Yes, your second sentence sums up what I think is going on.
Note that I keep saying Maghrebi-like component (as opposed to just 'Maghrebi component'), because if light and dark green (Maghrebi and Ethio-Somali) have a common ancestor ~23kya as Hodgson et al state, this ancestry wouldn't include what the ancestors of modern day Maghrebis encountered when they settled in the Maghreb (e.g. Iberian ancestry).
Ideally, these clumsy and discretized ancestry components (e.g. Maghreb, Ethio-Somali, Nilo Saharan, etc) should be avoided because I can easily make the case that the European, Arabian, Niger-Congo, etc components are hybridized themselves, complicating simple admixture models. The Niger Congo component, for instance, has Nilo-Saharan and Ethio-Somali in it.
Revisit my long post in the FB group under the Trombetta et al 2015 post to see how I construe the Maghreb component in North Africa. What you'll find there is where I'm still at as far as my views on ancient North Africa.
Also remember that Basal Eurasian was partially broken down into Maghrebi-like ancestry and Horner-like ancestry by DNA Tribes, among others. In Lazaridis et al, the Basal Eurasian in Stuttgart has affinity with the Maghrebi component in North Africans and the ancestry in East Africa that many think is Eurasian. My point? Basal Eurasian isn't distinct from the Maghrebi component and the Ethio-Somali component. Don't fall into the trap of discretizing these ancestry components. SOME of what is Basal Eurasian in Stuttgart and other early farmers has a 'common ancestor' with some of the Maghrebi component and some of the Ethio-Somali component. I'm saying that the common ancestor where these parts overlap is North African.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet I'm running into that problem every where I go. Even when I intentionally try to avoid using black I get dragged into semantic bs games. I'm ready to throw my hands up into the air
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give an example of said semantic bs games.. do you have a link?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Swenet I'm running into that problem every where I go. Even when I intentionally try to avoid using black I get dragged into semantic bs games. I'm ready to throw my hands up into the air
what about saying "African" or "African American" ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Lioness when I do try and use African/Indigenous African/Tropically Adapted African/or any other qualifier I still immediately get dragged into the black game, ridiculous.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
People like this, on the other hand, are talking about complexion (at least at that point in time) and they rule out that the AE were 'black' in terms of complexion:
It's not a surprise that people who think the AE were "tan" are going to reject any notion of the AE ethnic background other than "tan", no matter how you phrase it. The same goes for people who think the AE were Nordics, Asiatics, etc.
I don't understand what you mean with semantics games though, although I only read the tenth and eleventh thread. See the post below for some of the reasons why I removed the word from my vocabulary during debates. Note that I cite an example where my alternative term (African) also would be rejected (although in that case you're on firmer ground to call them out):
Also see the post below. No matter how you phrase it, you're not going to convince many people within category 1, 2 and 3 by using more scientific language:
You'll have to debate the latter group of people, just like all of us have. You're not going to talk them out of their Eurocentrism by toning down racialized terms. You will, however, potentially cause more problems for yourself if you use racialized terms when you debate them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I plead guilty to having used "black" to label AEs in that thread (albeit while clearly defining it as "dark-skinned native African", which I feel is a common enough understanding of the word that is nonetheless technically accurate). But then, I was responding to an arrogant ignoramus who was insistent that North Africans have never been "black" (his language). And I notice that even after I defined "black" to be based on pigmentation and a native African heritage, without reference to any particular "race" or population substructure, they still insisted AEs had to be "tan" and related to Arabs or Mediterraneans rather than "sub-Saharans".
I believe these guys don't simply want AE to be affiliated with any understanding of "black people", even broad pigmentation-based ones like I was using. Recognizing a distinction between native Saharans and certain "sub-Saharan" ancestries doesn't seem to be sufficient for them; they're going out of their way to make AEs look like stereotyped "tan Caucasians". Is it because they actually do view darker Saharans as "black", or at least partly so (as the old Hamitic hypothesis would claim), and don't want them to be proxies for AE either? I dunno for sure, but I'm inclined to think so.
When you consider the traditional racialist model that divided Africans into "Caucasoid" northerners and "Negroid" southerners, one of its implications was that Africans who didn't fit into either mold had to be admixed between those two basic stocks. Thereby, if coupled with the one-drop rule, darker Saharans and Horners would qualify as "black" or at least mulatto. This perception that Africans who didn't fit neatly into the two stocks were "mixed" were what Iman was complaining about when she said people thought she had to be "mixed" rather than a "pure black" Somali. But on the other hand, if one insisted on AEs not being "black" according to traditional racialist rules, even a total overlap with darker Saharans would be too "black" by virtue of their alleged "mixed" status.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance as measured by a spectrophotometer". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
In future threads, i.e. when they don't know your posting history, it would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
It would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
Fair enough. I actually like the idea of citing Wadi Sura and other Saharan-Sudanese rock paintings, especially given their southern location combined with the presence of motifs from dynastic Egyptian mythology. Like I've said, pointing out that these people came from within the Sahara and would inferentially have been dark brown would be key here.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I agree that some seem to have had their mind made up about the AE being tanned, but you treat them like they just read my and Doug's arguments over the last 24 pages of this thread and made a conscious choice between the various schools of thought out there. When people think of 'black' they don't go, "oh, let's see, you have the racial use, the literal pigmentation use, the range of brown and based on that last paper about skin pigmentation I would say that the eastern Saharans with substructure had 10% skin reflectance as measured by a spectrophotometer". They seem to me to be just shooting from the hip, and it's not uncommon to see people flip flop between various uses of the term in mid-conversation. This just further proves to me, at least, (apparently I'm the only one who sees this?!?) how potentially problematic the term is. Which brings me to my next point:
@Punos
I like what you're doing. I agree with Beyoku's point though about overkill. In this thread I think you would have been better off just using one strong piece of evidence that they can't wiggle around, like the Wadi Sura rock art (and continuing from there based on the objections they throw your way). Sometimes visual proof can be more persuasive than a list of what they often see as 'politically correct' or 'Afrocentric' academics. And the Central Saharan (round head) rock art could have done the same for other North African countries.
In future threads, i.e. when they don't know your posting history, it would also be interesting (as a social experiment) to drop that bomb without ANY racial labeling (e.g. "they looked like this [insert Wadi Sura rock art]") and see how they'll respond.
I appreciate your feedback Swenet and yeah I definitely feel I've made some missteps as well as left open weaknesses. I think I did ok in some areas but see your point. I definitely learned a lot from these past two threads I've been involved in for future conversations
Edit: I felt it was important to back up every statent with citations lest I be accused of afrocentrism/black supremacy, yet I still ended up being accused as such due to Karlingid mistaking Mary Lefkowitz for an Afrocentrist (to his credit he did own his mistake). Even when I posted several onstances of cultural overlap/influence/connections those were still glossed over. I should've started with a more concise offensive even with the North African point though so yeab
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you guys think of my last post in there? I tried to account again for indigenous African variation and even mentioned variation among Black Americans. Overkill?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug. Any reason in particular why you so far avoided my quotes of white supremacists who said that the AE were indigenous Africans? According to what you've claimed so far, these white supremacists should all be claiming that the AE were blonde, blue eyed and pale skinned—not that they were indigenous Africans. So how is it possible that I'm quoting one such white supremacist academic right now?
quote:Dr. Prichard, in denning the Abyssinians, has taken much pains, as we have said, to prove that they, together with families generally of the eastern basin of the Nile, down to Egypt inclusive, not only are not Negro, but were not originally Asiatic races , display ing somewhat of an intermediate type, which is nevertheless essen taily African in character. To us, it is very gratifying to see this view so ably sustained ; because, regarding it as an incontrovertible fait, we have made it the stand-point of our argument respecting the origin of the ancient Egyptians, whose effigies present this African type on the earliest monuments of the Old Empire more vividly than upon those of the New. This autochthonous type, as we shall prove, ascends so far back in time, is so peculiar, and withal so connected with a primordial tongue — presenting but small incipient affinity with Asiatic languages about 3500 years b. c.— as to preclude every idea of an Asiatic origin for its aboriginally-Nilotic speakers and hieroglyphical scribes.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
quote:Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type.
Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches, Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History (1854)
In fact, I've just quoted more than two white supremacists. Prichard and the authors who just agreed with Prichard.
I am not avoiding anything. The point isn't those Europeans who admitted the truth, begrudgingly or otherwise. The point here is what this debate and back and forth has been about for the last 200 years. Fundamentally the issue is skin color and it is amazing to sit here and watch some posters on this forum who SUPPOSEDLY are so smart act so ignorant and naive about it.
Come on stop playing dumb.
Everybody is not being "objective" as you want to claim. They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is. Yet some folks like you will sit here and swear these people don't have and agenda and it hasn't been the basis of an argument that has gone on for hundreds of years. Come on man stop trying so hard to deny the obvious.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The white supremacists said to Morton "Sorry bro, but the skeletal remains you dismissed as atypical (i.e. non Egyptian) 'negroids' are more representative of the Egyptians than the Egyptians you epitomized". They also said "We were with Morton until better data from earlier dynasties became available". This was in 1854!
Again, Keita summarizes the general trends and zeitgeist in the literature regarding the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. The most common view that runs like a red thread through the early literature is that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid', but not 'negro'. The view that the AE were Nordics, on the other hand, was a minority view and never taken seriously. What I'm saying is not controversial... AT ALL.
According to what you've said repeatedly in this thread, this was completely out of question. Yet, we have a clear example of a WHITE SUPREMACIST, telling another WHITE SUPREMACIST this. Clearly, white supremacy among these racists wasn't some sort of unified front against a 'negroid' and Afro-Asiatic speaking Egypt. Clearly, the blue eyed Egyptian theory isn't some sort of common denominator.
I've never said they are objective overall. I've only maintained that most of the racism was deployed into other channels. How does that make them objective? They still say that the ability to produce civilization is hereditary, and assign this ability to what they call "the higher races". They're still anti-African and appropriate dark skinned African populations into the European race. Throughout this thread I've maintained that THAT is where most of their racism was directed. NOT at the skin color of the ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is.
But who are you talking about when you say this? Surely you're talking about Egyptsearch trolls, Hollywood execs and Egyptologists who don't know what they're talking about. If not, then I really need to be educated. Educate me man, apparently I need it. Shine your light on me. Where are the white supremacists who're trained in anthropology and AE ethnic background who came to the conclusion that they weren't related to dark skinned populations in North Africa?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I don't see your claims reflected as a consensus in Keita's review. Most said that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid'.
"Previous Egyptologists in another generation actually saw these connections in terms of Egypt's embeddedness in Africa." https://youtu.be/kwMvxir1n7Q?t=1m26sPosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet given that Western culture has agreed that "white" and "black" are legitimate social categories and if Western culture is racist and if they hold Greek and Roman culture in high historical regard and if Greece and Rome was influenced by the earlier civilization of Egypt then wouldn't it be an effective political strategy for African Americans and African Europeans to claim themselves and Egypt as part of the black side?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You act like people aren't already doing that. Does it look like their racial approaches are successful?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I would have just posted the image below (i.e. just one picture) and asked for the Ghost character and other outspoken nay sayers to comment on it and why there is such a discrepancy between what they claim and the figures depicted.
In my view, that's ALL you need for now. Less is more here (IMO). Some people also don't appreciate it when they have to scroll past walls of pictures and text.
It might not work anymore though (as far as getting as many posters as possible to engage your topic). The thread is too fragmented and people reply to different conversations within that thread.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You act like people aren't already doing that. Does it look like their racial approaches are successful?
Propaganda doesn't have to be truthful to be influential. It just has to be presented cleverly and with resources backing it Racial politics are very much alive in the present day.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The argument for doing it is that a two part skin color paradigm comprised of white and black has been forced on African Americans therefore the best one can do is to try to apply it to history as best as possible
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeah even when I try and avoid the white and black dichotomy I still get forced into it. Luckily I've beaten a few people at the "black" vs "brown" game but that hasn't always happened and some people will persist with it *shrugs*
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^Yeah even when I try and avoid the white and black dichotomy I still get forced into it. Luckily I've beaten a few people at the "black" vs "brown" game but that hasn't always happened and some people will persist with it *shrugs*
there's a lot of text on that paradox page.
You need to post a small portion of your text and the exact point where somebody steps in and forces you into these skin color stereotypes
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Just trying to see what criticisms/feedback you guys would give so I can better formulate things
The original thread had to do with the game pack representations of soldiers. Right away some ignoramuses suggest that the north African soldiers are "too dark." You were right in pointing out the laughably bogus nature of that claim. The only thing you might have added is the scientific basis behind African diversity, including skin color (Relethford 2001 et al.) It is not merely a bunch of bloggers or gamers looking at pictures. Other than that its typical ignorance met on the web, asserted with the usual messianic certainty of the ignorant. No need to convince them- just keep on exposing their ignorance with real data.
^^"Too black" North African soldiers..
^^Another guy "too black"..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. [...] Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself. (Biss, 2015, h/t to Steve Sailer)
Biss can perhaps be criticized as plugging a trendy line in liberal quarters. She is a writer- a product of the English and fine arts type university departments. She is also not an anthropologist, and will lack a handle on detailed anthro concepts. But she is correct on some points. Whiteness is not a kinship or culture in any rigorous scientific or logical sense. The notion of "whiteness" is primarily a product of racialists and racists in the 19th and 20th century. Credible historians have long shown this. See books such as How the Irish became White, and The Wages of Whiteness, for detailed scholarship on the issue.
The last sentence needs little explanation. It’s possible to like yourself a lot while despising your own people.
Maybe but it is pretty clear what Eula Biss is condemning is not the fact that she is white, but the edifice of racism and propaganda that has arisen during the last 2 centuries to justify white greed, corruption, exploitation and violence against non-white peoples, or peoples viewed as "tainted" in the non-white manner- such as Jews. Nazi propaganda for example held that Jews absorbed a certain proportion of "negro blood" during their long stay in Egypt and Palestine, and this in part, explained their collaboration or acquiescence to the presence of black colonial troops of France during the occupation after WW1. Under Nazi whiteness doctrine therefore, Jews were a racial enemy. During the Holocaust, in the name of white supremacy, millions of "sub-human" Jewish children where murdered, some by injecting them with chemicals, others by incinerating them with flamethrowers, others by mass shootings, into mass graves.
Whiteness proponents in America also have not been shy about where they stood. Aside from the usual hordes of Jim Crow supporters, in America, until rather recently, white union members murdered black men working on the railroads because some of them worked in allegedly "white only jobs." Likewise white union members went on strike specifically to force companies to fire decent black workers who had paid their dues for years, so the whites could take over their jobs. And they did this explicitly in the name of whiteness (Rothmayr 2013).
Indeed, into the 1970s unions were still up to such tricks albeit in a "softer" way such as manipulating seniority rules to ensure black workers did not move up. It took years of marches, lawsuits and government pressure to quell such practices, even as greedy white unions kept denying what they were doing. There are of course many more examples. This is what Biss is condemning- the edifice of deception, hypocrisy and greed, explicitly in operation in the service of whiteness.
It is also clear that Bliss is condemning a whiteness that seeks to advance its own interests at the expense of the other groups, by any means necessary. The concept of whiteness that Bliss is condemning seeks to ensure that non-white groups have fewer resources, lower social status, lower fertility, and proportionately less political power. All means are deployed so that whiteness secures these ends, including deception, mass violence and genocide. Oh to be sure, there are different flavors of whiteness- some "soft", some much more explicit, but the essential bottom lines are the same. Tactics would vary- for example rather than openly refuse to hire blacks, white unions would and did maintain two "seniority" lists based on job classification. To move up to a higher job classification, you would have to give up all the years vested while held back in the lower level slots, including pension payments. On the face of it such "mere" seniority rules are "neutral"- after all, skilled machinists should be on a separate track from manual laborers- right? Sounds fair- but the result is to basically eliminate any attempts from blacks in lower categories to move up, since they would lose all their previous seniority rights and pension levels. See, the racist white unions say, "we can't get black people to apply for any of these higher level jobs, we don't know why..." (wink).. Thus white "plausible deniability" is maintained. The history of American railroads is filled with such white deception and hypocrisy. But the railroads are not unique.
Commenter1 says: Richard Lewontin, in 1972. [...] It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. (Lewontin, 1972)
Lewontin's overall conclusions have been validated numerous times by credible modern scientists. See Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example, or Barbujani et al 2010.
When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.).
Natural selection is only one player. Genetic drift and play just as large a role or even larger. It is a article of faith in some quarters to tout "natural selection" for this or that physical or "behavioral" trait. Mexican guy cuts you off in traffic? Well ancient environmental pressures in the Valley of Mexico circa 15,000 BC "selected" for such lineages that lack "restraint". But reality is a lot more complicated:
"It may appear counter-intuitive, but a large part, if not the majority, of genetic change in human populations is not thought to be due to natural selection but rather due to the play of chance (genetic drift; Harris and Meyer, 2006; Li et al., 2008; see Table 2 for a glossary of terms frequently used in population genetics). Many opportunities for chance can occur in the transmission of alleles from parents to offspring, and evidently did occur as part of the demographic process of dispersal out of Africa. Thus, finding differences in the frequency of alleles at a particular locus between populations is not an evidence of natural selection per se. The default position is that of neutral theory, whereby chance events account for most patterns of genetic diversity (Harris and Meyer, 2006). Of course, deleterious mutations will be selected against (purifying selection) and beneficial mutations may increase in frequency to fixation, but overall these events will contribute little to explaining the presence of most polymorphisms." --J. Rees and R. Harding 2011. Understanding the Evolution of Human Pigmentation: Recent Contributions from Population Genetics.
Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.
What is missing here is that the SAME population can inhabit widely different climatic zones or be subject to many different influences causing variability. There are African groups for example that have narrow noses due to living in desert areas, or at high altitude, yet their genetic counterparts at lower altitudes or more humid locales have broader noses. The same variation WITHIN the same group can occur based o mode of subsistence, geographic barriers etc etc and other variables. Furthermore same populations can be spread out over thousands of miles. The notion that human populations can be neatly diced up into little "races" due to neatly placed geographic phenomena, etc etc is simplistic and has been pretty much debunked by several scholars. Again see Templeton, Armelagos 2001, Keita 2005 et al. There can be, and is, plenty of variability WITHIN groups, and this Lewotinin and others show. See Barbujani 2010 for example: http://www2.webmatic.it/workO/s/113/pr-1400-file_it-Barbujani-Colonna.pdf
This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.
Yes, and there is a threshhold in which scientists look for a consistent and SUBSTANTIAL differentiation before declaring a "subspecies." We know for example that there are 4 subspecies of chimpanzee because the genetic difference between them is so great- they meet a substantial threshold- to declare them a subspecies, a level of differentiation far in excess of what exists among humans.
The proponents of biological race have repeatedly failed to show such consistent and substantial differentiation between humans with the same rigor credible scientists use for mammalian subspecies. Some proponents for example use geographical "barriers" as a sort of magic litmus test- declaring people west of the Himalayas, or south of the Sahara - massive areas that are among the most diverse on earth- as a different "subspecies." Such claims lack both scientifically and logically, and are among the foremost reasons most credible scientists have abandoned such simplistic "race" models. Unfortunately this does not stop assorted racialist types from rushing off to proclaim for example Asians, or even Jews to be a different "subspecies."
Some two decades after Lewontin’s study, this apparent paradox became known when geneticists looked at how genes vary within and between dog breeds:
The weakness with the dog breed argument is that dog breeds are heavily an artificial creation, with even minor variations being taken and developed in isolation, sometimes for centuries, sometimes within just a few miles of each other. Artificial dog breeds are not a realistic representation of how normal species interact in nature, nor of how the human species developed, and show variation.
Kennel clubs insist that each breed should conform to a limited set of criteria. All other criteria, particularly those not readily visible, end up being ignored. So artificial selection targets a relatively small number of genes and leaves the rest of the genome alone.
Which is exactly why the analogy continues to be relatively weak.
But is natural selection any different? When a group buds off from a population and moves into a new environment, its members too have to conform to a new set of selection pressures that act on a relatively small number of genes. So the new group will diverge anatomically and behaviorally from its parent population, and yet remain similar to it over most of the genome. This is either because most of the genes respond similarly to the new environment—as with those that do the same housekeeping tasks in a wide range of species—or because they respond weakly to natural selection in general. Many genes are little more than “junk DNA”—they change slowly over time, not through the effects of natural selection but through gradual accumulation of random mutations.
But natural selection does not create the heavily artificial environment that controlled dog breeding does. Yes, natural selection is quite different. And even if a new environment creates new selection pressures, it does not at all follow that the variation developing meets a credible threshhold for declaring a new "subspecies." Declarations of "racial subspecies" are arbitrary constructs developed by racialists to push their particular ideological agendas. And bio-race proponents fail to realize that human groups do not neatly sit behind apartheid-like geographic barriers waiting for "sub-species" to develop. They move around, and indeed, the geographic barriers are themselves in flux, such as the Sahara which once was a lush greenbelt, and even now fluctuates with a general southern tendency for several kilometers a year. This means that groups once ABOVE the Sahara, become "Sub-Saharan" as the desert moves, sometimes in a relatively short period, rendering shaky simplistic geographic claims. Declaring people a "sub-species" due to a shifting barrier, when the same people are on BOTH sides of the barrier sharing numerous genetic links is a dubious exercise that too often, passes for "logic" among assorted racialists.
Thus, the genetic overlap between dog breeds also appears between many natural species. In the deer family, genetic variability is greater within some species than between some genera (Cronin, 1991).
Indeed. Variation can always be shown depending on time, place and entity in question, but again, it does not at all follow that humans show this same trend with enough rigor, consistency and substantiality to declare a "sub-species." Another factor that debunks simplistic thinking is that humans outside Africa are themselves a sub-section of the original African diversity. Human diversity does not divide itself neatly up into little "subspecies" or "race" checkboxes, often arbitrarily defined in advance. The reality is a lot more complicated.
Objector/Commenter1 says: Just think. Lewontin used the same blood group polymorphisms for his study. While the O alleles are specific to each primate species, the A and B alleles show considerable overlap between primates that have been separated for millions of years. So it’s not surprising that this polymorphism should vary much more within human races than between them, as Lewontin found.
Fine, but this fact in itself does little to establish that races or subspecies exist among humans, at the same rigorous level at which we differentiate subspecies among other mammalian species. Artificial dog breeds by their very artificality, do not reflect the real development of humans or other species. Biss is a novice writer on science, but here is what Alan Templeton, a credible heavyweight geneticist has to say:
"Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate." --Templeton, A, 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. Amer Anth 100(3) 632-650
And other scholars: (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture) show that interbreeding among humans is not only strong, but furnish strong evidence that African and Eurasian populations are not isolates sufficient to create any "sub-species." Even one of the strongest examples of genetic fragmentation, that of the peopling of the Americas, turns out to be not so spectacular upon closer examination, for multiple colonization events and large population movements have resulted in extensive sharing of genetic polymorphisms between new and Old World populations. In fact strong statistical analyses up to the 95 percent confidence range show recurrent gene flow between human populations for the last 600,000 years (Templeton 2002).
In short - quote: "..the major human populations have been inter-connected by gene flow (recurrent at least on a time scale on the order of tens or thousands of years or less) during at least the last six hundred thousand years, with 95 percent statistical confidence (Templeton 2002). Hence the haplotype analyses of geographic associations strongly reject the existence of multiple evolutionary lineages of humans, reject the idea that Eurasians split from Africans one hundred thousand years ago, and reject the idea that "pure races" existed in the past, Thus the idea that "races" existed among humans has no biological validity under the evolutionary lineage definition of subspecies." (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science beyond the Two-Culture Divide 247-248)
. We show instead that the remarkable distribution of ABO alleles across species reflects the persistence of an old ancestral polymorphism that originated at least 20 million years
Fine, but likewise detailed statistical analyses have show that humans have been interbreeding and sharing genetic polymorphisms for the last 600,000 years, (Templeton 2002) debunking claims of so-called "evolutionary" racial lineages. See Goodman, heath and Lindee above.
.
In sum, if we are to believe blood groups and other genetic markers, it seems that Eula Biss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks she despises. Let’s hope she feels gratified.
Only the blood group data actually supports what Biss is saying overall, that there are no biological races or "sub-species" among humans in the same way that we define races or subspecies among other mammalian species. Assorted racialists usually throw out the "eyeball argument" to claim scientists are "denying" that "race exists." But this is a strawman. Of course a tall, dark-skinned Dinka looks different from a short pale-skinned Eskimo. Human variation exists- who is going about "denying" this truism? The key issue is not whether variation exists - but whether in a biological sense, such variation can be credibly said to represent a race or subspecies, the way scientists define the threshold of races or subspecies in other animals. That is s the key issue, not strawmen about whether Swedes or Zulus look different.
. .But it is above all Lewontin who gave antiracism a veneer of scientific objectivity. He still impresses people who are less impressed by academics who attack racism by attacking objectivity, like Stephen Jay Gould. “I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is”
You are absolutely correct to criticize Gould, and Lewontin 1972 is dated, but Lewontin's OVERALL bottom line has been verified many times over by scholars coming after him. Antiracists do not have to rely on Lewontin for any veneer of objectivity. There is plenty of hard data, from credible scientists and geneticists, that debunks claims of biological race, as noted above (Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example among many others).
And Gould, while himself running into problems with objectivity, in general is right. The history of anthropology proves his point- there have been plenty of cases where objectivity is lacking. And both data and results can be manipulated, and have been to produce the desired ideological effects- ranging from skewed sampling, selective sampling, to use of predefined "race" categories and then shoehorning data into said categories in advance, rather than letting the data speak for themselves after an analysis (Long 2009, Armelagos 2001) These are among the problems widely noted in the literature among scientists themselves. It is not mere bloggers on the web pointing out such weaknesses.
. When one takes Lewontin and Gould out of the picture, who is left? A lot of people, to be sure. Followers for the most part—those like Eula Biss who believe because everyone else in their milieu seems to believe, at least anyone with moral authority.
Not so. Both Lewontin and Gould are old news chronologically, but again, Lewontin has been validated numerous times by credible scientists. Here is Long 2009 for example who demonstrated that genetic classifications of reputed "races" outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Ironically the same "exclusive" "race" categories at times themselves have to include "sub-Saharan" Africans. Quote:
, “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32 cited in Goodman et al ).
Indeed, Long et al “agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity” (Long et al. 2009:32).
They disagree with Lewontin over whether this is intrinsic to human genetics–rather, it is a product of evolutionary history and migration, but they validate his overall 1972 conclusion as to the relatively small differences between groups. Says another heavyweight geneticist- Guido Barbujani (2010):
"Is it accurate to assign individuals to discrete geographical groups, thus envisaging our species as essentially discontinuous at the genetic level, or in this way do we misrepresent some aspects of human biodiversity? Since 1972 [19] many independent studies have established that differences between continental populations are small, accounting for less than 10% of the global species variance [20]. That figure holds also for loci under balancing selection, such as the human leukocyte antigens (HLA; 7%), and has been recently confirmed in the analysis of 624000 SNPs(9%)[26]." -- Barbujani et al. 2010. Human genome diversity. --Trends in Genetics, Vol. 26 No. 7.
-------------------- 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
The Hometeam Cat on YouTube below is using solid data that we deal in- to tackle many of these topics. Seems he has been reading a bit of ES and Reloaded. Here is his video on the fallacy of the "True Negro." He talks about phenotypes, diversity etc etc. Sounds familiar don't it..
And after his careful exposition some white idiot says:
I'm not picking a fight...I like your channel.... but this video is alot like Hitler's National Socialist race studies...
LOL. Apparently it is like "Nazism" these days to talk about African diversity.. A Very telling comment. Seems that racist idiots out there are getting more and more disturbed. In past times they had it easy. Few black folk were in place with resources to effectively challenge their nonsense on a wide scale. Now we are hitting them hard, not with mere emotion, but cold logic and hard data. Kudos to this guy who is spreading the word. We need more like him- breaking down the data for the "man on the street" to grasp. Excellent work.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^A lot of people use 'black' as 'black African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'black African' in the historum thread.
Elsewhere Mansa Musa said something about expecting ancient Egyptian DNA to come out ~90% "black African". Good look waiting for that to materialize, because it's not going to happen LINK. They just don't get it or simply don't want to get it. The African component in the northern Sudanese genome does not conform to 100% "black African". The African component in the Dinka genome doesn't even conform to 100% "black African". But they expect it to be 100% in the ancient Egyptians? Okay.
quote:Originally posted by lioness: I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
It could be, but I wouldn't count on it. There is not enough E-M81 to account for it. I would think more along the lines of E-M35, mtDNA M1 and various mtDNA L haplogroups that are already out there in West Eurasia. Remember, Henn et al 2012's Egyptian sample is from Siwa. And their "Maghrebi" component is also larger than you'd think from published Siwa percentages of E-M81 (1.1%) and U6 (0%). Siwa also don't have strong haplogroup commonalities with Maghrebi people in general. Neither their African nor their Eurasian lineages (e.g. mtDNA H) show much special resemblance to Maghrebi ones.
EDIT: I can't confirm that the sample is from Siwa, so I might be wrong there. But the point still stands. The so called 'Maghrebi' component shows up in Egyptian samples in general (see Hodgson et al 2014's two Egyptian samples) and there is a known rift between eastern and western North Africans in haplogroups.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Swenet I don't think the "mansamusa" on Historum is Morpheus though. Morph these days goes by the username EgalitarianJay on most forums; he hasn't used anything referencing a Mansa in years AFAIK.
I know the intention and I address the goalpost shifts on both sides. Although European population genetics hobbyists seem a lot smarter about dealing with new genetic revelations that have implications for traditional racial terms like 'white'. Many in the anthro blogosphere (especially the 'thought leaders') openly admit the uselessness of 'white' in prehistory and some are retreating back to the imaginary safety of 'Caucasian' when they describe European AMHs, since it doesn't have the (skin color) restrictions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Not perfectly on topic, but one thing that bothers me about a lot of "Afrocentric" historiographic media is how it seems to be targeted at black audiences. Usually the intention is either to boost black people's collective self-esteem or validate it. Now I'm all for combating the very real problem of internalized racism, but I've always felt the fixation on black audiences had the effect of widening the rift in perceptions of history between black people and more "dominant" races. You can make a black person as unashamed of their heritage as possible, but narratives aimed to do that are always going to be written off as "fringe" by the larger, white-dominated society. And in the end, it's that same white-dominated society that is pushing the racist Eurocentric narratives that most of you are resisting.
Even if debating Eurocentric diehards usually goes nowhere, I will give guys like Punos some credit for actually confronting the standard Eurocentric narrative on "mainstream" forums rather than staying in "Afrocentric" circlejerks like this one. I wish I had the courage to do the same without backup.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^If it's not him, my bad then.
@lioness
I know the intention and I address the goalpost shifts on both sides. Although European population genetics hobbyists seem a lot smarter about dealing with new genetic revelations that have implications for traditional racial terms like 'white'. Many in the anthro blogosphere (especially the 'thought leaders') openly admit the uselessness of 'white' in prehistory and some are retreating back to the imaginary safety of 'Caucasian' when they describe European AMHs, since it doesn't have the (skin color) restrictions.
It's funny how present day people try to associate themselves with ancient achievements
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lioness: I assume the hapolgroup corresponding to a "Maghrebi component" is none other than E-M81
It could be, but I wouldn't count on it. There is not enough E-M81 to account for it. I would think more along the lines of E-M35, mtDNA M1 and various mtDNA L haplogroups that are already out there in West Eurasia. Remember, Henn et al 2012's Egyptian sample is from Siwa. And their "Maghrebi" component is also larger than you'd think from published Siwa percentages of E-M81 (1.1%) and U6 (0%). Siwa also don't have strong haplogroup commonalities with Maghrebi people in general. Neither their African nor their Eurasian lineages (e.g. mtDNA H) show much special resemblance to Maghrebi ones.
Let me clarify this. Reading back your comment I spoke too quickly even though you made a very, very good point. (Something I would have argued against a couple of years ago).
I agree that in the Maghreb, E-M81 is the corresponding haplogroup of the Maghrebi component. Just not in Egypt and the Middle East. In 2015 there was a big incremental shift in my already evolving views after the Trombetta 2015 paper so I view North Africa somewhat differently, compared to what you're used to from my posts in the past on the Iberomaurusians. I still think the Afalou and Taforalt people had lots of Iberian DNA (some of which is ultimately from the Middle East). Only today I reject extending this to their first culture bearers >22kya (the first makers of Iberomaurusian lithics), since all of the Iberian admixture was found in the young Afalou and Taforalt samples which date to ~10kya. For this reason (i.e. we only have their bones AFTER this Iberian admixture), as well as other reasons, it also makes little sense to project the 'Eurasian' looks of these Afalou and Taforalt remains back to anything older than this Iberian admixture.
When you look at it like this, the things you're left with in terms of the ORIGINAL Maghrebi ethnic identity (i.e. what they were like 22ky ago at the beginning of their 'ethnogenesis') is their Iberomaurusian lithic industry and other cultural features. We now know that these all had affinity with contemporary Nile Valley industries and people. So when Hodgson et al say that the Ethio-Somali component and the Maghreb component form a common ancestor 23kya, and we see cultural practices that are consistent with this (e.g. pulled upper frontal teeth), we have every reason to pay attention. If true, it means letting go of the notion that the Maghreb component is the same everywhere. In that case its presence in Egypt and Syrio-Palestine could easily be (mostly) independent of Maghrebi migrations to the east. Most of it could simply be an imperfect detection of this ancestral 23kya eastern Sahara ancestry.
Putative ancestors of the predynastic Egypto-Nubians (left) and Maghrebi (right) with removed upper incisors (the Nile Valley individual [left] dates to the epipalaeolithic or older):
We already knew about pulled incisors among Mesolithic Nubians, but they're all young(er) (i.e. holocene), not epipalaeolithic like in the Maghreb and among some of the Natufians. Nubians also mostly pulled their lower incisors, which differs from the Maghrebi examples (see pic). The picture I just posted of the Nile Valley individual is a new finding which pushes back the oldest examples in the Nile Valley and because of what I just said, it's also more closely related to the Maghrebi practice.
Even if you find what I just wrote difficult to follow, just know that your point is consistent with the data so far.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Iberomaurusian (green) was replaced by the more gracille Capsian (blue). The sites are limited in range and there is a thousand year or so gap of no known settlements in that coastal and near to coastal area until the Phoenicians came from the Levant. There is also the Gobero site in Niger "allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania], and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb" Some writers on the topic suggest a discontinuity between some of these groups, particularly the “Mechtoid” types present day Maghrebians, however there is a Haplogroup H commonality ( but there are manly later periods which can also account for that)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
This is ridiculous. The AE were black and so nobody is trying to incorporate people that don't have the same skin tones of Africans all over the continent as a way of bolstering numbers. The AE are anatomically, biologically, culturally and linguistically related to other black populations in Northeast Africa, so the definition isn't being altered to accommodate the AE.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think that's really sick if people are going to lie knowingly (no matter what ideological camp they're from). It delegitimizes this community and adds to the already existing perception that we're all "just Afrocentrics" with an axe to grind. You can't even cite Keita or Ehret anymore on the net without being disparaged as "just another Afrocentric".
A lot of people in this community are dead weight and harmful to the cause. They should just STFU and take a backseat. There are standards and basic requirements to anthropology. You're not an expert if you've read a webpage and seen ten statues of thick-lipped ancient Egyptians.
Not perfectly on topic, but one thing that bothers me about a lot of "Afrocentric" historiographic media is how it seems to be targeted at black audiences. Usually the intention is either to boost black people's collective self-esteem or validate it. Now I'm all for combating the very real problem of internalized racism, but I've always felt the fixation on black audiences had the effect of widening the rift in perceptions of history between black people and more "dominant" races. You can make a black person as unashamed of their heritage as possible, but narratives aimed to do that are always going to be written off as "fringe" by the larger, white-dominated society. And in the end, it's that same white-dominated society that is pushing the racist Eurocentric narratives that most of you are resisting.
Even if debating Eurocentric diehards usually goes nowhere, I will give guys like Punos some credit for actually confronting the standard Eurocentric narrative on "mainstream" forums rather than staying in "Afrocentric" circlejerks like this one. I wish I had the courage to do the same without backup.
I disagree. Africans should not care about what other people think -- others are irrelevant with regard to our history. Accuracy in research is the only thing that matters, and it is accurate information that we must transmit to our people... the others be damned. As long as our children know the truth, the Europeans can teach the lies to their children to their hearts content. It is immaterial.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^A lot of people use 'black' as 'African'. Doug M vehemently denies it (he says people only use it to refer to skin color), but it obviously happens and MOST people in the West use it either as THAT or, more narrowly, to refer to African Americans and their ancestors. Mansa Musa (Morpheus) explicitly defines black as 'African' in the historum thread.
If the world is viewed as a competition between black and white, some people who identify as black would like black to have the widest definition possible for the sake of strength in numbers
This is ridiculous. The AE were black and so nobody is trying to incorporate people that don't have the same skin tones of Africans all over the continent as a way of bolstering numbers. The AE are anatomically, biologically, culturally and linguistically related to other black populations in Northeast Africa, so the definition isn't being altered to accommodate the AE.
I didn't say the definition of "black" was broadened for the sake of including the AE. The definition of black the man in the video kept associating with being African but Doug's definition of black is anybody on the planet as dark as a paper bag or darker and that all dark skinned people should unite politically, strength in numbers.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The white supremacists said to Morton "Sorry bro, but the skeletal remains you dismissed as atypical (i.e. non Egyptian) 'negroids' are more representative of the Egyptians than the Egyptians you epitomized". They also said "We were with Morton until better data from earlier dynasties became available". This was in 1854!
Really? All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now? What the hell is it with you trying to warp and distort history? What kind of crazy idiot are you? So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists and they really were calling the AE black all along and everybody else and all the black scholars were just confused over words? GTFOH with that nonsense. Just admit the dam argument is about skin color and stop trying to tap dance around those basic facts.
quote: Again, Keita summarizes the general trends and zeitgeist in the literature regarding the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. The most common view that runs like a red thread through the early literature is that the predynastic Egyptians were 'negroid', but not 'negro'. The view that the AE were Nordics, on the other hand, was a minority view and never taken seriously. What I'm saying is not controversial... AT ALL.
Nobody is talking about race except you. We are talking about skin color. You keep running all over the dam map trying to avoid that fundamental point.
quote: According to what you've said repeatedly in this thread, this was completely out of question. Yet, we have a clear example of a WHITE SUPREMACIST, telling another WHITE SUPREMACIST this. Clearly, white supremacy among these racists wasn't some sort of unified front against a 'negroid' and Afro-Asiatic speaking Egypt. Clearly, the blue eyed Egyptian theory isn't some sort of common denominator.
So Keita is a white supremacist now? The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color is a perfectly valid word to use in a DEBATE about the SKIN COLOR of the AE and other people. You just keep trying to deny that this debate is about skin color and most absurd of all you keep trying to claim that the white supremacists actually agree that the AE were black. You are delusional.
quote: I've never said they are objective overall. I've only maintained that most of the racism was deployed into other channels. How does that make them objective? They still say that the ability to produce civilization is hereditary, and assign this ability to what they call "the higher races". They're still anti-African and appropriate dark skinned African populations into the European race. Throughout this thread I've maintained that THAT is where most of their racism was directed. NOT at the skin color of the ancient Egyptians.
No, you keep running all over the place trying to avoid the obvious point that this whole debate has been about skin color all along and not WORDS.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: They use word games to try and hide their racism, meaning their desire to portray the AE as some sort of very light population and to seem "objective". But when you move beyond the word games and get right down to the facts of skin color it becomes obvious what the agenda is.
But who are you talking about when you say this? Surely you're talking about Egyptsearch trolls, Hollywood execs and Egyptologists who don't know what they're talking about. If not, then I really need to be educated. Educate me man, apparently I need it. Shine your light on me. Where are the white supremacists who're trained in anthropology and AE ethnic background who came to the conclusion that they weren't related to dark skinned populations in North Africa?
No I am talking about all the folks DEBATING you over the skin color of the AE. But for some reason somehow you don't realize that this is what people are debating about. You are either naive or stupid.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The only thing I have been saying is that black as a reference to skin color is a perfectly valid word to use in a DEBATE about the SKIN COLOR of the AE and other people.
and you keep lying. The skin color is brown. The word "black" is politics
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Just trying to see what criticisms/feedback you guys would give so I can better formulate things
I thought your posts on the thread were nice. Overall the impression I got by the end of the thread was that people were rightly pointing out the contradictions of the other posters and bringing it back to the facts of skin color and feature diversity of Africans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: bringing it back to the facts of skin color and feature diversity of Africans.
the most important thing in Doug's life is skin color.
Yet when his eyes see the color brown his mouth says "black".
That is politics not observation
from AE:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I think a lot of it is people wanted to be part of what the Europeans were selling even if it was to their own demise ultimately. But yes fundamentally it is the divide and conquer strategy at play. Unfortunately most people didn't have a concept of a monolithic racial identity prior to the arrival of Europeans to band together around. So Africans to this day don't see themselves as "black people" or "african people" and unify around that identity, whereas Europeans have been unifying under the "white" banner for a few hundred years now.
posted
Lol. You know someone is acknowledging defeat when they try to invent new points to disagree with. Either Doug is trying to pull a fast one or he's not really the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm going to go easy on him because I sense that he's not really all there anymore.
Let's wrap this up.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now?
^This is Doug trying to skirt around the fact that the white supremacists I quoted said that the skeletal remains dismissed as 'negroid' outliers by Morton, represented the original Egyptians:
Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
He knows all his points have been dismantled one by one, so now he's desperately trying to invent new issues to disagree with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Nobody is talking about race except you.
Again, Keita's review of the literature shows that Nordic Egypt was never a dominant view. You can't stand having that self-victimization card pulled from under you, can you? Where is your counter evidence Doug? Your posts are filled with opinions.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists
You consistently misrepresent my views because you think that gullible people are going to believe your lies and co-sign your posts. SMH. Is that how much these misguided co-signs from confused commentators mean to you?
quote:Originally posted by Doug: We are talking about skin color.
Which reminds me:
The Ethiopian races have generally something in their physical character which is ptculiarly African, though not reaching the degree in which it is displayed by the black people of Soudan. Their hair, though not woolly, is commonly frizzled, or strongly curled or crisp. Their complexion is sometimes black, at others, of the color of bronze, or olive, or more frequently of a dark-copper or red-brown ; such as the Egyptian paintings display in human figures, though generally of a deeper shade. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
quote:So Keita is a white supremacist now?
Absent-minded lunatic. This right here alone is proof that you're chemically imbalanced. Debunked on every point.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africans to this day don't see themselves as "black people" or "african people" and unify around that identity, whereas Europeans have been unifying under the "white" banner for a few hundred years now. [/qb]
^ this quote already closed the thread
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think I missed that. This dude really is the king of flip flops.
Recap, just for entertainment value:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why don't you address what has been posted?
There is nothing to "address" other than that you set the goal post here:
White racists want the AE to have white skin. That is the point. --Doug M
And then you single handedly debunked yourself by posting Emily Teeter and Brian Palmer:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What was the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Not white. --Brian Palmer
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Egyptians typically painted representations of themselves with light brown skin, somewhere between the fair-skinned people of the Levant and the darker Nubian people to the south. --Emily Teeter
Do you even see yourself flip flop?
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug calls the Bronze Age warrior "European-looking" and "white", but when the same general pattern is found in dynastic Egypt it's somehow "completely different"?
Perfect example of Doug's flip flops and racial politics.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.
Doug, stop flip flopping.
According to you there are:
'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk) 'Black' skinned Indonesians 'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific 'Black' skinned Africans 'Black' skinned South Asians 'Black' skinned Native Americans
But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.
Flip flopper.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug debates you with 5% of actual reading and 95% attempts at ESP. Here is an example of Doug applying ESP. He thinks he can bend reality to make it conform to his flip flops. That's why, when you call out his flip flops, he still thinks he's right.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.
More of Doug's epic flip flops:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No it means skin color is the basis of race,
Doug debunked by his own dictionary pages as both of them say that 'black' has also been used to describe a perceived racial group, i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in the diaspora:
quote:Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.
quote:of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>
^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.
And
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: More Doug flip flops:
1) Throughout this thread, Doug has tried to peddle his BS claim that 'black' has always included a range of brown pigmentation.
2) I then prove this wrong by posting Ptolemy and other late Greeks who used 'black' ONLY in reference to jet-black skin, while considering brown skin BROWN (not 'black').
3) Instead of addressing what I said, Doug flip flops and starts talking about dumb crap like whether or not 'black' is used as a color by that late Greek. As usual, Doug starts spacing out and knocking down the strawmen in the figments of his imagination:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is they used the word black as a reference to skin color moron.
No sh!t, captain obvious. Black was applied as a skin color in late Greek times. But your claim that that 'black' has always implied a range of brown skin colors just got torn a new one. Maybe that's why you're so butthurt.
Doug, take your meds.
SMH. Maybe I should just go easy on him. He doesn't seem to be all there.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. You know someone is acknowledging defeat when they try to invent new points to disagree with. Either Doug is trying to pull a fast one or he's not really the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm going to go easy on him because I sense that he's not really all there anymore.
Let's wrap this up.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All the racists were admitting the AE were Negroids now?
^This is Doug trying to skirt around the fact that the white supremacists I quoted said that the skeletal remains dismissed as 'negroid' outliers by Morton, represented the original Egyptians:
Ancient Crania, from Thebes; by Morton termed " Negroid Heads," -whereas to us they yield rather the Old Egyptian type. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
So are you seriously trying to deny that Morton and OTHERS LIKE HIM continued to segregate the AE from the rest of Africa? Again are you trying to tell all of us on this forum that we are just confused and making up the idea that white folks historically have used "race" to take the AE population out of Africa based on skin color?
Stop trying to sound like you have a point. You don't. You don't make any sense and at this point you should stop making yourself look stupid.
quote: He knows all his points have been dismantled one by one, so now he's desperately trying to invent new issues to disagree with.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Nobody is talking about race except you.
Again, Keita's review of the literature shows that Nordic Egypt was never a dominant view. You can't stand having that self-victimization card pulled from under you, can you? Where is your counter evidence Doug? Your posts are filled with opinions.
Keita has dedicated himself to correcting the "racial" distortions of the past by European scientists. But OBVIOUSLY you seem to feel that there was no distortion because you claim the white supremacists REALLY thought the AE were negroids and black folks.
Come on dude your tap dancing is retarded.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So are you seriously saying that the racist Europeans were not REALLY racists
You consistently misrepresent my views because you think that gullible people are going to believe your lies and co-sign your posts. SMH. Is that how much these misguided co-signs from confused commentators mean to you?
Did you not say that "other white supremacists have called the AE NEGROID". Oh. That's right. I am misinterpreting this:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: We are talking about skin color.
Which reminds me:
The Ethiopian races have generally something in their physical character which is ptculiarly African, though not reaching the degree in which it is displayed by the black people of Soudan. Their hair, though not woolly, is commonly frizzled, or strongly curled or crisp. Their complexion is sometimes black, at others, of the color of bronze, or olive, or more frequently of a dark-copper or red-brown ; such as the Egyptian paintings display in human figures, though generally of a deeper shade. —White supremacist whose statement disproves Doug's self-victimization narrative that Nordic Egypt was a consensus.
Again you are saying that the white supreamcists think the AE were black and that this whole debate over the skin color of the AE is just black folks being confused about words.
Yes that is what you just said.
quote:
quote:So Keita is a white supremacist now?
Absent-minded lunatic. This right here alone is proof that you're chemically imbalanced. Debunked on every point.
You're dismissed.
You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"....
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: You may as well say it because according to your absurd logic, Keita and the white supremacists all agree on the features and skin color of the AE since the "nordicist" view wasn't prominent AND because "white supremacists" admitted the AE were black because they called them "brown like Ethiopians"=
^This confused flip flopper thinks my logic (which he can't even paraphrase without resorting to strawman attacks) regarding Keita is absurd because he hasn't read a single Keita paper in his life. In the man's own words:
"A careful reading of the various studies and opinions on the most ancient "Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in the context of modern evolutionary theory and archaeological data (e.g., de Heinzelin 1962; Arkell and Ucko 1965; Arkell 1975; Hassan 1988) suggests that these peoples are fundamentally a part of the African population reticulum"
^Here Keita says that many of the old studies got the features of the early Egyptians right, but need to be put into a modern evolutionary context. This is what I've said since the beginning of this thread; that most of the racism was NOT directed at what they thought the AE looked like.
"As noted previously, other Egyptologists and anthropologists have stated that the Egyptians resembled various East Africans, specifically Nubians and Somali (e.g. Peschel 1888; Breasted 1908; Bohannan 1964). Childe (1953) thought that many Old Kingdom Egyptians resembled the Shilluk, and the Naqada people, the Beja. Drake (1987:332) reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of Negroids. Petrie's (1939:105) interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture."
^Again, as far as the FEATURES, the PIGMENTATION LEVEL and the CLOSELY RELATED POPULATIONS go, the old(er) literature often got it right—even the white supremacists. Anyone who says otherwise is simply exposing how little they know about the subject.
In most cases the morphological descriptions of early southern "Egyptian" crania fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropical African ranges of variation
^Again, Keita on what he feels most of the descriptions in the old(er) texts are saying.
This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological, metric, morphometric and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants
^Here he makes the same observation about the old(er) literature.
As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.
Doug is a member of this community since at least 2005 and still can't be trusted with the basics. Makes me wonder where else he's dropping the ball. As we've already seen with that Bronze Age warrior, Doug has no business speaking on bio-anthropological texts. He keeps making a mess of things and doesn't even know how Europeans differ cranio-facially from North Africans.
This flip flopping turd actually believes that most of the literature says that the AE were blue eyed and pale skinned. SMH. How out of touch with reality can you possible be? That's why I've decided to go easy on Doug. He seems a little confused.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans. You only need to look at hollywood or more recently many of the reenactments on the history channel to see that. The only difference being the history and discovery channel started using more Arab actors in some of these shows versus Europeans.
When these folks say Caucasiod they mean pure white Aryan, blue blood, pale as snow white folks.
That has ALWAYS been the agenda of the white supremacists concerning Egypt.
Says who? Says the flip flopping jackass who watches too much history channel and thinks hollywood execs are scientists.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic