...
EgyptSearch Forums
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Trolls and trash (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Trolls and trash
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I remember this place 13 years ago when I joined it now its just utter trash. No matter who you put in charge this place will never again recapture what it used to be. You trolls should all move on,, there are no more true Eurocentrists to fight
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What do you mean by "true Eurocentrists"? Because as far as I can tell, there are still a load of people out there insistent that indigenous Egyptians had a depigmented "West Eurasian" appearance. The vast majority of them aren't specialists who know better to be sure, but that's the thing that gets to me the most: even the people that don't know any better may act like they do, as countless armchair historians have shown me over the years.

That said, this issue is far more nuanced than a public raised on the simplistic "Caucasoid North African"/"Sub-Saharan Negroid" binary approach to African anthropology would appreciate. Much less with the implications for modern racial politics attached. I still view the "Eurocentric" misrepresentation as a bigger fish to fry and find the current state of in-fighting among ES regulars to be depressing. But you got to admit, most of the people on "our" side have an emotional investment in an agenda beyond correcting the "mainstream" narrative that blinds them to certain nuances too.

The whole thing has become a saddening mess for me.

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

there are no more true Eurocentrists to fight

arguing online with racialists isn't going to solve anything but challenging and critiquing the professionals like Henn et al who give incomplete pictures should be a priority as well discovering more cultural links between New World Blacks and African which very few scholars are doing.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's probably why this forum is almost empty. Now the whole world know Ancient Egyptians were black. Every past whitewash in hollywood is led by tons of criticism and lately an apology. Nodnarb and is other ids are the only eurocentrist left. Ancient Egyptians were black Africans in every way: skin colors, geographically, biologically, culturally, etc. They share a common Green Sahara past with most other African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's probably why this forum is almost empty.

Or maybe it's due to severe "technical" sign up difficulties

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Ancient Egyptians were black Africans in every way: skin colors, geographically, biologically, culturally, etc. They share a common Green Sahara past with most other African populations.

But did they have any non-black Africans in their ranks?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
@the lioness


I too had that problem when I first joined.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@the lioness


I too had that problem when I first joined.

could you explain the detail of that please
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It would take an EXTREMELY and I mean EXTREMELY long time for my account to get confirmed by the owner of this site. It actually took me freaking MONTHS for my account to get confirmed. I heard that those that register for this site just give up due to the process taking so long.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I remember this place 13 years ago when I joined it now its just utter trash. No matter who you put in charge this place will never again recapture what it used to be. You trolls should all move on,, there are no more true Eurocentrists to fight

There is no Eurocentrics to fight because the war is over. But Hollywood will keep feeding delusional bs to their white audience. The only way to derail that is for blacks to make their own movies about Black Egypt and forget about Hollywood. Come up head to head against Hollywood. They will get the message!! Protesting only do so much...
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kdolo
Member
Member # 21830

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for kdolo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
'There is no Eurocentrics to fight because the war is over. '


You clearly dont understand Albinos....

The war is never over...there is no over....only perpetualy war.

Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
five years ago:

quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:(2011)
I can't post here much any longer. Whatever good topics that do come up are always spoiled by trolling, thats takes the interest out of it. Why can't this place hurry up and die so the trolls can die with it?

quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:(2016)
You trolls should all move on,, there are no more true Eurocentrists to fight


Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mena7
Member
Member # 20555

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mena7   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
where are the old members of Egypt Search Forums. There are at least 20 missing old members in EGSF. The Forum is as good as the members who choose topics, create threads and debate.

--------------------
mena

Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
five years ago:

quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:(2011)
I can't post here much any longer. Whatever good topics that do come up are always spoiled by trolling, thats takes the interest out of it. Why can't this place hurry up and die so the trolls can die with it?

quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:(2016)
You trolls should all move on,, there are no more true Eurocentrists to fight


Even the reputed "glory days" were chock full of trolls.
I like everyone else clashed with "Hammer", "Euro,"
"Akoben" etc etc, as well as the other idiots with their multiple
accounts- like "Arab Egypt" - spinning their BS for years.
So what else is new?

Even in its current state however, ES still has a valuable role
to play. For one, its database is being used and accessed frequently
both as genera reference, Google Search terminus, or resource for
battle against assorted Eurocentrics, "hereditarians"
Arabists and racists. See for example the recent victorious
battle of Morpheus below.
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=309339&page=15

Second, new info is being added all the time. Not as much as
3 years ago, but enough to keep things as a viable resource base.
Ironically, some who claim all is woe, doom and gloom are
themselves rehashing old arguments and debates against
Eurocentrics over at Anthroscape etc etc. And since all
is doom and gloom, one may well ask, why do they keep showing
up back here on ES? Why don't they stick to building up
the post count of the racist forums, since things are so hunky dory
over yonder? And a lot of time was spent on personal
beefs and grudge battles, even back in the day.


Third, ES still offers a good way to bypass and defeat the
trolls on Wikipedia, with their doctored "stealth" edits
removing credible scholarship, and their "admin" sandbagging.
They imagine they are doing something significant,
"guarding" their obsolete little pages, for dear life.

But all their activity to obscure or sandbag credible data is useless.
The data is in place on ES, and is being distributed world wide every day.
And that data is in several different places- getting more hits than Wikipedia
not just on individual sites like ES, but in aggregate, when all the blogs,
sites and forums are added together, way more hits on these types of topics.
Their weak "stealth" pages getting 10 hits a day are far overshadowed by ES, Reloaded
etc etc getting hundreds or thousands of hits per day on these type topics.
If the grand total of ALL venues is added, including the personal blogs and debate forums
where hard data and quotes are posted, all the cowards' "stealth" work is being
comprehensively defeated and rendered useless.

Finally, who says ES needs to return to any "glory days"?
It would be nice, but at this point is is not necessary,
in terms of being a widely used, in depth, accessible
point for a more balanced picture of African bio-history,
including the Nile Valley. Keep in mind too that ES has spawned
its own set of spinoffs and parallel data sources.

Who says ES HAS to be some sort of central headquarters
of anything? It is an important but ultimately just another node
on the network now. So what if something from Dinkenes' is not
leached and copied over here the same day Dinkenes does it? Shrug..
Who says ES has to be like some "Afro" news ticker, where the latest
minutiae has to be posted within 24 hours? Who says ES was ever
supposed to be some kind of CNN 24/7 "Anthro news cycle" forum?
It was pretty much a mixed bag. Trolls took up tons of space back in the day.
The reputed golden age of purity and light never existed.
It was always a mixed bag.

The three advantages above are in place and humming along.
They don't have to be perfect, they just need to be in place,
as another node on the networks of spin-offs and independent efforts.
Who says people have to be on here 24/7 copying from Dinkenes, et al?
If any want to expand that and make positive contributions
rather than complaining, go for it. What's stopping them?

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post 
Fist thump. double tap!

quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] five years ago:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:(2011)
[qb]
.

Finally, who says ES needs to return to any "glory days"?
It would be nice, but at this point is is not necessary,
in terms of being a widely used, in depth, accessible
point for a more balanced picture of African bio-history,
including the Nile Valley. Keep in mind too that ES has spawned
its own set of spinoffs and parallel data sources.

Who says ES HAS to be some sort of central headquarters
of anything? It is an important but ultimately just another node
on the network now. So what if something from Dinkenes' is not
leached and copied over here the same day Dinkenes does it? Shrug..
Who says ES has to be like some "Afro" news ticker, where the latest
minutiae has to be posted within 24 hours? Who says ES was ever
supposed to be some kind of CNN 24/7 "Anthro news cycle" forum?
It was pretty much a mixed bag. Trolls took up tons of space back in the day.
The reputed golden age of purity and light never existed.
It was always a mixed bag.

The three advantages above are in place and humming along.
They don't have to be perfect, they just need to be in place,
as another node on the networks of spin-offs and independent efforts.
Who says people have to on here 24/7 copying from Dinkenes, et al?
If any want to expand that and make positive contributions
rather than complaining, go for it. What's stopping them?


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Even in its current state however, ES still has a valuable role
to play. For one, its database is being used and accessed frequently
both as genera reference, Google Search terminus, or resource for
battle against assorted Eurocentrics, "hereditarians"
Arabists and racists. See for example the recent victorious
battle of Morpheus below.
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=309339&page=15


Third, ES still offers a good way to bypass and defeat the
trolls on Wikipedia, with their doctored "stealth" edits
removing credible scholarship, and their "admin" sandbagging.
They imagine they are doing something significant,
"guarding" their obsolete little pages, for dear life.

But all their activity to obscure or sandbag credible data is useless.
The data is in place on ES, and is being distributed world wide every day.
And that data is in several different places- getting more hits than Wikipedia
not just on individual sites like ES, but in aggregate, when all the blogs,
sites and forums are added together, way more hits on these types of topics.
Their weak "stealth" pages getting 10 hits a day are far overshadowed by ES, Reloaded
etc etc getting hundreds or thousands of hits per day on these type topics.
If the grand total of ALL venues is added, including the personal blogs and debate forums
where hard data and quotes are posted, all the cowards' "stealth" work is being
comprehensively defeated and rendered useless.

Finally, who says ES needs to return to any "glory days"?
It would be nice, but at this point is is not necessary,
in terms of being a widely used, in depth, accessible
point for a more balanced picture of African bio-history,
including the Nile Valley. Keep in mind too that ES has spawned
its own set of spinoffs and parallel data sources.

Who says ES HAS to be some sort of central headquarters
of anything? It is an important but ultimately just another node
on the network now. So what if something from Dinkenes' is not
leached and copied over here the same day Dinkenes does it? Shrug..
Who says ES has to be like some "Afro" news ticker, where the latest
minutiae has to be posted within 24 hours? Who says ES was ever
supposed to be some kind of CNN 24/7 "Anthro news cycle" forum?
It was pretty much a mixed bag. Trolls took up tons of space back in the day.
The reputed golden age of purity and light never existed.
It was always a mixed bag.

The three advantages above are in place and humming along.
They don't have to be perfect, they just need to be in place,
as another node on the networks of spin-offs and independent efforts.
Who says people have to be on here 24/7 copying from Dinkenes, et al?
If any want to expand that and make positive contributions
rather than complaining, go for it. What's stopping them?

Sound reasoning. Good Post you stated why ES is still on TOP.

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
It's probably why this forum is almost empty.

Or maybe it's due to severe "technical" sign up difficulties

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

Ancient Egyptians were black Africans in every way: skin colors, geographically, biologically, culturally, etc. They share a common Green Sahara past with most other African populations.

But did they have any non-black Africans in their ranks?

The Kemetians did accept non Africans that demonstrated a willingness to adopt a Kemetian identity and all the obligations that came with it, but they were so few that it has absolutely no bearing on the racial identity of the Kemetians and is therefore not worthy of mention. It is beyond immaterial.

There were probably more non-Whites in Greece and Rome than there were non-blacks in Kemet. Furthermore, non-Africans only made an appearance long after all the features of Kemetian civilization had already been established.

No serious person tries to racially disassociate ancient Greece and Rome from Europe based on the simple fact that they hosted non-Europeans and even had non-European emperors. Only when it concerns Africans and their civilizations do these facile arguments gain traction, serious thought and legitimacy.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Kemetians did accept non Africans that demonstrated a willingness to adopt a Kemetian identity and all the obligations that came with it, but they were so few that it has absolutely no bearing on the racial identity of the Kemetians and is therefore not worthy of mention.

It sounds like you made this up, any sources?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Kemetians did accept non Africans that demonstrated a willingness to adopt a Kemetian identity and all the obligations that came with it, but they were so few that it has absolutely no bearing on the racial identity of the Kemetians and is therefore not worthy of mention.

It sounds like you made this up, any sources?
What exactly are you disputing here? Are you disputing the fact that there is no evidence of large scale immigrations of non-Africans at the dawn of ancient Egyptian civilization? Or are you disputing the fact that certain foreigners were allowed to become Egyptian? I saw a painting on Egyptsearch showing a Syrian man with an Egyptian wife and he was accepted into Egyptian society.


It is clear that there were foreigners who had cast their lot with Egypt, had become thoroughly egyptianized, and were normally accepted as members of the Egyptian community.(The Culture of Ancient Egypt, John A. Wilson)

One important corollary of these Egyptian attitudes is that foreigners could become Egyptians simply by accepting Egypt as their home and by adopting Egyptian culture in all its aspects.(Ancient Egypt: A Social History, B. G. Trigger)

There is no evidence that Egypt was mixed race... a small group of Egyptianized non-Africans notwithstanding.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


It is clear that there were foreigners who had cast their lot with Egypt, had become thoroughly egyptianized, and were normally accepted as members of the Egyptian community.(The Culture of Ancient Egypt, John A. Wilson)

One important corollary of these Egyptian attitudes is that foreigners could become Egyptians simply by accepting Egypt as their home and by adopting Egyptian culture in all its aspects.(Ancient Egypt: A Social History, B. G. Trigger)


Do you have the page numbers?

Also how did you come across these books?

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


It is clear that there were foreigners who had cast their lot with Egypt, had become thoroughly egyptianized, and were normally accepted as members of the Egyptian community.(The Culture of Ancient Egypt, John A. Wilson)

One important corollary of these Egyptian attitudes is that foreigners could become Egyptians simply by accepting Egypt as their home and by adopting Egyptian culture in all its aspects.(Ancient Egypt: A Social History, B. G. Trigger)


Do you have the page numbers?

Also how did you come across these books?

For The Culture of Ancient Egypt, John A. Wilson -- the page is 258.

For Ancient Egypt: A Social History, B. G. Trigger... the page is 317.

I used Google books to find those excerpts. Why does it matter how I found the books?

You Europeans have to disabuse yourself of this idiotic notion that Kemet can be regarded as mixed-race and therefore does not belong exclusively to Africans... but Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.


There is absolutely no evidence that AE was mixed-race, and the fact that you [and other Europeans] so desperately cling to this veritable fantasy must mean that you are completely uncomfortable with accepting the fact that Africans created the world's first and most advanced civilization; a civilization that immensely influenced Greece and Rome.


It was because of Egypt that the Greeks [vis-à-vis Egyptian influenced Crete] learned how to write; they somehow lost that ability but regained it when they made contact with Egyptian influenced Phoenicia.

Science, medicine, architecture, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, philosophy and many other features of civilization would have eluded Greece without AE or prolonged its discovery of these features for a significant period of time. This is why Europeans are so terribly uncomfortable with accepting the objective fact that Kemet was black.

'Mixed-race' is a coping mechanism.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.



what do you mean, the prominent afrocentric Dr. Clyde Winters says that Greek, Roman and Chinese civilizations were all founded by "blacks"

Therefore it's only fair that Egypt was founded by Arabs

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.



what do you mean, the prominent afrocentric Dr. Clyde Winters says that Greek, Roman and Chinese civilizations were all founded by "blacks"

Therefore it's only fair that Egypt was founded by Arabs

Are you being serious!? People like Clyde Winters are crackpots and I would suspect that they are rejected by most African centered scholars whereas mainstream European 'scholars', hell-bent on misrepresenting the racial identity of AE are fully and unconditionally embraced and recognized in their fields.

Your pathetic attempts at moral equivalence fail to mention that Europeans sought to misappropriate AE for Eurasians centuries before people like Clyde Winters were born.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.



quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Your pathetic attempts at moral equivalence fail

talking to yourself here? You brought up the Geeks


 -

 -


 -


 -


Ok, forget the Greeks, you can have them
And forget what you think I think (profiling)

Above is the Seti I mummy and art depicting him
I ask you as a Black woman what are your thoughts on it?

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.



quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Your pathetic attempts at moral equivalence fail

talking to yourself here? You brought up the Geeks


 -

 -


 -


 -


Ok, forget the Greeks, you can have them
And forget what you think I think (profiling)

Above is the Seti I mummy and art depicting him
I ask you as a Black woman what are your thoughts on it?

No, I'm talking to you - a desperate twit that feigns amnesia or some other kind of memory loss in order to pretend that you haven't been disabused of your many delusions by multiple posters over the years.


What exactly are your pictures suppose to prove? We've been over this a million times now... Seti I could walk down the streets of Khartoum, Omdurman, Kassala and places like Djibouti and Somalia without being noticed. Based on that relief, his skin tone is actually darker than some people in Sudan and Somalia. His nose and hair is identical to people that we have in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Chad, Niger and some other areas all over the Sahel.

And you know full well that these features have nothing to with wandering 'Caucasians', so don't even try to approach this from that angle.

I have no designs on Greece or any European civilization -- I just want Europeans and others to stop stealing my history and desperately interjecting themselves into civilizations that were not their own.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Europeans don't even have to justify their exclusive claim to Greece and Rome and Asians don't need to justify their exclusive claim to Chinese civilization.



quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Your pathetic attempts at moral equivalence fail

talking to yourself here? You brought up the Geeks


 -

 -


 -


 -


Ok, forget the Greeks, you can have them
And forget what you think I think (profiling)

Above is the Seti I mummy and art depicting him
I ask you as a Black woman what are your thoughts on it?

No, I'm talking to you - a desperate twit that feigns amnesia or some other kind of memory loss in order to pretend that you haven't been disabused of your many delusions by multiple posters over the years.


What exactly are your pictures suppose to prove? We've been over this a million times now... Seti I could walk down the streets of Khartoum, Omdurman, Kassala and places like Djibouti and Somalia without being noticed. Based on that relief, his skin tone is actually darker than some people in Sudan and Somalia. His nose and hair is identical to people that we have in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Chad, Niger and some other areas all over the Sahel.

And you know full well that these features have nothing to with wandering 'Caucasians', so don't even try to approach this from that angle.

I have no designs on Greece or any European civilization -- I just want Europeans and others to stop stealing my history and desperately interjecting themselves into civilizations that were not their own.

I was testing to see if you were going to say the mummy and the art were fake. There's a brother on Reloaded says stuff like that
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brada-Anansi
Member
Member # 16371

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brada-Anansi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lioness
quote:
I was testing to see if you were going to say the mummy and the art were fake. There's a brother on Reloaded says stuff like that
If there is a Reloaded site other than Egyptsearch Reloaded ,pls quote and link to that pg thanks in advance.
 -  -  -
Sudaniya
quote:
What exactly are your pictures suppose to prove? We've been over this a million times now... Seti I could walk down the streets of Khartoum, Omdurman, Kassala and places like Djibouti and Somalia without being noticed. Based on that relief, his skin tone is actually darker than some people in Sudan and Somalia. His nose and hair is identical to people that we have in Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Chad, Niger and some other areas all over the Sahel.

And you know full well that these features have nothing to with wandering 'Caucasians', so don't even try to approach this from that angle.

Sudanya-san is right on the money.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
[QB] Lioness
quote:
I was testing to see if you were going to say the mummy and the art were fake. There's a brother on Reloaded says stuff like that
If there is a Reloaded site other than Egyptsearch Reloaded ,pls quote and link to that pg thanks in advance.

there was a poster on there who had these long threads of Egyptian art and was saying stuff like the Egyptians had only broad features and art depicting narrower features was fake.
Maybe I noticed his thread a year or more ago?

His avatar, I didn't look at it up close, may or may not have been a famous person, it was a black man maybe in a knees up to head shot standing, maybe on a slight angle stance , I think with some african looking shirt and jewelry, maybe short dreaded hair I forget

I though maybe sudaniya was him

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
[QB] Lioness
quote:
I was testing to see if you were going to say the mummy and the art were fake. There's a brother on Reloaded says stuff like that
If there is a Reloaded site other than Egyptsearch Reloaded ,pls quote and link to that pg thanks in advance.

there was a poster on there who had these long threads of Egyptian art and was saying stuff like the Egyptians had only broad features and art depicting narrower features was fake.
Maybe I noticed his thread a year or more ago?

His avatar, I didn't look at it up close, may or may not have been a famous person, it was a black man maybe in a knees up to head shot standing, maybe on a slight angle stance , I think with some african looking shirt and jewelry, maybe short dreaded hair I forget

I though maybe sudaniya was him

Now why on earth would a Sudanese insist that only broad featured portrayals of ancient Egyptians were genuine?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
were you born in Sudan ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
were you born in Sudan ?

Yes, I arrived in Australia at the age of 12. Why did you think that I was somebody that believes that Africans can only be broad-featured?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
were you born in Sudan ?

Yes, I arrived in Australia at the age of 12. Why did you think that I was somebody that believes that Africans can only be broad-featured?
My bad, because of some of the pictures you've been posting I thought you might have been asante from egyprsearchrealoded under a different name but I only had a fuzzy memory of his threads until just now finding them again.
I didn't know you were form Sudan until now

quote:
Originally posted by asante (at egyptsearchreloaded)

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1598/negus-perra-pharaohs-ancient-kemet?page=1

Negus (Perra/Pharaohs) of Ancient Kemet

Here is the basis for my argument presented
here.



Contrary to the racist lies seen on the National Geographic and History Channel all of the native ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were black, and by black I mean almost all of them were thick lipped and wide nosed (don't know where the "they were mostly "Horner" looking nonsense came from).

The Great Sphinx (around 14,000 years old)


quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

you are completely uncomfortable with accepting the fact that Africans created the world's first and most advanced civilization;

To me their ancestry is still an open question.
I don't deal with what's comfortable not. I deal with facts.
The fact is that peer reviewed DNA analysis of the ancient Egyptians is in it's infancy. I don 't jump to conclusions based on comfort or discomfort.
I take issue with the the value some people place on people as per their ancestors being associated or not associated with this so called concept of "advanced"
And don't forget it was me in 2011 who recreated the now 12 page thread:
" Ancient Egyptians came from Akele"

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
the lioness

How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic. The disciplines are all in agreement... the ancient Egyptians were indigenous North-east Africans and there is no evidence of mass migrations of Eurasians into Egypt. The culture and religion of the AE is undeniably African.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] the lioness

How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic.

It has not been established that Egyptian civilization originates in Khartoum
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brada-Anansi
Member
Member # 16371

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Brada-Anansi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] the lioness

How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic.

It has not been established that Egyptian civilization originates in Khartoum
Stop it you know darn well it was born out of part the Khartoum mesolithic as well as other areas on the Nile.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] the lioness

How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic.

It has not been established that Egyptian civilization originates in Khartoum
After being deserted during the last glacial maximum, the Sahara was repopulated c. 9500 BP by hunter-gatherers who used ceramics with distinctive wavy-line decorative motifs. This cultural complex , scattered across North Africa, is variously referred to as Khartoum Mesolithic (Arkell, 1949), Epipaleolithic (Close, 1995), or Aqualithic (Sutton, 1977).

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX494_EsA6w


"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)


In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). .. The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians� Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence. On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations..

The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990)� Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing �Negroid� traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample."

-- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


As we Sudanese have been saying since the Greeks documented our claims that Egypt was originally a colony of Sudan, Sudan is the mother of Egypt and we still maintain that claim today and the evidence is on our side.

You have not provided any evidence demonstrating that the Egyptian civilization was created by Eurasians or that Eurasians constituted a significant portion of the population. It was not mixed-race and its origins and identity are not an open question. It's done.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[QB] the lioness

How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic.

It has not been established that Egyptian civilization originates in Khartoum
Stop it you know darn well it was born out of part the Khartoum mesolithic as well as other areas on the Nile.
lioness desperately wants to believe that ancient Egypt's origins and racial identity has not already been thoroughly established by the disciplines and that this is somehow an open question - pure delusion on her part.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


How on earth is their ancestry 'an open question' when no lines of evidence support your contention? It's been established that their predynastic origins are all in Africa, with origins in the Khartoum mesolithic.

[QUOTE]After being deserted during the last glacial maximum, the Sahara was repopulated c. 9500 BP by hunter-gatherers who used ceramics with distinctive wavy-line decorative motifs. This cultural complex , scattered across North Africa, is variously referred to as Khartoum Mesolithic (Arkell, 1949), Epipaleolithic (Close, 1995), or Aqualithic (Sutton, 1977).

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)


One can take your same Vogel 1997 quote and the parts you chose to bold and then bold other portions of it to reveal the open question >

quote:

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)



quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:


"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)


In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). .. The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians� Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence. On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations..

The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990)� Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing �Negroid� traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample."

-- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


more from the above:

Relationships among Badari, Naqada, and Kerma have not always been overt in the skeletal data. Berry et al. (1967) concluded from their nonmetric analysis that their Badarian sample differed significantly from Naqada and Kerma, but was closely related to the Gizeh sample. Their study included the same samples as this analysis, but yielded results that are different from the current study and the craniometric research. Berry et al. (1967) employed a completely different range of statistics, which may account for the difference between the two conclusions. However, Berry and her coauthors also noted homogeneity across all the Egyptian groups, including Naqada and those that pre- and post-date the sample. This is indeed the case here, as is evidenced in the PCO plot; the Egyptians appear to be relatively homogeneously grouped. Some Badarian crania also classified well with the Gizeh sample (Keita, 1990).

The close clustering of Badari and Naqada with Kerma exemplifies the possible relationship of Nubians to Egyptians. Originally, the Nubian A-Group was thought to be Badarian in origin (Reisner, 1910). However, later work (Adams, 1977; Godde, 2009a) established that the A-Group were actually Nubian. Comparisons of C-Group and Pan-Grave Nubians to Badari and Hierakonpolis separate Badari from the other samples, indicating no biological affinities with these earlier Nubian groups (Godde, 2009b). The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians with neighboring Nubian settlements. Her investigation of the site pointed towards continuous Egyptian occupation of some sort at the site throughout the Kerma time period. This continued presence at Kerma is an optimal condition for gene flow to occur between the two populations.

Nubian groups have also been scrutinized as to their relationship with other Nubians. Both the Meroitic and X-Group were originally postulated to be foreign peoples migrating into Lower Nubia (Adams, 1968; Nielsen, 1970). These ideas were based on changes in pottery around the beginning of each of the respective time periods. However, the archaeological evidence actually showed slow change in form over time (Adams, 1977) and the biological evidence demonstrated a similar trend in the skeletal data (e.g. Godde, in press; Van Gerven et al., 1977). These conclusions negate the possibility of invasion or migration causing the shifts in time periods. The results in this study are consistent with prior work; the Meroites and X-Group cluster with the remaining Nubian population and are not differentiated.

Despite the biological similarities between the two populations, the Nubians appear relatively homogeneous. The homogeneity is consistent with Carlson and Van Gerven’s (1979) in situ hypothesis, but contradicts the findings of Buzon (2006). Buzon (2006) found a high level of heterogeneity in the Nubian samples she examined,including individuals from Kerma and the C-Group. Moreover, the Egyptian samples in her study were homogeneous overall, consistent with Berry et al. (1967) and the results in this paper. However, the levels of homogeneity appear to be similar within Nubians and within Egyptians in this study. The differences between this research and Buzon’s (2006) work may be related to the statistics used. Buzon’s (2006) goal was not to look at biological affinities; rather, she was trying to establish identity among her individuals by associating it with archaeological material. While this paper used a biological distance approach to investigate past population relationships, her paper used factor analysis, principal components, and a least squares regression. Although these (hers and those used here) statistics all have a solid methodological basis, they measure population relationships in two different manners and the results between them are not entirely comparable.

Gene flow may account for the homogeneity across these Nubian and Egyptian groups and is consistent with the biological diffusion precept. Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes. One of the Nubian groups in this analysis is located in Upper Egypt (Hesa/Biga), near Egyptian occupation, and contact between the two populations may have been commonplace. Specifically, Nubians were often captured and enslaved by Egyptians to build pyramids, or employed by the Egyptian army (Trigger, 1976). Occasionally, Nubians were even directed to fight other Nubians as part of their duties as troops (Trigger, 1976). Moreover, some groups of Nubians allied with the Egyptians for the conquest of Nubian areas, primarily during Dynasty I (Trigger, 1976). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, trade between Nubians and Egyptians flourished at Kerma and Meroe, during the time periods named after the sites, and enabled contact for potential gene flow. As a result of their respective histories, the multitude of interactions between them, geographic locations, and their biological composition, it appears that gene flow was possibly occurring between the two populations.

The similarities uncovered by this study may be explained by another force, adaptation. As stated above, the results appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis because the Nubian and Egyptian groups are biologically similar. However, this resemblance may be indicative of a common adaptation to a similar geographic location, rather than gene flow. Carlson and Van Gerven (1979) stated this idea in reference to common adaptations of Nubian, Paleolithic, and aboriginal Australian populations. Additionally, Carlson (1976), Prowse and Lovell (1995), Van Gerven (1982), and Van Gerven et al., 1977 D. Van Gerven, G. Armelagos and A. Rohr, Continuity and change in cranial morphology of three Nubian archaeological populations, Man 2 (1977), pp. 270–277. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)Van Gerven et al. (1977) also recognized this form of natural selection as a mechanism for in situ biological change; Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate. Because of the similarity between and the overlapping of the two territories that would require similar adaptations to the environment, common adaptation cannot be discounted.

Sample size may have unduly influenced the results in this analysis. Four of the samples were represented by less than 30 individuals, while several of the remaining samples numbered close to 200 individuals. Moreover, only a small number of groups (six) from each population were examined in this study. Observations of more and larger population samples may produce different findings.

In summation, a portion of the in situ hypothesis in Nubians is supported in this paper, namely homogeneity. Gene flow appears likely between the Egyptians and Nubians, although common adaptations to a similar environment may have also been a factor in their cranial similarities. This study does not rule out the possibility that in situ biological evolution occurred at other times not represented by the samples in this analysis. Further research should incorporate more populations the Nubians were in contact with, to further shed light on Nubian population structure. Additionally, Konigsberg’s (1990) spatial–temporal isolation model should be applied to the dataset here to further explicate the results.

___________________

In other words if your read more of the article the ancestry of the Egyptians is a may be
open question

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
You are reading into the material what is simply not there. You have not high-lighted anything that even remotely calls into question ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities; the first small paragraph that you high-lighted is impertinent with regards to our point of discussion, because it does not speak about ancient Egypt's racial affinities; the second simply reaffirms what we already know -- that the 'Nubian's were not homogeneous; the third simply states that more modern studies [using the same samples as the old ones] came to different conclusions, and this helps you how?


The one after that was confined to the methodologies that were used and how they differed. Again, impertinent. The others concern the contact between these very closely related populations and that there may have been gene flow between these Africans -- which is precisely what happens when two populations live in close proximity. Nowhere does it mention that one African population was Eurasian.

The articles make it clear that the two populations are biologically similar and adapted to the same environment many thousands of years before Dynastic Egypt came into being. This doesn't help you in the slightest. There is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians were at all intimated with Eurasians and the papers make no mention of them.

The papers [as all good scientific papers should] are cautious with their conclusions and posit that other variables were not incorporated into their studies. This does not help you.

Until you can provide evidence of a mass migration of Eurasians at the dawn of the Egyptian civilization... you have nothing and ancient Egypt's racial affinities cannot be questioned. There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I feel like this, unless Eurocentrists can step up and make a convincing argument against the obvious evidence that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization created by African people whose features, culture, language, and way of life were all African born-home grown its a waste of time to argue with ideologically driven idiots. I have dedicated myself more to studying Black American culture, we have a lot of surprises.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
We at Egyptsearch understand that biologically and genetically "race" doesn't exist. And is it is a social construct. However, the biological affinities show us that these ancient people related to people from the Sahara-Sahel region. Which is social terms are being called black. So, to pin it down. The ancient Egyptians from a social perspective were black.

Keep acting as if this was the first time you read this, and it was explained to you (Sarcasm).

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Typo is=that ...
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
We at Egyptsearch understand that biologically and genetically "race" doesn't exist. And is it is a social construct. However, the biological affinities show us that these ancient people related to people from the Sahara-Sahel region. Which is social terms are being called black. So, to pin it down. The ancient Egyptians from a social perspective were black.

Keep acting as if this was the first time you read this, and it was explained to you (Sarcasm).

The social perspective is that a black, white and Asian races exist.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
We at Egyptsearch understand that biologically and genetically "race" doesn't exist. And is it is a social construct. However, the biological affinities show us that these ancient people related to people from the Sahara-Sahel region. Which is social terms are being called black. So, to pin it down. The ancient Egyptians from a social perspective were black.

Keep acting as if this was the first time you read this, and it was explained to you (Sarcasm).

The social perspective is that a black, white and Asian races exist.
I have never disputed this. This is why you wonder if you are actually black by social standards(?).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The social perspective is that black, white and Asian races exist.

I have never disputed this. This is why you wonder if you are actually black by social standards(?). [/QB]
"social standards" just means the average person who is ignorant of science
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
We at Egyptsearch understand that biologically and genetically "race" doesn't exist. And is it is a social construct. However, the biological affinities show us that these ancient people related to people from the Sahara-Sahel region. Which is social terms are being called black. So, to pin it down. The ancient Egyptians from a social perspective were black.

Keep acting as if this was the first time you read this, and it was explained to you (Sarcasm).

The social perspective is that a black, white and Asian races exist.
Well even though the position of Anthropology and other natural sciences is that race is a social phenomenon not a biological one, some like Forensic anthropologists still use basically the same models (only they've dropped race and use the term ancestry now) *shrugs*
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
I feel like this, unless Eurocentrists can step up and make a convincing argument against the obvious evidence that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization created by African people whose features, culture, language, and way of life were all African born-home grown its a waste of time to argue with ideologically driven idiots. I have dedicated myself more to studying Black American culture, we have a lot of surprises.

But here's the thing. They are not out to make a convincing logical argument.
They have already lost so their basic strategy now is one of diversion,
and attrition through repetition, in the hopes that this will
undermine the solid body of scholarship and data we now possess.
Why do you think the bogus "lioness" keeps reopening matters already
long settled by scholarship and pretends ignorance of this
and that? Is all part of the diversion and attrition strategy.
The Eurocentrics WANT you to give up and walk away saying
"everything is settled." This gives them scope to flood the zone with
their propaganda, as you vacate the field.

That is playing into their hands. While the amount of time
and energy to spend is always a consideration, the
enemies of African bio-history need to be confronted
and aggressively hammered- like the old Oakland Raiders
secondary confronted opponents and dealt out pain. Doesn't mean
you have to be doing that 24/7, and doesn't mean you have to join
every battle and blitz on every play, but at least once
in a while you are gonna have to bring the pain, and aggressively
defend African people and their history. Its not a 24/7 job, but
its not a once-every-two-years job either. Unfortunately, while
enemies of black people expand their deep networks, and deep
collaboration, too often, black folk keep squabbling among
themselves. As Takur pointed out a few years back, some folk
will spend tons of time on forums run by racists
who disparage black people, building up their post
counts and info base, but will not lift a finger
to build up an Africana forum in similar manner.
Note- I am not referring to your long stretches
in enemy territory- you always came back to home base
to bring new info and data, or expansion/refinement of stuff in place.

ANother consideration has to do with an educational function.
This means reaching a new generation of conscious folk whether
it be college students, independent researchers, community activists, etc.
Battles will sometimes be necessary, and they can be educational.
Given the "propaganda zone flood" tactics of the
attrition strategy, whether it be on a standalone forum, or Wikipedia,
unfortunately, we have to keep repeating certain basics.
It simply comes with the territory. Making a few posts and
vacating the field while declaring everything is
settled only plays into the hands of the enemies of
African people. Fortunately, the basic foundations
are being updated, refined and expanded all the time.
And we don't need to pretend to be any "Anthro CNN" to do it.

As regards your new focus on African-American history
why don't you share some of what you have uncovered here
or on Reloaded? Again, some complain but they are
adding little to the pool of knowledge. If you
have another forum for such info by all means,
let people know.

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The social perspective is that black, white and Asian races exist.

I have never disputed this. This is why you wonder if you are actually black by social standards(?).

"social standards" just means the average person who is ignorant of science [/QB]
You are ignorant of science as well on many levels. Social standards effect black people on a daily basis. What I asked was, or you included in this social standard of blackness.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^ Typo Or = are

quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
There is no 'open question' regarding ancient Egypt's racial identity and affinities.

what race were they ?
We at Egyptsearch understand that biologically and genetically "race" doesn't exist. And is it is a social construct. However, the biological affinities show us that these ancient people related to people from the Sahara-Sahel region. Which is social terms are being called black. So, to pin it down. The ancient Egyptians from a social perspective were black.

Keep acting as if this was the first time you read this, and it was explained to you (Sarcasm).

The social perspective is that a black, white and Asian races exist.
Well even though the position of Anthropology and other natural sciences is that race is a social phenomenon not a biological one, some like Forensic anthropologists still use basically the same models (only they've dropped race and use the term ancestry now) *shrugs*
They still try to slip it in so every now and then.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Objector/Commenter1 says
Re- Eula Biss

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.


Objector/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. </b>

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


[b]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." 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 | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Post New Topic  New Poll  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3