posted
Some people on this forum often state that Diop made mistakes. Please cite the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence that contradicts or falsifies Diop's research.
In your replies please cite Diop's proposition, and the evidence which now contradicts what Diop wrote.
Did Newton make *mistakes*, because he didn't understand relativity?
Science, in my view isn't about timeless absolute truths [as is religion], it's only about ongoing progressive learning and change.
I respect Diop as a scientist who advanced our knowledge of history.
I treat him like every other scientist - and I do not know a single scientist of Diops generation who anticipated everything that has been learned subsequently.
Name a scientist who *is* right about everything?
That isn't science...that's megalomania.
I don't generally regard scientists in terms of the "mistakes", because they weren't right about everything. So, why should I regard Diop in such terms?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How did I know that this thread was going be started?
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Some people on this forum often state that Diop made mistakes. Please cite the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence that contradicts or falsifies Diop's research.
In your replies please cite Diop's proposition, and the evidence which now contradicts what Diop wrote.
For one, he accepted the Eurocentric fallacious classifications of "negroid" and "caucasoid" saying that even blacks like Dravidians of India were "negroid" (a claim you yourself have taken up).
Diop even goes so far to say that the so-called "mongoloid" peoples of Asia are a hybrid the result of "crossbreeding between caucasoid and negroid races"!!
But as Rasol points out, science is an evolutionary process of refining and accuracy. Scientists sometimes makes mistakes or rather formulate theories that are either disproven entirely or are tweeked or corrected to more accurate means.
The fact that YOU and Marc fail to realize this means that you guys are obviously out of touch with the scientific process. (and Marc out of touch with reality LOL)
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I can't see using terms as negroid and caucasoid as being a mistake. They were the terms commonly accepted at the time and pretty much everyone knew what was meant, which is dark skinned peoples versus light skinned peoples. Back in those days the even Eurocentric anthropologists admitted that blacks (negroids, etc) were the aboriginal populations from Africa to large parts of Asia. The main distinction being that they promoted a concept that these aborigines were an inferior "subspecies" of human that produced nothing of note on their own. Therefore, in their view, these people were eventually wiped out from the spread of superior white (caucasoid/mongoloid) populations who were more advanced than the primitive blacks. Many of the writings of Diop and others at this time were intended to counter the idea that blacks, no matter what LABEL is used, were indeed among the first to develop civilization and the arts and that whites, again no matter what LABEL is used, were not the first to invent advanced culture and civilization. No matter if the terminology and anthropological perspectives have changed, the underlying point is still the same: dark skinned people spread from Africa thousands of years ago and many of the first "advanced" civilizations around the world were built by the descendants of these dark skinned people, who themselves were dark as well.
So, in the sense that Diop and others were attempting to CORRECT the distortion and misinformation being produced by Eurocentric scholars, he did not make any mistakes. But that does not mean his work should not be updated with more recent research and terminology.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually I can't see using terms as negroid and caucasoid as being a mistake. They were the terms commonly accepted at the time and pretty much everyone knew what was meant, which is dark skinned peoples versus light skinned peoples.
I agree with this. At the time that Diop made these remarks, these terms and the ideas associated with them were accepted.
In fact, there was no option available for Diop to discuss African peoples and history on any other terms.
See my previous post about science as a system of progressive learning, and not of ultimate truths vs. mistakes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Some people on this forum often state that Diop made mistakes. Please cite the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence that contradicts or falsifies Diop's research.
In your replies please cite Diop's proposition, and the evidence which now contradicts what Diop wrote.
For one, he accepted the Eurocentric fallacious classifications of "negroid" and "caucasoid" saying that even blacks like Dravidians of India were "negroid" (a claim you yourself have taken up).
Diop even goes so far to say that the so-called "mongoloid" peoples of Asia are a hybrid the result of "crossbreeding between caucasoid and negroid races"!!
But as Rasol points out, science is an evolutionary process of refining and accuracy. Scientists sometimes makes mistakes or rather formulate theories that are either disproven entirely or are tweeked or corrected to more accurate means.
The fact that YOU and Marc fail to realize this means that you guys are obviously out of touch with the scientific process. (and Marc out of touch with reality LOL)
What's the difference between Sub-Saharan Population and Negro?
What's the difference between East Eurasian Population and Mongoloid?
What's the difference between suprasaharan Africans and Southwest Eurasians (both groups have Arab ancestry)?
Europeans live in South Africa, Namibia and etc., should they also be called Sub-Saharan Africans since they live in Sub-Saharan Africa?
Please explain how these modern terms are more precise than Black, White and Mongoloid.
posted
^ One of the least understood aspects of the dogma of anthropology as racial is that it is based on many root assumptions which have been fasified over the past few decades.
Most people who quote or 'believe in' racial constructs, know little to nothing about the history or rationale of what they believe in.
They believe essentially thru intellectual laziness.
Race provides them with a way of 'understanding' [really misunderstanding] anthropology, so they repeat it because its all they know.
Here's the point:
The original idea driving race was that human beings were descendant from separate branches of hominids over even, in its most extreme form.... separate branches of apes.
These separations would constitute true sub-species..... real races.
This is a testable hypothesis, that would be validated by showing that for example, whites of Europe, Asians, Africans, Austalians, are all descendant from distinct branches of hominid from several hundred thousand years back.
Carleton Coon [who is the ideological Godfather of all racial anthropology - which makes him the bastard father of Africanists who -believe in- race], posited 1.2 million years as point of separation of 'races'.
This chronology is not arbitrary......
it is *necessary* in order for the root premises of race-anthropology to make any sense.
In fact, we now know that this chronology is utterly false.
In fact, for virtually the entire period of time that Carlton Coon would have human beings separated into racial archtypes.... human beings in fact exist as and essentially undifferentiated population of Africans.
The separation of modern ethnic groups is in fact, very recent, and therefore biologically superflous, and not ancient and profound as Coon thought.
Why is this relevant.
Well, at the time of Diops writings, Carelton Coon was the President of the American Anthropological Association.
Diop stated -correctly- that Carlton Coon was foremost authority on -race-, and...... he was, at the time. Further, Coons work was used to justify segregation in the United States, as it was a logical extention of many of his pseudo-scientific assertions.
He was eventually forced out of the American Anthropological Association, which would later formally denounce virtually all of his ideas about race.
But this is the hostile environment in which Diop challenged the basic preconceptions of the racist anthropology in his day.
Today someone like Keita, can pretty much laugh off and dismiss the likes of Carelton Coon....
Diop could not do so, yet Diop laid the foundation upon which Keita and others have built.
By the way, the same relationship can be seen between Keita and one of his professors....Larry Angel.
Angel also used the concept of Negroid and Caucasoid..... yet Angel's work, which posited 'negroid' remains in Ancient Greece, which he concluded were indicative of migrations to Europe from Nubia, is part of the basis for a non-racial anthropology, which recognises the reality of overlapping lineages throughout human history.
And also recognises that human beings were *never* divisible into racial archtypes to begin with.
To honor Diops legacy of knowledge and science [and not ideology and polemics], you *must* continue learning, not just *reciting* from Diop......
Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004) Published online: 26 October 2004; | doi:10.1038/ng1455
Conceptualizing human variation S O Y Keita1, 2, R A Kittles1, 3, C D M Royal1, G E Bonney1, P Furbert-Harris1, G M Dunston1 & C N Rotimi1 1 National Human Genome Center, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, USA. 2 Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA. 3 Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. Correspondence should be addressed to R A Kittles kittles-1@medctr.osu.edu
What is the relationship between the patterns of biological and sociocultural variation in extant humans? Is this relationship accurately described, or best explained, by the term 'race' and the schema of 'racial' classification? What is the relationship between 'race', genetics and the demographic groups of society? Can extant humans be categorized into units that can scientifically be called 'races'? These questions underlie the discussions that address the explanations for the observed differences in many domains between named demographic groups across societies. These domains include disease incidence and prevalence and other variables studied by biologists and social scientists. Here, we offer a perspective on understanding human variation by exploring the meaning and use of the term 'race' and its relationship to a range of data. The quest is for a more useful approach with which to understand human biological variation, one that may provide better research designs and inform public policy.
'Race': semantics and confusion The term 'race' engenders much discussion, with little agreement between those who claim that 'races' are real (meaning natural) biological entities and those who maintain that they are socially constructed1. The former group sometimes stresses empirical evidence for the existence of biological 'racial' differences, and the latter stresses the role that human agency has had in creating distinctions between people (on any level). Biologists also disagree about the meaning of 'race', and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation2, 3, 4, 5.
An examination of these discussions indicates that there is a problem with semantics. 'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'6, 7. In anthropology, the meaning of race became formalized for humans and restricted to units based on biological variation in keeping with general zoological practice8, 9. Classifications were based on somatic traits.
'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence11. Do any of the human groups called 'races', including those from traditional anthropology, meet this latter criterion?
We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.
Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.
'Race' and subspecies Although the subspecies level is formally recognized in taxonomy, it has been criticized. Subspecies were primarily delimited by differences in selected observable morphological traits within a restricted geographical range. In practice, divisions were made based on a few prominent traits, with subsequent variation interpreted in terms of established units.
In the 1950s many zoological taxonomists became dissatisfied with the subspecies as a way to understand variation10, 12, 13. Criticisms included (i) the nonconcordance of traits, which made it possible to produce different classifications using the same individuals; (ii) the existence of polytopic populations, which are the product of parallel evolution; (iii) the existence of true breeding populations (demes) within previously delimited subspecies; and (iv) the arbitrariness of criteria used to recognized subspecies10. In addition, some traits were found to be clinally distributed, making the creation of divisions arbitrary.
Current systematic theory emphasizes that taxonomy at all levels should reflect evolutionary relationships11. For instance, the term 'Negro' was once a racial designation for numerous groups in tropical Africa and Pacific Oceania (Melanesians). These groups share a broadly similar external phenotype; this classification illustrates 'race' as type, defined by anatomical complexes. Although the actual relationship between African 'Negroes' and Oceanic 'Negroes' was sometimes questioned, these groups were placed in the same taxon. Molecular and genetic studies later showed that the Oceanic 'Negroes' were more closely related to mainland Asians.
Molecular systematics makes it possible to explore infraspecific variation to detect patterns that would reflect phylogenetic substructuring. Avise and Ball suggest a definition of 'subspecies' that is consistent with the goals of evolutionary taxonomy11: "Subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly the evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent, genetically based traits."
This definition is different from the previous one in that it emphasizes phylogenetics. It is, in theory, more objective and consistent with neodarwinian evolutionary theory and can be used as the basis for determining whether or not modern Homo sapiens can be structured into populations divergent enough to be called 'races'. We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees14?
'Race' and social construction 'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms.
Human races as human variation Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.
Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.
Human genome variation, demographic groups and disease 'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome22. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%)23. Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia24. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants25. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation15, 26.
Because substantial genetic variation may be localized to regions or populations, attention has been focused on how geographic origins may contribute to differential distribution of disease and mortality or 'health disparities'. In January of 2000, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched "Healthy People 2010," a program committed to eliminating 'ethnic' and 'racial' health disparities. Although there is considerable debate regarding the definition, measurement and causes of health disparities, there is increased focus on the potential role of the distribution of DNA sequence variation in contributing to observed differences in disease status among groups.
Several competing, but not necessarily exclusive, hypotheses exist to describe the genetic contribution to complex disease, including the common disease–common variant (CDCV) hypothesis and the multiple rare variants (MRV) hypothesis27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. If it turns out to be that much of the genetic variation contributing to disease is old and shared by most human populations, as implied by the CDCV hypothesis, then differences in the health status of population groups (health disparities) will be largely due to differences in exposure to cumulative environmental insults. If the MRV hypothesis turns out to be true, however, then more comprehensive sampling of multiple human populations will be necessary to adequately describe the extent to which a differential distribution of genes underlies the pathophysiology of disease susceptibility or resistance. Under this hypothesis, a substantial proportion of genetic polymorphisms will be rare and will probably be specific to groups that experienced similar evolutionary forces of selection or drift. In the end, both the CDCV and the MRV hypotheses may apply, depending on the phenotype under consideration. The etiologies of diseases such as lupus, diabetes and Alzheimer disease are examples that may require strategies derived from both hypotheses.
An important implication of the MRV model is that no one map of polymorphic markers (e.g., a SNP map such as that generated by the HapMap project) will probably be sufficient for understanding the complex interplay between multiple genetic variants and multiple environmental factors in the etiology of human diseases across all global populations. Therefore, it may be premature at this time to completely disregard all population (or group) identifiers in biomedical research, as some propose. Group identifiers are important for seeing group patterns in disparities. For example, African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic and degenerative diseases. African American males have a 60% greater risk of developing prostate cancer, twice the risk of developing its aggressive form and twice the mortality relative to European Americans33. Study designs should reflect efforts to partition the genetic, environmental and geographic variance for the diseases that contribute most to group disparity statistics, such as obesity and related disorders.
The finding that the demographic group called 'African American' has a higher prevalence of prostate cancer, obesity and hypertension is not to be denied. This does not mean, however, that this is a 'racial' phenomenon, as disease is probably due to gene-environment interaction and not linked to the physical traits assumed to covary with this population. This group has heterogeneous ancestral continental origins, predominantly West African and West Central African. They are heterogeneous in their African origins also. Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery. It is this history, and its constituent elements, that are specific to the group. The Middle Passage African descendants, whether in North America or South America, do have a particular biocultural history34. It may be necessary to craft specific group identifiers to facilitate good research design2. 'Racial' approaches to identity, as found in Office of Management and Budget directive 15, operate from the Platonic mold that groups so defined would necessarily be genetically the same, and this is false. The New World descendants of Middle Passage Africans, whether found in specifically labeled communities (e.g., African Argentinian, African Mexican, African Venezuelan or African Canadian) or in the 'majority' populations ('mestizos' or 'whites') cannot be lumped with newcomers from the continent under the label 'black' or 'African American'. Designations like 'Arab' are also fraught with biohistorical complexity because they often designate peoples who became acculturated. For example, Syrian and Shuwa Arabs illustrate the great biological and cultural variation that may be found under a single ethnolinguistic label.
The causes of health disparities among groups are not well understood, but genetic explanations are frequently the default position for a variety of reasons, including a tradition of biological determinism4. Although genes probably have a role, we must realize that some environmental influences can be so subtle and occur so early in life as to be missed, thereby facilitating acceptance of a genetic explanation that is probably false. The fetal programming and early childhood insult hypotheses for the origins of adult disease may have a role in explaining health disparities35, 36.
'Race' and research Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications.
Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale. Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations. Generalizations that invoke 'genetic' explanations are to be avoided unless they are warranted. All of these have policy implications for health studies.
'Racial' thinking can still be found in scientific literature15. Evolutionary and other biohistorical studies should be model-based and should acknowledge the ongoing legacy of 'racial' thinking. Collaborations with experts in appropriate fields such as historical linguistics, archaeology, ethnology and recent history would improve the quality of multidisciplinary studies.
Received 9 September 2004; Accepted 23 September 2004; Published online 26 October 2004.
REFERENCES Andreasen, R.O. Race: Biological reality or social construct. Philos. Sci. (Proc.) 67, S653–S666 (2000). | Article | Keita, S.O.Y. & Boyce, A.J. "Race": Confusion about zoological and social taxonomies, and their places in science. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 13, 569–575 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Andreason, R.O. A new perspective on the race debate. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 49, 199–225 (1998). Lewontin, R. Not In Our Genes (Pantheon, New York, 1984). Livingstone, F. On the non-existence of human races. Curr. Anthropol. 3, 279–281 (1962). | Article | ISI | Gordon, H. Genetics and race. S. Afr. Med. J. 39, 533–536 (1965). | PubMed | ChemPort | Stepan, N. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960 (London and Basingstoke, 1982). Deniker, J. The Races of Man (Walter Scott, London, 1900). Garn, S. Human Races. (McGraw Hill, Springfield, 1961). Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P. Principles of Systematic Zoology 2nd edn. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1991). Avise, J.C. & Ball, R.M. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 45–67 (1990). Wilson, E.O. & Brown, W.L. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst. Zool. 2, 97–111 (1953). | ISI | Brown, W.L. & Wilson, E.O. The case against the Trinomen. Syst. Zool. 3, 174–176 (1953). Ruvolo, M. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26, 515–540 (1997). | Article | ISI | Keita, S.O.Y. & Kittles, R.A. The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence. Am. Anthropol. 99, 534–544 (1997). | ISI | Latter, B.D. Genetic differences within and between populations of the major human groups. Am. Nat. 116, 220 (1980) | Article | ISI | Lewontin, R.C. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. 6, 381–398 (1972). Long, J.C. & Kittles, R.A. Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Hum. Biol. 75, 449–471 (2003). | PubMed | ISI | Nei, M. & Roychoudhury, A.K. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927–943 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994). Underhill, P.A. et al. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann. Hum. Genet. 65, 43–62 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Kruglyak, L. & Nickerson, D. Variation is the spice of life. Nat. Genet. 27, 234–236 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Carlson, C.S. et al. Additional SNPs and linkage-disequilibrium analyses are necessary for whole-genome association studies in humans. Nat. Genet. 33, 518–521 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Allen, M., Salden, T., Patterson, U. & Gyllensten, U. Genetic typing of HLA class II genes in Swedish populations: applications in forensic analyses. J. Forensic Sci. 38, 554–570 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Rosenberg, N. et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381–2385 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Serre, D. & Paabo, S. Evidence of gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14, 1679–1685 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Collins, F.S., Brooks, L.D. & Chakravarti, A. A DNA polymorphism discovery resource for research on human genetic variation. Genome Res. 8, 1229–1231 (1998). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Reich, D. et al. Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature 411, 199–204 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Weiss, K.M. & Clark, A.G. Linkage disequilibrium and the mapping of complex human traits. Trends Genet. 18, 19–24 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Pritchard, J.K. & Cox, N.J. The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant...or not? Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2417–2423 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Carlson, C.S. et al. Selecting a maximally informative set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for association analyses using linkage disequilibrium. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 106–120 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Neale, B. & Shan, P. The future of association studies: gene-based analysis and replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75, 353–362 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Stanford, J.L. et al. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995. SEER Program, National Cancer Institute NIH Pub No 99-4543. (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 1999). Rout, L., The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976). Barker, D.J.P. In utero programming of chronic disease. Clin. Sci. 95, 115–128 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the difference between Sub-Saharan Population and Negro?
Sub-Sahara - does not delimit African. - Keita
Negro - defunct racial classification, no longer in scientific use - websters
I don't consider either of those terms particularly useful.
If you do, then it's for you to establish their relevance.
If this is true why does Keita uses the term "suprasaharan Africans" for the Tunisians and Egyptians above?
Moreover, what molecular data separates the Arab speaking "Suprasaharans" from the Arabic speaking "Southwest Eurasians"?
In the article they calim that we can call the Blacks of America, African American, but not the Tunisians who also come from Africa because they fail to share the same ethnichistory.
Africans in sub-Saharan Africa and America share many molecular traits, but continental Africans fail to share the same history as Black Americans-should we stop calling these Blacks African Americans as well?
quote:Moreover, what molecular data separates the Arab speaking "Suprasaharans" from the Arabic speaking "Southwest Eurasians"?
Keita addressed this specifically:
It is important to address the appellation of "Arabic" for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label "Arabic" for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called "African" (Lucotte et al. 1993:839, Lucotte et al. 1996:469), and "Berberian" (Lucotte et al. 2001:887).Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
1) Jews from different regions have vastly different histories. An obvious example is the comparison of German Jews who experienced the Nazi Holocaust and Russina Jews who did not. Consider too the different histories of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. But the most fanatically pro-Israel Jews are often of Russian extraction including those who settled in Israel as founders of that state and those who live in the United States and Canada. I say this mainly because their fanatical commitment to Israel is founded on the assumption that Jews must keep what they perceive as their "historic and natural homeland"--at all costs. Yet all Jews refer themselves as Jews without any hyphenation despite great differences in historical experience and regardless of the authenticity of such a claim.
2) So here's the question: South Africans of African descent and Malians have greatly different recent histories should they use this difference in recent history to designate themselves differently? Same for the differences in the history of those Congolese whose ancestors survived the 10 million genocide meted out against the Congolese by Leopold of Belgium.
3) After having looked at the Haplogroup maps of North Africa and West Asia a number of times it would seem that there is an evident diiference in genetic history for both regions. Just pull up that map again and peruse it.
4) Re terminology for the world's geographical populations. You may be right. The modern terms such as "sub-Saharan" Africa, "supra-Saharan" Africa are not much more than mere "wink-wink" euphemisms. In the old days the "experts" used "Hamitic-Semitic" languages for the contemporary "Afro-Asiatic", but the meaning is the same.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: In the article they calim that we can call the Blacks of America, African American, but not the Tunisians who also come from Africa because they fail to share the same ethnic history.
You are referring to:
Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery.
^ Keita isn't interested in what folk-ethnic terms are used for different populations.
He is simply noting that African American descendants of slavery have a distinct biological history from Continential Africans.
For example African Americans would have Native American ancestry, but Nigerians and Egyptians would not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
2) So here's the question: South Africans of African descent and Malians have greatly different recent histories should they use this difference in recent history to designate themselves differently? Same for the differences in the history of those Congolese whose ancestors survived the 10 million genocide meted out against the Congolese by Leopold of Belgium.
This is the point I was trying to make in regards to Keita et al's assertion that race was dead and that using geography to denote bioethnicity , is the best marker of the human diversity that exist within and among the many nations and continents on earth.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
3) After having looked at the Haplogroup maps of North Africa and West Asia a number of times it would seem that there is an evident diiference in genetic history for both regions. Just pull up that map again and peruse it.
It don't look that much different to me. In fact they share considerable molecular material with Sub-Saharan Africans as evidenced by the presence of R, E and J in both areas.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?
On Diop's "mistakes" re the genealogy of Esat Asians. The idea that East Asians are hybrids of Africans and Europeans is almost echoed by Cavalli-Sforza who claimed that Europeans are hybrids of Africans and East Asians(40--60 split).
The key point about Diop is his thorough refutation of the Carlton Coon and Seligman hypotheses about the genetics of Africa's populations--present and in the distant past. Errors of detail might have been made--but they are mere trees in Diop's paradigm--the forest.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
2) So here's the question: South Africans of African descent and Malians have greatly different recent histories should they use this difference in recent history to designate themselves differently? Same for the differences in the history of those Congolese whose ancestors survived the 10 million genocide meted out against the Congolese by Leopold of Belgium.
This is the point I was trying to make in regards to Keita et al's assertion that race was dead and that using geography to denote bioethnicity , is the best marker of the human diversity that exist within and among the many nations and continents on earth.
.
How people disignate themselves is a social choice. So I don't see your point.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?
I'm going to answer this question a second time.
When you again ignore the answer and repeat the question...I will then ignore the obtuseness [just a warning].
Supra -> greater than; to transcend.
Sub -> less than; contained within, bounded by.
The difference between supra and sub is that they are AN-TO-NYMS - opposites.
^ Sub-sahara does not delimit -> African. - Keita.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On Diop's "mistakes" re the genealogy of Esat Asians. The idea that East Asians are hybrids of Africans and Europeans is almost echoed by Cavalli-Sforza who claimed that Europeans are hybrids of Africans and East Asians(40--60 split).
lol. Echo?
You mean this...
That's no echo you hear. It's race-ideology [your own] being exploded.
Diop is reflecting the idea of color as race, in which two essentialist races - the white race, and the black race, exist, in which brown or yellow skinned people can be classified by color into mongrel races.
White people of Europe are not on the -opposite end- of a racial spectrum with Blacks of Africa, nor do they even occupy a unique 3rd tier position with respect to Asians.
Rather they show genetically as intermediate between Africans and Asians, reflecting the fact that Europeans are the product of common outmigration population with other Asians, and a subsequent admixture from Africans.
Sforza also shows that non African Black populations are much further removed genetically from Africans than white Europeans.
These findings completely obliterate the racialist notions of a pure 'white' race, a singular black race, and the idea that people who are neither white or black are a 'mixture' of two [non-existent] races. Pure races are debunked. Mixed races are debunked. Race is therefore debunked....period.
In short, it completely De-bunk's Coons notion of race, which Diop was channelling.
But go ahead, and pretend not to know the difference, just like you can't understand the difference between sub and supra.
Here's my question:
Is the best that advocates of race can do, is to play dumb?
IE- pretend not to understand anything?
That's pretty sad isn't it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You say 'playing dumb', but what are we to make of the nonsense that Marc Washington spews like indigenous Europeans being black and that whites entered Europe during the Middle Ages?
That right there is a sign of mental illness, I'd say psychotic delusions of grandeur!
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lamin is just trying to defend outdated ideas on race, by pretending to not understand Keita's devastating critique or how modern genetics has confounded the belief system of race-dogmaticists.
Africanist advocates of race make me sad, since they simply reflect a bent version of white supremacy. They share the same root assumptions, and the manner in which they bend them to supposidely Africanist purpose is just a defense mechanism.
Quoting Marc Washington: {East Asians -gained- their straight hair from -mixing- with whites}
^ I'm sorry but that's straight up self hatred, exposed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I did not mean to compare Lamin to Marc. I am just asking what you make of Marc, because if the guy actually believes all that crap he posts then he is a very disturbed individual.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?
I'm going to answer this question a second time.
When you again ignore the answer and repeat the question...I will then ignore the obtuseness [just a warning].
Supra -> greater than; to transcend.
Sub -> less than; contained within, bounded by.
The difference between supra and sub is that they are AN-TO-NYMS - opposites.
^ Sub-sahara does not delimit -> African. - Keita.
We know it does not delimit African, but he associates the compound word with African populations, thus implying that the people who live--which formerly were referred to as Black/ Negro--below the Sahara are a monolithic population.
You are right the terms are the opposite. One term supra- implying a superior group while the other term sub- may imply an inferior group.
Are you saying that the Black Africans are sub-(Saharan) Africans, while the Arab speaking Africans (SupraAficans) are Super Africans?
Please explain why this is better than saying white or Arab/Berber Africans and Black Africans? These terms more precisely describe these populations.
Rather they show genetically as intermediate between Africans and Asians, reflecting the fact that Europeans are the product of common outmigration population with other Asians, and a subsequent admixture from Africans.
How can the Europeans have an admixture from Africans, when the original Europeans were already African?
Are you claiming that Europeans were not native to Europe?
Or are you claiming that Europeans lived in Europe before Africans migrated into the region?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can the Europeans have an admixture from Africans, when the original Europeans were already African?
Here are the facts, do with them what you will.
All non-Africans - European, Asian, Australian, Native American, Melanesian..... are descendant from a small group of East Africans who migrated out of Africa 60~ thousand years ago.
This is the time of basic separation between Africans and non-Africans.
If you follow the top graph a) you see this point of time as the 1st vertex separating populations.
Based on neutral markers the longer and more isolated any branch [ie non african] population is separated from Africa..... the greater the accumulated genetic distance.
The b) graph relates the cumulative and relative genetic distances that result from this.
From the time that non african migrate out of africa, to the time that they split into their respective current populations, they *should* therefore show roughly equal distance between themselves and Africans.
But they don't.
Why?
In the case of Europeans, they show dramatically closer distance to Africans [Nigerians/Ethiopians... doesn't matter] compared to East Asians, Native American, Australian, etc..
The reason for this is clear.
Once Europeans split from East Asians and settled into Europe, they were then in a position to receive admixtures from Africa.
It is this admixture which results in Europeans being genetically closer to Africans compared to -all other- non Africans.
Moreover this is largely independant of the issue of skin color.
All people were originally Black.
The genes that make Europeans white did not exist in the Paleolithic.
Therefore their can be -no- ancient white race.
This genetic information did not exist in Diops day, so he could not have possibly related it.
But you can bet, that as a scientist, were he alive, his ideas would reflect the current data, as all good scientists do.
Now, some people who cite Diop, don't keep up with current science.
Regardless that they fancy themselves as defending Diop.... they really are not.
Diop was a scientist. They are totally anti science. If you want to respect Diops legacy you -must- understand and further modern science as Keita has done.
Diop -from the grave- doesn't need parrots quoting him. They are worse than useless to him.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
We know it does not delimit African, but he associates the compound word with African populations
His statement is a criticism of the term, not simply and example of it's use.
quote: thus implying that the people who live--which formerly were referred to as Black/ Negro
^ Nope, that compounds the error of ignoring what he said, and intentionally missing his point, by then putting words in his mouth.
Meanwhile you fail to address what he is actually saying.
That amounts to running away, disguised by bad debating.
Let us know when you're ready to address what Keita said, instead of inventing things not said. [strawman arguments]
quote:below the Sahara are a monolithic population.
Wrong. You continue to miscomprehend the meaning of supra-sahara which includes sahara, south of the sahara and north of the sahara.
The whole point is that Africas populations -are not bound by the sahara-.
This is why Keita refers to Afro-Asitic language as 'supra-saharan'.
I guess even simple/logical ideas fly over the heads of smart people, when the ideas subvert their pre-conceptions?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
...what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?
'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:
Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.
Saharan = on the Sahara.
Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.
^Once this is understood, the rest should be self-explanatory, with regards to physical and genetic diversity in the said regions...since such matter has been discussed ad nauseam. 'Search' function is now available to those who wish to avail themselves of such information from the archives.
And yes, using the Sahara as a referencing point for location in continental Africa, doesn't limit Africa to one or the other of its sub-regions.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Or are you going to pretend or not even bother to try understanding it, so you can keep repeating your same tired old fallacious arguments.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde - I can't understand why you would waste your time making a commonsense case with people who have no common sense, and are not inclined to get any. But I do get a kick out of the pseudo-scientists trying to take the current world racial demographic and extrapolating backwards to get the results that they desire.
Of course the reason for this foolishness is quite simple; the real and verifiable past does not meet with their approval, so they must find ways to change it. That means that the proto-races of Black, White, and Mongol are out, old hat. Now it’s the combinations that arose from the Proto races that are the thing.
Now of course, if the point of all this contrivance was to celebrate mans diversity, then at least it would be worthy of some sympathy. But it’s not; in the case of Djehti, it’s just an attempt to hold onto the racist fabrications of his forefathers. Accepting them as frauds and liars appears too painful for him. And in the case of Rasol, it appears to be a balm against the realities of a racist world: one created by White people BTW.
So undaunted by truth and evidence, they will keep at it until they convince somebody. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of Stele and who knows how much text, showing and describing the ancients, they still insist; don’t believe your own lying eyes, believe me.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As usual, your entire posts consists of empty rheotoric and noise with no data or facts.
At least Lamin and Dr. Winters make some attempt to address data.
You are not on the same level, Mike.
You are a pure blowhard - someone who makes very loud noises, to compensate for the fact that they have nothing to say.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:
Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.
Saharan = on the Sahara.
Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.
An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs. The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.
Supra-saharan therefore isn't strictly-above- or north of the sahara. [no part of Egypt is North of the sahara, really only the Magreb is entirely north of the sahara]
Thus Keita refers not only to supra-saharan, but also supra-equatorial and horn-supra-saharan.
eg ->
This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes.
S. Keita, "A response to Brace et al.'s 'Clines and clusters versus race' (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1993)" - The clusters made in this kind of research are suspect because although australian-melanesian data cluster with Africa, their DNA differs and places the former clearly in Asia. He listed a number of errors in the above mentioned publication, among them misrepresentations of statements made in certain publications by B. Trigger and the present writer, although he did not give more details, I forgot to ask him in what way my views had been distorted and which of my publications he was talking about. He showed many examples of African facial profiles indicating a great variability and denying the claims of some Africans (ie. Nigerians) to represent the true African prototype. He criticized as well the biased use of the language in definitions like for instance writing about "sub-Saharan" populations which has also other cultural implications, so to be consistent they should also use "supra-Saharan" instead of "north African" or other such nomenclature.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Either way Mike has no answers, but emotional ranting.
He fails to realize that modern anthropology and science in general acknowledges that there are *no such thing as races* as the very definition of genetically/phenotypically distinct races is refuted by first physical anthropology and most recently, genetics.
And speaking of psuedo-science that runs counter-current, there is *no such thing* as indigenous blacks of Europe! LOL
By the way, the ad-hominem comments about my "racist fabrications of my forefathers" is for nothing, since again I am not white! LOLPosts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti: I am very sorry to hear that you are not White. At least before, you could only be accused of spewing Purposeful nonsense; people all around the world are quite familiar with it, they know it as racial propaganda. But now we know that it is only the nonsense of the confused.
Rasol: All over the world, countless millions have died or suffered unspeakable injury because they were the wrong race. Now you come along and say what? That it was all some ill-informed mistake? Take a hold of yourself you silly child; race is real, the consequences of being of the wrong race are real, just ask those who have suffered because of it. But it was never really about race, it was about exploitation; race was simply a convenient grouping and focal point. So even if we accept your premise, what would it matter?
As to the value of my contributions: there are those who think that the unmasking of lies and the promotion of truth is very useful. But you are right in one regard; the liars would think it very negative.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".
I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians. In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60: "Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate".
Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes(see his the History and Geography of Human Genes).
But here's Diop again on race:
[b]But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations. It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology. But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the norion of race reappears: sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only balck people, says the same science that denies race....Race does not exist! Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede, and that, a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins, even if accidentally their phenotypes, meaning their physical appeareances, are different"(C&B,p. 17).
Apparently what Diop seems to be saying is that European scholars rather than admit the anteriority of the African "race" prefer to debunk the notion of race altogether.
I don't think the European scholars really debunked the notion of "race" at all. They just changed their terminologies --old wine in new bottles style--with their talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa, etc.
But Diop does raise an interesting question derived from the fact that phenotype does not track genotype in antropological analysis. The point is that phenotype is not a function of genetic distance. Consider the cases of Melanesians and the populations of Africa--all belonging to the same population set if membership criteria are the phenotypical traits generally characteristic of Africa. Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations. Take your pick!
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti: I am very sorry to hear that you are not White. At least before, you could only be accused of spewing Purposeful nonsense; people all around the world are quite familiar with it, they know it as racial propaganda. But now we know that it is only the nonsense of the confused.
Rasol: All over the world, countless millions have died or suffered unspeakable injury because they were the wrong race. Now you come along and say what? That it was all some ill-informed mistake? Take a hold of yourself you silly child; race is real, the consequences of being of the wrong race are real, just ask those who have suffered because of it. But it was never really about race, it was about exploitation; race was simply a convenient grouping and focal point. So even if we accept your premise, what would it matter?
As to the value of my contributions: there are those who think that the unmasking of lies and the promotion of truth is very useful. But you are right in one regard; the liars would think it very negative.
Yes unfortunately many atrocities were committed due to "race", most of which by Europeans. What is most sad about it is that "race" itself has no scientific or any actual basis but is purely a specious and subjective concept. But as we all know ideas and notions hold as much power as people give them no matter how real or imagined they are.
All of this is besides the point. The point is 'race' is an outdated and false Eurocentric concept that you cannot let go of simply because of the harm it's done. To write its wrongs and move on you have to let go of it, and denying the obvious scientific facts and clinging on to 'race' is not going to help anyone let alone yourself.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: In the article they calim that we can call the Blacks of America, African American, but not the Tunisians who also come from Africa because they fail to share the same ethnic history.
You are referring to:
Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery.
^ Keita isn't interested in what folk-ethnic terms are used for different populations.
He is simply noting that African American descendants of slavery have a distinct biological history from Continential Africans.
For example African Americans would have Native American ancestry, but Nigerians and Egyptians would not.
^
Good Post
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".
Below and above are not antonyms?
Pray tell, what is the antonym for below?
What is the antonym for above?
What is the antyonym for the prefix 'sup' if not 'sub?
quote:I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians.
In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60: "Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate".
^ Which we know is wrong, as the genes that make white people white did not exist 15 thousand years ago....and East Asians do not have those genes, therefore they can not be mixed with some ancient white race that did not exist.
This notion is simply wrong, and to pretend that Caveli Sforza is supporting it, when he specifically states the contrary is dishonest of you.
quote:Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes
^ tsk tsk Lamin. First you claimed that Sforza, *echoed* Diop, which is a lie.
Now you claim Sforza had it *somewhat different*, which is dissembling.
The issue you are addressing is whether 'yellow' skinned people are caused by mixture of black and white people.
Diop says yes.
Sforza says no.
This is not echoing, this is not somewhat different.
This is the second statement contradicting the former.
Perhaps you you can pretend that 'yes and no' are also not antonyms.
Moreover Sforza goes further and states that Europeans of this time still had brown skin, see the article below. "European ancestors were brown skinned" - Sforza ^
We have learned much about skin color, which contradicts Diops hypothesis - yellow skinned Asians are not a product of mixture of 'white' and 'black' races, period.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations.
^ You mean like the genes that produce sickle cell phenotype in Greeks and Nigerians, but that are non existent in Melanesians?
Or do you mean the 'eye-folds' that native South Africans and East Asians have, but West Africans and Europeans don't?
Or are you refering to the 'long faces' and curly hair of some East Africans and NorthWest Europeans?
Your claims about race are a collection of personal biases which have no scientific value.
Scientifically speaking, Melanesians and Africans are among the -least- related peoples on earth, and so, do not constitute a distinct -race-.
From Geneticist Alan Templeton: There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians than there is between Africans and Melanesians, thefore Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans
Disagree with Templeton?
^ Then produce *scientific* references that will refute him.
No personal rhetorical ideology, no dumbstruck confusion between the meanings of opposites like above and below, and yes and no......
....just stay on topic by refuting the above: SCIENTIFICALLY, if you can.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations.
^ This statement by Diop is true. Physical anthroplogy no longer divides humans into races.
It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology.
^ This is also true of anthropology throughout it's history.
But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the notion of race reappears:
^ This *was* true, but is now outdated. No reputable scientist views sickle cell in terms of race.
sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only black people, says the same science that denies race
^No science today says this. This is and example of how some of Diops claims are outdated.
At the time he stated this: it was not commonly known among the public that sickle cell also effects white people, and more important: it was argued that -when it did- it was due to convergent evolution.
It's geneticists who discovered that sickle cell morphology in whites of Europe and black Africans has a homogeneous genetic source: Benin HBS.
So this is and excellent example of misguided quoting of Diop.
quote:This is the mty -> Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede
This is special pleading. Diop can distinguish himself from everyone on earth - since he doesn't have and identical twin brother, this does not per se prove race.
quote:And that a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins
^ It is a fact, that genetics demonstrated that people like Zulu and Boer were much more closely related than race-mongers, like Carelton Coon imagined.
As noted earlier, this is not and esoteric fact [except to and anti-intellectual mind perhaps].
It is -because- people did not separate into distinct breeding stocks millions of years ago as multi-regionalist racialists like Carelton Coon imagined, and Diop accepted, given at the time - insufficient - evidence to the contrary.
Rather all people descend from a small common group of Africans from a mere 60~ thousand years ago, as genetics has shown.
This is why Coon and other multi-regionalist racialists fought so hard against the mounting evidence of the Recent AFrican Origin of all people.
They understand how it undermined the fundamental assumptions of race.
Most anthropologist also understand this.
This is why they reject race.
Unfortunately the modern layperson 'follower' of Carelton Coon-racialism are not that smart, and don't really follow Coon's reasonings for race well enough, to see how - modern genetics especially - have utterly devastaed them.
It's the scientifically illiterate layperson who continues to 'believe in' biological race....out of ignorance.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:
Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.
Saharan = on the Sahara.
Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.
An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs.
What does this have to do with what you are citing? Are you saying that the terms I mentioned, don't mean as presented? If so, then please present the correct geographical meanings for those terms. I noticed that your characterization of "supra-Saharan" was wrong.
quote:rasol:
The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.
The terms are primarily geographical lexicons; what is wrong with stating that fact, or using the terms in a geographical sense for that matter?
quote:rasol:
Supra-saharan therefore isn't strictly-above- or north of the sahara. [no part of Egypt is North of the sahara, really only the Magreb is entirely north of the sahara]
This is a non-issue, as far as what you are replying to is concerned...for the "sub-Saharan" region doesn't "strictly" start from "below" the Sahara, any more than "supra-Saharan" region is "strictly" above the Saharan region. Countries like Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad for example, have parts of their territory on the Saharan desert, and yet, are generally placed as "sub-Saharan African countries".
quote:rasol:
Thus Keita refers not only to supra-saharan, but also supra-equatorial and horn-supra-saharan.
eg ->
This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes.
S. Keita, "A response to Brace et al.'s 'Clines and clusters versus race' (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1993)" - The clusters made in this kind of research are suspect because although australian-melanesian data cluster with Africa, their DNA differs and places the former clearly in Asia. He listed a number of errors in the above mentioned publication, among them misrepresentations of statements made in certain publications by B. Trigger and the present writer, although he did not give more details, I forgot to ask him in what way my views had been distorted and which of my publications he was talking about. He showed many examples of African facial profiles indicating a great variability and denying the claims of some Africans (ie. Nigerians) to represent the true African prototype. He criticized as well the biased use of the language in definitions like for instance writing about "sub-Saharan" populations which has also other cultural implications, so to be consistent they should also use "supra-Saharan" instead of "north African" or other such nomenclature.
Okay? And again, what does this have to do with my post? I agree with Keita's point of view, including I reiterate, the fact that using the Sahara as geographical referencing point doesn't limit what is Africa; I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.
Keita is essentially saying that if they [the persons in question] were to use "sub-Saharan" in their work, then the geographical lexicon has to be *consistent* throughout the work, using "supra-Saharan" in lieu of "north African".
I do however, question the notion that Afrasan language family is "supra-Saharan", as this language family isn't restricted to supra-Saharan Africa. *If* Keita said something to that effect, I wouldn't mind that it be brought to my attention.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
....rather than designating regions, using the Saharan desert as the geographical referencing point.
Okay, In geographical terms Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)
Sub-Saharan = A portion of the total Supra-Sahara more commonly known as south of the Sahara. (Subset)
Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara. So trying to confine/label them as Sub-Saharan is in error. As is trying label the Black Africans of Egypt/Ethiopia and other places as non-black, not true negro, mixed, or whatever is in error.
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mystery Solver: 'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:
Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.
Saharan = on the Sahara.
Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.
quote:rasol: An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs.
quote:MysterySolver: What does this have to do with what you are citing?
It's a statement of fact.
quote:Are you saying that the terms I mentioned, don't mean as presented?
Don't get defensive, but yes, you said it means *north of* sahara. I've already shown you that this is not correct. I notice that your response does not object to the correction per se. Instead you simply object to my having corrected it. [hense - defensive]
quote:rasol:
The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.
quote:MysterySolver writes: The terms are primarily geographical lexicons;
Not really. The term supra-saharan is more a transgeographic term whose utility is based upon population histories.
Here is a specific example:
Exploring the relationship between human society and the natural world.
We focus primarily on supra-Saharan regions of the continent.
Specific topics include the Nile River, the Sahara, the Sahel, and the politics of water and petroleum resource exploitation. - Professor, Tanya Furman, [2007]
^ This is clearly not consistent with soley north of the sahara - which is the Maghreb and in this case is not even mentioned.
quote:What is wrong with stating that fact, or using the terms in a geographical sense for that matter?
Now i've answered the above with clarity, but based on past experience I expect repetitive questioning but no aknowledgement of the answer provided. And answer I have no intention of repeating.
So allow me to make a request to prevent a stagnant circular exchange:
If you assert that supra-saharan is a geographical reference to North of the Sahara, and is so being referenced incorrectly by the scholars cited, then please provide a map of the geography = supra-sahara.
No need for defensive argumentation. If you believe this is geography lexicon for North of Sahara, simply show us, via a map.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blackman: Okay, In geographical terms Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)
Your basic idea of super-set is correct.
Bear in mind as noted earlier, Keita also uses the term supra-equatorial Africa.
These terms are more population/geography than strict geography.
Supra Equatorial Africa is also referenced in genetic study and includes Kenya, Somalia especially because they *transcend* the equator.
Hope this helps.
quote:Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Or are you going to pretend or not even bother to try understanding it, so you can keep repeating your same tired old fallacious arguments.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic