some' of these folk feel they are being 'objective' or not is irrelevant to the overall point.
The facts and information needed to reach a conclusion on the skin color of the ancient Egyptians are available and unambiguous. And from that one can easily answer the question with a simple yes or no. There is no need for 'other'. And there is only one right answer. Now these same scientists have no problem answering this question with a simple yes or no when it comes to Rome, Greece and so forth, but when it comes to Egypt suddenty yes or no becomes a problem, when it is just as simple as Greece or Rome. Where they are were they not a black population? It is a simple cut and dry question with a simple cut and dry answer. If you don't need to invoke rock art and all these other 'scientific' terms for Greece and Rome or anywhere else why do you need it in Egypt? You don't. It is not that dam complex.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
What about Forensic Anthropologists?
Scott MacEachern, Bowdoin College
Chapter 3,The Concept of Race in Contemporary Anthropology, in Race and Ethnicity:The United States and the World (2012)
sub-heading Race in Forensic Anthropology
quote: Forensic anthropologists, more than most other practitioners of anthropology, function in co-operation with nonspecialists: law enforcement officers, legal specialist, and members of juries. These people for the most part do not have a background in anthropology, and so their views of biological variation tend to be those of the North American public –they accept traditional racial divisions, and they hold typological views of race. Forensic anthropologists must report their results in terms that are meaningful to their nonanthropological audience, and they have adopted traditional race categories as the most effective way of doing that. As Gill (1990:Viii) says, “Providing answers for the attribution of race solves cases just as much as providing a useful age bracket or living stature for the individual. Law enforcement agencies know this, and request simple, straight answers. Any anthropologist who contends that races do not exist and provides a vague answer as to ancestry of an unidentified skeleton, or launches into discourse on ‘ethnic groups,’ will never likely be called upon again to assist in solving a case.” A major reason for the use of racial categories by American forensic anthropologists is thus pragmatic: their target audience wants to hear about race (p48).
Yes, the approach might fail to take into account diversity across groups due to stereotypical approaches/thinking, but I'm not sure it can be argued that there's a complete separation of science and sociological categories of race.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Doug M
I'll repeat again. The reason why scientist do NOT use black or any other racial terms is because "race" itself is NOT repeat NOT scientifically defined. Its mostly a social constructs. Now do social constructs have validity in science? No.
Now not denying that there are some bias/bigoted anthropologist that still hold onto refuted ideas such as YAP being Eurasian or most of African diversity being attributed to Eurasian. But all in all race is just not accepted in science.
I mean Coons racist ideas are not even looked at anymore in anthropology. Caucasoid and Negroid are NO LONGER used in a racial sense. Its not just "black" thats not used, but white too!
Keita doesn't use the term black either, is he a racist?
Now with Historians this would be a different story in my opinion.
And just to be clear I am person who PROUDLY identifies as black. We just have to be careful when and when not to use racial social terms is all I am saying.
Skin color is not race. Because there are no 'races' in humans doesn't mean humans don't have skin color and that they cant be described using names like black or white. The reason white European scientists don't want to use the term black is because from the very beginning of the study of anthropology and Egyptology European racists have been using Egypt as the basis for their claims of biological superiority. So even if they don't use 'race' anymore they will not admit that the ancient Egyptians were black people, meaning having an outward complexion that can be defined as black.
And bottom line, these people are hypocrites, because the exact same people claiming that they don't want to use the word black when it comes to Egypt have no problem using it elsewhere in Africa or for those descendants of African slaves who live in Europe or the Americas. So again, it is not the terminology or the science that is the issue, it is the racism.
The word black has been used as a reference to humans since long before racism became an issue. And specifically the ancient Egyptians called themselves black as a pejorative no less. So whatever these folks come up with is irrelevant.
I have no problem calling a spade a spade and rejecting the nonsense of Europeans or anyone else when it comes to facts that are obvious. And the absurd part is that after all these hundreds of years of Europeans writing openly racist books of so called 'science' about 'races' all over the planet and the superiority of the white 'race', we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: we got silly folks sitting here trying to claim that European scientists are objective and we must follow their nonsense wherever it goes rather than just calling it for what it is.
^^^^^
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Indeed they are right, these traits you see are simply biological affinities. Then again you have the replacement for caucasoids as Eurasians.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Scientists not calling the Egyptians black is not because there is some 'better' way of describing them for scientific purposes. That is nonsense. They are not calling them black because of racism.
Many scientists today say there is no such thing as race.
People who do not believe in race don't use the terms "white people" or "black people"
They say a person is "dark skinned" or "light skinned" because other people who DO say race does exists say examples of races are "whites" and "blacks" Therefore to use the term "white" or "black"is to leave open the possibility the these are meant in the racial sense. Other terms don't have this possibility
Indeed they are right, these traits you see are simply biological affinities. Then again you have the replacement for caucasoids as Eurasians.
Oh please. White people to this day call themselves white people and call other folks black people as they see fit. And it doesn't mean 'race' it is a reflection of outward appearance.
Skin color is not a social construct. How people treat you or prejudice based on skin color is a social construct.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ancient Egyptians called themselves blacks and were blacks. Either that is true or it is not. Just like the Ancient Greeks were white and called themselves white.
There is nothing else to it.
This is one case of a simple black vs white debate where it is totally and wholly appropriate.
To say that race is a social construct is one thing, but to claim that skin color is not real because race is a social construct is bullsh*t. Skin color is just as real as any other aspect of human biology and there is nothing 'unscientific' about using words to describe skin color. Calling certain ranges of skin color white is no less accurate or valid than calling other ranges of skin colors black. This usage of colors to describe human skin complexion is not new and is not based on 'racism'. It is based on observed facts. Now to argue that the Egyptians or any other population weren't black is to argue that their skin complexion was not within the range of what could be considered black.
I'm against this 19th century racialist sort of thing but anyway here's the link for curiousity's sake dividing the wolrd into two categories is idiotic Dienekes Pontikos
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic