Topic: Never use black but do use Caucas(asian/oid)
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
While the very subjective scientific academic community has no problem with the misnomer Caucasian to mean the whites of Europe and caucasoid also (used to be only applied to non-white non-Euro people academicians want to claim for their own) their psychophant worshippers bitterly fight tooth and claw against the term black with tactics that'd make a used car salesman blush.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Query PLOS with this GOOGLE key site:journals.plos.org caucasian -caucasus
White academician worshippers talk garbage against the proper time honored use of black for a wide range of peoples but are as silent as a dead mouse about this.
That query retrieves >5000 hits while the anti-blacks push their agenda acting like the science community has abandoned race. I fell for that a decade ago but soon realized they speak with the forked tongue of "scholarly" imperialism.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Those are the top 3 databases of the West scientific circle.
Apparently the anti-blacks support a water downed use of black and boost the white West's current usage over that of all other people both today and through all time. They with no shame kowtow to white hegemony of knowledge and what terms are proper and acceptable though no scientific objectivity involved.
Simply put they play Simon Sez and dare not breathe less lone think with their own minds unless Simon Sez So. Nor do they understand he who makes the rules wins the game (especially when they change the rules when they see they are about to lose the winners position).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: While the very subjective scientific academic community has no problem with the misnomer Caucasian to mean the whites of Europe and caucasoid also (used to be only applied to non-white non-Euro people academicians want to claim for their own) their psychophant worshippers bitterly fight tooth and claw against the term black with tactics that'd make a used car salesman blush.
That's not true and who would give a shitt anyway.
As long as they don't come with the stupid dynastic race theory again and try to claim Ancient Egyptians were Europeans or West Asians migrants, the rest doesn't matter.
Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans related to modern sub-Saharan Africans and thus African-Americans too.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be stupid. You need come off your snap judgment prejudice and enter those queries.
While hiding behind scientific objectivity whites subjectively goad their psychophant minions against recognition of a broad Black Belt of populations but paint every Euro MidEast and North&East Africa breeding population with the white Caucas(ian/oid) brush knowing full well none of any such people originate from the Caucasus MTS.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Don't be stupid. You need come off your snap judgment prejudice and enter those queries.
While hiding behind scientific objectivity whites subjectively goad their psychophant minions against recognition of a broad Black Belt of populations but paint every Euro MidEast and North&East Africa breeding population with the white Caucas(ian/oid) brush knowing full well none of any such people originate from the Caucasus MTS.
But you negroes ain't tight about that. How come?
I don't agree with this at all. Many modern egyptologists/archaeologists, if not all, have confirmed Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous and not migrants from Europe or the Middle East. Even the lastest DNA study (ancient DNA Mota) show us that Eurasian admixtures in Egypt and East Africa is recent (last ~3000 years), and thus much later than the foundation (Nabta Playa, Tasians, etc) and origin of Ancient Egypt.
Since 2012 (and before too of course since 2000), the results are just incredible. They all confirm Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
This thread's about the two racial designations scientists use for their own white people and nonwhite people they want to co opt all the while running the use of black.
So quit playing your broken record and try to comment on the topic instead of trying to hi jack my thread.
At the least you can be like the FB Crew and ignore what you can't contradict ie scientists use a racial term for themselves while at the same time saying there's no such thing as race something the antiblacks refuse to acknowledge.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Are you stupid or what?
Why the insults because I disagree with you? It shows you're the idiot with a racist motivation. And it also shows you're weak intellectually.
Caucasian is a geographical location of origin of white people like Europe and it's equivalent is African for black people.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: While the very subjective scientific academic community has no problem with the misnomer Caucasian to mean the whites of Europe and caucasoid also (used to be only applied to non-white non-Euro people academicians want to claim for their own) their psychophant worshippers bitterly fight tooth and claw against the term black with tactics that'd make a used car salesman blush.
If "Caucasian" is assumed to be valid then "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" are also valid.
If not, they are all invalid
_________________________
wikipedia;
Caucasian race, one of three racial classifications of human beings used in racial typology.
The Caucasian race (also Caucasoid[1] or occasionally Europid[2]) is a taxon historically used to describe the physical or biological type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia.[3] The term was used in biological anthropology for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.[4] First introduced in early racial science and anthropometry, the taxon has historically been used to denote one of the three proposed major races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) of humankind.[5] Although its validity and utility are disputed by many anthropologists, Caucasoid as a biological classification remains in use,[6] particularly within the field of forensic anthropology.
___________________________________
Forensic anthrologists will use these terms "Caucasian", "Negroid", "Mongoloid" sometimes "Austrailoid" and the criteria also includes a significant consideration of the skull, limb proportions and hair type.
So the proper comparison of like terms would be
"Never use Negroid but do use Caucas(asian/oid"
or
"Never use black but do use white"
___________________________________________
However as regards the Egyptians the more important thing about their ancestry is the quesrion>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
That solves the problem
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: However as regards the Egyptians the more important thing about their ancestry is the quesrion>
were the Egyptians primarily African in both their paternal and maternal ancestry?
That solves the problem
Personally I'm waiting for full genome sequence of ancient egyptian mummies.
You've probably noticed I often say AE were black African (or something of that sort like AE were related to sub-Saharan and Afro-Americans ,etc) and I often add "based on our current scientific knowledge" or something of that sort.
When I say that for me it's really about waiting for full genome. The haplogroup and autosomal (STR) analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummies put them without a doubt as Africans. E1b1a and the DNA Tribes analysis of the JAMA and BMJ data makes it clear. Those royal mummies from the 18th, 12th and 20th dynasty had a lot of African in them and almost more importantly not a lot of Eurasian in them. So based on our current knowledge they were truly Africans in every sense of the word. Indigenous black Africans related to modern sub-Sahara Africans and thus African-Americans. Full genome sequence of royal mummies (before foreign dynasties of course) is the last step.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
the intent of this thread is to show that the all mighty whitey so-called objective scientific community will use inaccurate racial terms for self descriptors as they please but tell you not to use time and space honored racial terms in regards to yourself.
As for negroes more vociferous than the Scientists themselves Carter G Woodson Named hismost famous bbook after what Happened to them in the halls of academia.
posted
Query PLOS with this GOOGLE key site:journals.plos.org caucasian -caucasus
White academician worshippers talk garbage against the proper time honored use of black for a wide range of peoples but are as silent as a dead mouse about this.
That query retrieves >5000 hits while the anti-blacks push their agenda acting like the science community has abandoned race. I fell for that a decade ago but soon realized they speak with the forked tongue of "scholarly" imperialism.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Tukuler, I whole-heartedly agree with you. I personally never had a problem with the label of 'black' as it refers to skin color, yet I have noticed how white academics are keen to avoid the label or are against it, while still clinging onto the Caucas(ian/oid) label with their lives. Now mind you, the younger generation of anthropologists don't do this as much, however when it comes to genetics they appear to maintain the "Caucasoid" concept in other ways without using the word right out such as this recent concept of "basal Eurasians". I don't know about the rest of the FB group, but I for one am pointing this hypocrisy out!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In India/Thailand, Caucau (encaved?) refers to white people, Dumdum (endomed?) refers to black people, (perhaps only for foreigners?) as far as I know.
note: possibly dumdum actually came from elephant hunting pygmies very long ago, since elephant in Cambodian is Damre and the negritos living in the Damre mountain range there are the Samre peoar which is likely from common ancestors of Sandwe-h.ari, San Dahalo(elephant hunters of Tana Delta) and Batwa pygmies.
Ancient group:(ndjk)Xya(nd/mb/r)uaenghtualoi When the Semang/Maniq are added: Xya.mang sky.man'g
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic