This is topic The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001734

Posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER (Member # 16878) on :
 
The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian


As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:

Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa)
Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa)
Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa)
Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa)
And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.


The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^^
ROTFLMAOH
 -

I suggest you take the following advise from here.
 
Posted by The Grasshopper (Member # 6729) on :
 
^ Mate, long time no speak. Where ya been! [Smile]
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
I agree that Africa is phenotypically and genetically diverse as well as the cradle of anatomically modern humans. I disagree that Africa's populations can be structured into races (phylogenetic sub-species). This is not an Afrocentric notion it is mainstream science. There are no biological human races. Human variation is clinal not racial.


 -


quote:
Human races as human variation


Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (approx85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation

Link



 
Posted by The Grasshopper (Member # 6729) on :
 
^
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER:
The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian


As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:

Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa)
Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa)
Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa)
Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa)
And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.


The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.

Even if you TRIED to make an idiotic grouping like this you FAIL because you didn't create a separate cluster for one of THE most divergent groups in Africa : Pygmies!
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Grasshopper:

^ Mate, long time no speak. Where ya been! [Smile]

Graduation and a well deserved vacation which I technically am still on. [Smile]

And you?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Khoisan
 -

 -

Northeast Africans

Aethiopian

 -

Somali

 -

North Africans

Haratin of Morocco

 -

Fellahin (rural indigenous Egyptian)

 -

^ ALL these people are BLACK and ALL indigenous to the African continent. Further, they are all related to each other genetically and culturally.

The nonsensical rhetoric of "cacazoid" is denied by science. Of course the author of this thread would know that if he had the brains!
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
DJ!! Congratulations man..enjoy that vacation. [Smile]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Khoisan
 -

 -

Northeast Africans

Aethiopian

 -

Somali

 -

North Africans

Haratin of Morocco

 -

Fellahin (rural indigenous Egyptian)

 -

^ ALL these people are BLACK and ALL indigenous to the African continent. Further, they are all related to each other genetically and culturally.

The nonsensical rhetoric of "cacazoid" is denied by science. Of course the author of this thread would know that if he had the brains!

Where is mangina's response to the above?? Oh that's right, his scared-ass scurried away quick.
 
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
 
Hey DJ

So u got ur diploma now? Congrats. I hope it serves u well.

Lion!
 
Posted by yql718 (Member # 16646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^^
ROTFLMAOH
 -

I suggest you take the following advise from here.

A better suggestion re his 'negrid' and other categories is that he put a gun to his head and pull the trigger. Save the world from another idiot.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course why would he do that when his new found purpose in life is to infect the rest of the world with his idiocy and bigotry?

quote:
Originally posted by IronLion:

Hey DJ

So u got ur diploma now? Congrats. I hope it serves u well.

Lion!

Thankyou! And I right now I'm trying to take it easy.  -
 
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
 
Djehuti, congrats on your graduation brother.
 
Posted by yql718 (Member # 16646) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
I agree that Africa is phenotypically and genetically diverse as well as the cradle of anatomically modern humans. I disagree that Africa's populations can be structured into races (phylogenetic sub-species). This is not an Afrocentric notion it is mainstream science. There are no biological human races. Human variation is clinal not racial.


 -


quote:
Human races as human variation


Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (approx85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient(18), although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

Source: Conceptualizing Human Variation

Link



Solid documentation.
 
Posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER (Member # 16878) on :
 
 -  -
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
LMAO at Hornoid! [Big Grin]

Did you make these images yourself Gyno?

What is the scientific basis for these categories?

Do you have a study that actually provides a scientific basis for these racial categories?


 -
 
Posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER (Member # 16878) on :
 
"...these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

 -

 -
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
What?! That quote definitely does NOT support your racial categories. That quote comes from Tishkoff (2000) which doesn't say anything about modern humans structuring into races. It pretty much reiterates what the American Anthropological Association says about non-African populations being a sub-set of African populations:

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

From the same study:

These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).

How about posting a study that actually provides a scientific basis for these racial categories that you've listed or any racial categories for that matter?
 
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER:
The Five Races of Africa: Mediterranid, Aethiopid, Khoisanid, Negrid, Austronesian


As has been well-established by previous investigators, Africa has the world's greatest amount of genetic diversity, making it the probable evolutionary cradle of anatomically modern human beings. This enormous diversity in terms of allele frequencies and phenotypical differentiation is also characterized by an underlying genetic structure. Moreover, these allele frequencies (in terms of combined Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroups within a given population genotype) gravitate around a number of statistical polarities, which can be further sub-divided into five different races or human sub-species:

Mediterranid Caucasoid (North Africa)
Aethiopid or Caucasoid-Negroid (North eastern Africa)
Capoid or Khoisanid (Southern Africa)
Negroid or Congoid (Most of sub-Saharan Africa)
And finally, the Mongolid or Austronesian tribes of Madagascar, a small fraction of whom are characterized by some Negrid, especially east African Bantu, admixture.


The notion of the African people as being of one race is a negrocentric/pan-Africanist lie. It is clear from the latest research of modern genetics that the African population can be sub-divided into five (5) different races.

Fine if you want to go by that but let me make one thing clear - Aethiopid - which is what I am - are Black. We are killed by White Supremacist just like Black people. Discriminated against just like Black people. If I say I am Caucasian because of your silly ideas people would laugh at me. No!

I think genetic clines are the only real way of grouping populations and last I look Haplogroup E crosses those nicely defined racial groups you spelled out. Simply doesn't work! Basically need to drop that Caucasoid/Mediterranid stuff which is phenotype crap and deal with real human phylum.
 
Posted by The Grasshopper (Member # 6729) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by The Grasshopper:

^ Mate, long time no speak. Where ya been! [Smile]

Graduation and a well deserved vacation which I technically am still on. [Smile]

And you?

Congrats dude, I'm sure you aced the whole thing (don't know how your grading system works over there). I'm stuck in class unfortunately but hopefully some light will appear at the end of the tunnel.

 -
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

 -
http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-17-00-22.html

.
.
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Ahh..Just one thing Marc humans are not sub-species of each other.

Go here click on the Journey of Man.
www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/luzia.html[/URL]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Funny how Marc suffers from the same problem as BRAINSMASHED-- they are totally science illiterate yet post supposed scientific posts or try to make scientific posts all the time!!

by the way,...

 -
ROTFLMAOH @ "Hornoid"

Well what other term can reconcile both 'Aethiopid' and 'Somalid'??! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
^Maybe he meant he was Horniii [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
^Maybe he meant he was Horniii [Big Grin]

It is interesting to me how you make a joke of Marc--yet everything written by Europeans you accept as the gospel.

This gospel you accept write African people out of history and transmit the same myths concerning the idea that Blacks are primitive, and all civilizations were founded by "caucasoid" people or "black skinned caucasoids". They even propagate the myth that Blacks in Africa, are different from Blacks in Asia . You and your cohort eat this up. Yet when Marc makes a theory you knock it down.

Look at how the films from the bradshaw foundation you promote begin with "primitive" Blacks, and end with high civilization people supposely founded by non-Africans. Luckily our great scholars J.A. Rogers and W.E.B. Dubois, wrote our real history and proved that the first civilizations were founded by Blacks.

Where are the films of the bradshaw foundation highlighting your history as a creator of civilizations instead of primitive? Don't you see how people are taught to look down on Blacks by this media?

You don't even recognize the fact that Europeans and Chinese are writing history to give themselves a voice in the rise of civilization while using the media to denigrate Black people.A media you celebrate and propagate that places you--Black/African people-- in a negative not positive light.

This is sad indeed.

.
 
Posted by Shango / MyRedCow (Member # 10893) on :
 
Dr. Winters,

Don't worry I have the answer to all this nonsense. Ignore Afrocentricsmasher, there are many NorthEast Africans in America and definitely NYC. They are on our side and many are more Afrocentric than the average African American.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AFROCENTRICSMASHER:
"...these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe."

 -

 -

pic debunk 1:

 -


pic debunk 2- Brace 1993

 -
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
What?! That quote definitely does NOT support your racial categories. That quote comes from Tishkoff (2000) which doesn't say anything about modern humans structuring into races. It pretty much reiterates what the American Anthropological Association says about non-African populations being a sub-set of African populations:

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

From the same study:

These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).

How about posting a study that actually provides a scientific basis for these racial categories that you've listed or any racial categories for that matter?

Indeed...
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So the BRAINSMASHED idiot is caught in a lie. What's new??
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Dr Winters wrote:It is interesting to me how you make a joke of Marc--yet everything written by Europeans you accept as the gospel.

My Horniii comment was to Afrocentricsmasher..not to Marc; However I do take more stock in Stephen Oppenheimer's work because he like others is a pioneer in the field...notthing to do with his lack of melanin.I don't know Marc's Creds but if he is in the field and not just a lay person like myself then ok..his opinion carries more weight.

And the documentary has little to do with the rise of civilizations itself and more to to do with populations,migrations and genetics.
 
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
 
congratulations Deej
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Thanks.

To Brada: Ignore Winters, he's just mad that his cronie Marc is an senile fool who knows not what he writes. Winters also loves to use the logical fallacy of 'ad hominem' in combination with 'poisoning the well'. He thinks that because of the history of racism among white scholars that any study that comes from a white scholar today must be false or faulty. Obviously as a supposed 'scholar' himself he forgot the important scholarly rule of judging the work first before the author. And it's obvious that he's mad that all scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race' (and even black scholars like Keita and others support this) which makes his own racial claims as nonsensical as the white supremacists! [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dj. You write:

"He thinks that because of the history of racism among white scholars that any study that comes from a white scholar today must be false or faulty."

That is a patent lie.

Dr. Winters does recognize the scholarship of some white scholars as the following Youtube among countless others of his work shows:

THE FIRST EUROPEANS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8D6cwgDGEI

.
.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dj. You write:

All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"

You are either lying, misinformed, or are not aware of the facts. In any case, you are simply wrong, Mr. Newly Graduate.

Race is used by scientists and the United States Bureau of the Census. They even have a category for your folks - Filipino. In my category it's simpler with white, Asian, and African. You would be in the Asian category.

From the US Census

The 22nd federal census, in 2000, had a "short form"[8] that asked one ethnic and one race/ancestry question:

1. Is the person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?

* No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (write in group)

2. What is the person's race?

* White
* Black or African American
* American Indian or Alaska Native (write in tribe)
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoans
* Other Pacific Islander (write in race)
* Other race (write in race)

This census acknowledged that "race categories include both racial and national-origin groups."


.
.
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Marc wrote:This census acknowledged that "race categories include both racial and national-origin groups."

Marc,is census taking about science or politics??
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Both, actually.

Scholars don't get more "scholarly" than they do at Harvard and they themselves discuss the racial categories developed by the Census.

Here's an article on that in the Harvard Gazette.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/02.05/15-census.html

Unlike what the all-knowing Dj claims, scholars do indeed acknowledge race.

As mentioned, the census-taking is about science (who is who?) and politics (who gets what and why).

.
.
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Marc,the article you posted is 100% about politics..the politics of who gets what and self-identification.

just an example:In recent years, Prewitt said, new questions about the classification system have been asked, including whether there should be one at all. In 1990, he said the census had four racial categories: white, African-American, Native American, and Asian, with Hispanic denoted an ethnic group, not a racial group. Before the 2000 census, almost without debate, he said, Congress voted to add another racial group: Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders a race all to themselves...do they not differ amongst themselves from a phonotypic stand point...I see no science in the article Marc... Just politics.

I-am not saying that the concept of Race is dead and buried to the avarage lay person...just try cutting funding to certain communites by procaliming race is dead..you be out of office by next election..but that is still not science.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:

Dj. You write:

All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"

You are either lying, misinformed, or are not aware of the facts. In any case, you are simply wrong, Mr. Newly Graduate.

Race is used by scientists and the United States Bureau of the Census. They even have a category for your folks - Filipino. In my category it's simpler with white, Asian, and African. You would be in the Asian category.

The U.S. census is not a scientific institution. Not every scholar agrees that there are no biological races but many geneticists and most anthropologists do:

Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century view of “race” partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters, and confirming data were developed in the decades that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962), using Julian Huxley’s (1938) cline concept, presented data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean, and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human clinal variation one trait at a time.2 The new views were 1960s, and by 1985 anthropology’s core concept of “race” had been rejected by 41% of physical anthropologists and 55% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989:69). A similar survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). During the period 1975–79, twice as many university textbooks of introductory physical anthropology rejected the concept as accepted it (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1982:642), and during the period 1990–99 no text explicitly supported the concept (4 of 20 presented the topic as a debate, and 2 rejected typologies of race). - Lieberman (2001)

As I noted above modern humans do not structure into races. The various observable phenotypes across the globe are not breeding populations. They do not meet the phylogenetic criteria for sub-species. The demographic groups labeled by the U.S. census are socially constructed. They may be relevant to society in a socio-political context but they are not biological races:

'Race' and social construction

'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms. - Keita (2004)
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
From what I understand there are more "Differences" that we recognize as "Race" WITHIN such groups than IN BETWEEN them. That is why "Negroid" can be broken up into many other sub groups: "Pygmoid, Elongated, "Sudanid" "Nilotic" "Bushman" , "Insert Here" etc.

Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"

That would leave you to break them up even FURTHER. Then you would have like 1 million World wide races. But it still wouldnt work until you have 1 separate race per human.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Which is exactly why Marc and his tutor Clyde are DEBUNKED.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dj. As mentioned. You outright lie. You full-well know Dr. Winters uses the work of scientists who are white from your years of attacking him.

Yet, you lie.

Astenb. You write

Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"

You are mixes apples and oranges here. Think of races as brands of cars and sub-races as models.

The large category all types related to it fall under is race and their subdivisions aspects of them.

You and Dj missed this point.

There are three main races (white, Asian, and African) with physical distinctions that scientists and other institutions such as Census use to describe them.

Dj. You are are a pathological liar.

.
.
 
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
 
Marc the problem I see with your posts is that you're naming categories but not providing a biological basis for these races and sub-races you've listed. I've already noted , citing Keita, that the racial schema do not meet the phylogenetic criteria for sub-species.

Race does refer to variation below the species level but it is the way this variation is structured that is at issue. Also the human species is far more variable than the traditional 3 race model. Some scholars have identified as many as 9 - 30 or more different races based on phenotype. Using physical characteristics alone to identify races in an arbitrary method of classification.

The delineation of the physical traits into evolutionarily distinct units is the traditional way to determine race yet many scientists have tried and failed to provide a working timescale for this hypothetical racial divergence.


 -


The genetic data indicates that no racial divergence whatsoever occurred.
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
.
.

Dj. As mentioned. You outright lie. You full-well know Dr. Winters uses the work of scientists who are white from your years of attacking him.

Yet, you lie.

Astenb. You write

Even after being broken up the smaller "Sub-Races" will STILL have more difference between THEMSELVES than they would compared to the other primary "Races"

You are mixes apples and oranges here. Think of races as brands of cars and sub-races as models.

The large category all types related to it fall under is race and their subdivisions aspects of them.

You and Dj missed this point.

There are three main races (white, Asian, and African) with physical distinctions that scientists and other institutions such as Census use to describe them.

Dj. You are are a pathological liar.

.
.

So you are telling me there are no "White Asians"

Or there are no "Black Asians"

Are we going by Color? phenotype? Culture? Language? Or is it by genetic markers?

What if a person lives in "Asia", has "Asian Language and culture" and has "Asian Genes" yet they look "White" or "African" are they then multiracial?
More Variation Less Race

quote:
ABSTRACT
Interest in genetic diversity within and between human populations as a way to answer questions about race has intensified in light of recent advances in genome technology. The purpose of this article is to apply a method of generalized hierarchical modeling to two DNA data sets. The first data set consists of a small sample of individuals (n = 32 total, from eight populations) who have been fully resequenced for 63 loci that encode a total of 38,534 base pairs. The second data set consists of a large sample of individuals (n = 928 total, from 46 populations) who have been genotyped at 580 loci that encode short tandem repeats. The results are clear and somewhat surprising. We see that populations differ in the amount of diversity that they harbor. The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level. Am J Phys Anthropol 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Some other race models:

-One Human race.
-One Race per Human.
-Two races: African and NON-African.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
I beg the differ, it seems like the continent of Asia is where all 'races' exist. Asia is far more diverse than Africa.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Morpheus. Certainly yours is a legitimate argument. However, mine is phenotypic not biological, per se.

Astenb. You are correct in noting shades of grey between the big classes: white, Asian, African.

My listing is not complete, not comprehensive. This is because in my view (which I don't expect everyone to accept and expect others to reject) countless new human admixtures have arisen in the last 500 to 1000 years blurring the "original" racial types: i.e. white, Asian, African.

For instance, in 700 AD this is the population you found in parts of Mexico:

 -
http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/900_centralamerica/02-16-900-20-SE.chi.bon-81-200-24-10-01.html

But, this phenotype has been gone from the time of Cortes when the Spanish came. Then came the English, Germans, Mongulian tribes down the Pacific Coast originating from Siberia. All these new types mixing creating humans with appearances outside the major categories: white, Asian, African.

These are outside my categorization table.

My great focus is on African contributions before whites began their global migrations disrupting and destroying worldwide African civilization that my research tries to help reconstruct.

FINAL COMMENT: My categorization (not mine. Police classify people by race as do college admissions offices, the Equal Employment Opprotunities Office, hundreds of organizations also including the United Nations) is limited in scope. Valid to a great degree but not 100% and it's not intended to be 100% applicable.

.
.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
Mexico is primarily indigenous or people of native american/amerindian tribes. Most of Mexicans are "indian" people who speak and are culturally spanish. The second largest are the Mestizo (Indigenous(indian) and white); the third largest are mixed spanish, indian, and black, and the smallest groups are the black people and creole (black and spanish or black and indian). I forgot that Mexicans are identified as belonging to the Mongol/Asian race just like all of Native Americans and Amerindians from North, Central, and South America. However, they tend to fall more into the polynesian south Asian type. America still uses the three races: Black, White, and Asian. If you don't fall into any of those that mean you are mix. Hispanic skulls are clearly and normally identified as Native American or "mix" (native american and european).
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Betty. No doubt what you say it true for more-or-less "modern" peoples there. "Modern" being the years following Cortes and Columbus?

Here are faces of those preceding those so-called explorers whose diseases killed millions of the population seen in the page below from the ancient Americas:

 -
http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/900_america/02-16-900-00-02.html


 -
http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/900_southamerica/59-15-00-10.html

.
.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
.
.

Betty. No doubt what you say it true for more-or-less "modern" peoples there. "Modern" being the years following Cortes and Columbus?

Here are faces of those preceding those so-called explorers whose diseases killed millions of the population seen in the page below from the ancient Americas:

 -
http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/900_america/02-16-900-00-02.html


 -
http://www.beforebc.de/all_america/900_southamerica/59-15-00-10.html

.
.

I'm very aware of the so-called mesoamerica era fo the "Blacks." Those people didn't make up the majority of the population. They were primarily founded futher south of Mexico. Mexico is and always has been a nation full of indigenous/native tribes. I have a good Mexican friend and he told me that the black people of old Mexico came from Africa when the Indigenous Indians of Mexico sailed there for food. He told me that they came back with food from Africa and African people. As a thank you gift from the Indigenous people they offer peace and harmony for those Africans and they traveled back together.
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
Most of those pictures are indigenous tribes of Central America and South America. They look very indigenous American or Amerindian. I do know about the Olmec empire and the 'blacks' of Mexico. The pictures of the Inca are clearly of Amerindian origin. I don't see any African in them.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Betty. You are pulling my leg.

Other than to say I wonder how you can look at black people today and see faces different from those above, I have no further comment.

.
.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Talking about subdivisions of the African race, this here is relevant.

The Afro-american historian, Runoko Rashidi sent a letter today about Djehuti's country, the Philippines where black Negritos lived before the present population. By the way, is Djehuti a brother? I mean a black-skinned Philippine Negrito with kinky hair? Or maybe his ancestors were? Anybody know?


THE GLOBAL AFRICAN COMMUNITY

H I S T O R Y N O T E S

BLACK PEOPLE IN THE PHILIPPINES

By RUNOKO RASHIDI

DEDICATED TO BROTHER DAVID FAGAN (ANCESTOR)


"There are black Negroes in this island who pay tribute to no one."
--Early Spanish historian

Although the great majority of the people of the Philippines are Tagalog, the country is not ethnically homogeneous. In spite of their small numbers the original inhabitants of the Philippines are the Agta (diminutive Africoids), who still live there in some numbers and are commonly and pejoratively called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta, and a variety of other names based upon their specific locale. In regards to phenotype, broadly speaking, the Agta can be described as physically small and unusually short in stature, dark-skinned, spiral-haired and broad-nosed. They are an extremely ancient people and, I believe, close representatives of the world's earliest modern humans.

Very similar groups of Black people in Asia reside in relative small numbers in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean north of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, and in northern Malaysia and southern Thailand in Southeast Asia. In Thailand they are commonly called Sakai. In Malaysia they have been called Orang Asli (Original Man). Pejoratively they are known as Semang, with the connotation of savage. It is very unfortunate that the contributions of these small Black people to monumental high-cultures characterized by urbanization, metallurgy, agricultural science and scripts remain essentially unexamined.

The presence of diminutive Africoids (whom Chinese historians called "Black Dwarfs") in early southern China during the period of the Three Kingdoms (ca. 250 C.E.) is recorded in the book of the Official of the Liang Dynasty (502-556 C.E.). In Taiwan there are recollections of a group of people now said to be extinct called "Little Black Man."

"They were described as short, dark-skinned people with short curly hair.....These people, presumably Negritos, disappeared about 100 years ago. Their existence was mentioned in many Chinese documents of the Ching Dynasty concerning Taiwan."

Similar groups of Black people have been identified in Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia, and it seems almost certain that at one time a belt of Black populations of this type covered much of Asia.

In stark contrast to the Agta (the People), the Tagalog seem to have only entered the Philippines during the last several thousand years, and while almost nothing is known of the early history of the Agta in the Philippines it has been well-documented that they engaged in bitter martial conflicts with the Spanish invaders, whose presence in the islands began in the sixteenth century. Indeed, the country was named by the Spanish navigator Ruy Lopez de Villalobos for Prince Philip of Asturias, who, as Philip II, became the king of Spain in 1542. It was also the Spaniards who named the native people of the Philippines "Negritos" (Little Blacks).

The Spanish observed that "The Negritos, which our first conquerors found were, according to tradition, the first possessors of the islands of this Archipelago." Another account observed that "There are black negroes in this island who pay tribute to no one." Similar documents affirm the widespread presence and distribution of the Agta in the Philippines at the time of the Spanish intrusion. "If we are to believe later historians, the shores of some of the islands fairly swarmed with Negritos when the Spaniards arrived." The Bisayan island of Negroes derives its name from having been an Agta population center. Today, however, the Agta probably comprise less than one per cent of the total population of the Philippines.

The Agta men amassed quite a reputation as warriors, and although the accuracy of the report is somewhat questionable, it is said that the Agta were "such enemies to the Spaniards, that if they happen to kill one, they invite all their kindred, and rejoice for three days, drinking out of the skull, clear'd for that purpose; by which means, they afterwards get wives the easier, as being more courageous."

Dr. Pedro A. Gagelonia, a Filipino scholar, citing the commentaries of the European colonizers of the Philippines regarding the Agta, wrote that:

"They were the aborigines of the Philippines, and for a long time had been master of Luzon. At a time not very far distant, when the Spaniards conquered the country, the Aetas levied a kind of blackmail from the Tagalog villages situated on the banks of the lake of Bay (Laguna de Bay). At a fixed period they quitted their forests, entered the village, and forced the inhabitants to give them a certain quantity of rice and maize....After the conquest of the Philippines by the Spaniards, the latter took upon themselves the defense of the Tagalogs, and the Aetas, terrified by their firearms, remained in the forests, and did not reappear among the Indians."

THE ERUPTIONS OF MT. PINATUBO

The violent volcanic eruptions of Mt. Pinutabo in June 1991 were particularly devastating for the Agta. Alternately ignored and discriminated against, many Agta lived on the slopes of the long-dormant volcano that is regarded as the center of their cosmology. Forced down the mountain slopes by the eruptions, numbers of Agta, who have historically relied on the herbal medicines now buried under tons of mud and ash, have perished from dreadful epidemics of measles, diarrhea and pneumonia.

SOURCES:
The Filipinos of Yesterdays, by Pedro A. Gagelonia
The African Presence in Early Asia, edited by Runoko Rashidi

 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
.
.

Betty. You are pulling my leg.

Other than to say I wonder how you can look at black people today and see faces different from those above, I have no further comment.

.
.

I can't see how you think those Amerindian and indigenous north American indians are black/African. Those people look straight up indigenous to the Americas. I see black people every day all shapes, colors, and features and none of them look like the pictures posted. I have no further comment.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Yes, Marc I'm aware that blacks (Aetas) are the aboriginal people of the Philippines. That still does not change the fact that they are NOT African or that 'race' still does NOT exist!
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dj. You wrote:

"He [Dr. Winters] thinks that because of the history of racism among white scholars that any study that comes from a white scholar today must be false or faulty."

That is a patent lie.

Dr. Winters does recognize the scholarship of some white scholars as the following Youtube among countless others of his work shows:

THE FIRST EUROPEANS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8D6cwgDGEI

You are a pathological liar, Dj.


Dj. You are a brother? A black-skinned negrito with kinky hair and of a lineage surviving the slaughter by the Spanish hundreds of years ago and of the diseases they carried? I know you don’t have murderous Spanish blood in your veins. Well. So much for that.

Umm. Hey. Here’s a word for us!

Delusion: Psychiatry. a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason. See also illusion, hallucination.

Dj. You write:

All scholars agree that there is no such thing as 'race'"

[Marc writes] You’d agree that the University of Pennsylvania, one of the Ivy League schools, is full of scholars, right?

In their Museum Library, put in the word “race” and you get over 10,000 entries.

Now. You are tell us that ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘RACE’’ and the Museum Library has over 10,000 books and stuff by scholars on race.

You are saying these 10,000 sources don’t exist (as ALL scholars agree there is no such thing as race)?

Wow. You are a true scholar!!

 -

This is a case of a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.

What can we call Mr. Newly Graduate Djehuti the all-wise.

I’ll settle for the dictionary definition of delusional for you.

You, Dj, are a delusional, psychopathological liar.

.
.
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
Djehuti says he is brown skinned; he defends ''black'' people on this site... yet he says he isn't black, because he is brown, and because he is a Philippino that gets him off the hook havin' all that brown skin and not being black. Djehuti, who are you? [Wink]
 
Posted by Kamillion (Member # 11484) on :
 
Quick question (hand in the air).

Don't you guys get tired of arguing about race? Surely, there are more important things to do.
 
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
yes [Embarrassed] But culture and history takes a back seat everytime..trolls usually steer the conversation into something about race...people who should know better responed I myself included...or they will start a race-bait thread that most folk feel they have to respond. Some thread cannot avoid the race issue if you start talking about population origins. [Frown]
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumman:
Djehuti says he is brown skinned; he defends ''black'' people on this site... yet he says he isn't black, because he is brown, and because he is a Philippino that gets him off the hook havin' all that brown skin and not being black. Djehuti, who are you? [Wink]

Djehuti doesn't 'defend' black people. He is smart and interested in history and ancient Egyptian history and he isn't black... just like most philipinos. You don't have to be black to be interested in black history. I know a swedish man who came to America to attend university and major in African American history/studies and when he go back to Sweden he will teach it to the students there.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Yeah. But unlike you he "says" he believes AE are Black Africans,.. . . . but he is a brown Phillipino. . .no black Phillipino. . . sh1t! now I really confused. . . . brown is black . .

Sh1T I give up! Who are you DJ?
 
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Yeah. But unlike you he "says" he believes AE are Black Africans,.. . . . but he is a brown Phillipino. . .no black Phillipino. . . sh1t! now I really confused. . . . brown is black . .

Sh1T I give up! Who are you DJ?

AE were black Africans so what does that has to do with his color or race. Philipinos aren't black people. The negrito is probably 1% of the population. A lot of people are brown and not black. The Amerindians of South America are brown but aren't black. A lot of Indians are brown and aren't black. You can't claim him as black because he isn't black. Like he said he is a brown philipino but not black.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
I know you are bit thick and don't belive in dinosaurs etc but. . . . what the fuhck did you just say?

Americans are not black because they(AA) make up what . . . 13%
British are not black because they make up 3%

Set me straight!!


At least you got THAT right. . . AE were black Africans.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Ahem! Djehuti can speak for himself! And Djehuti is tired of all these false accusations and lies attributed to him! Face it, Marc and his mentor Clyde are debunked simply because their notions of 'race' which they rely on so much are!

And to everyone else, my 'color' is of no consequence but YES I am not black! Why does one have to be black to defend a black culture or any culture for that matter??! There are whites in this forum who speak out against the white-washing of Egypt, why are they not scrutinized??
 
Posted by Kamillion (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ real talk bro.
 
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
He did not get it. sigh! Don't mean to insult you friend. . . but did you pass analytial thinking? But congrats anyhow.

Now let break it down. Don't want to rehash black negrod thread by Altk but. . .

Isn't this a double standard. Brown skinned Africans are called black Africans. Same here in the US. Even very light skinned AA, like my sister, are called black. But brown skinned Phillipinos are called . . . what. . .brown?

That is hypocritical . . .DJ
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ By 'brown' of course we are talking about medium hues lighter than 'black'. Why are Mexicans called 'brown' and not black??

By the way, don't bother starting stuff with me cuz I'm not YH. And definitely I'm not your boyfriend.
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
Kamillion asks:
''Don't you guys get tired of arguing about race?''

Ignoring the topic of this thread are you?

''Surely, there are more important things to do.''

Yup, like paying attention to the topic. [Wink]


Brada-Anansi writes:

''Some thread cannot avoid the race issue if you start talking about population origins.''

Welllll...

and... ''people who should know better responed I myself included...''

So you know better but can't help yourself? How does this work? Are you trying to tell me something?

I don't know any better so I'm home free. Leave me out of your indecisiveness. [Wink]

Djehuti says:

''Why are Mexicans called 'brown' and not black??''

I suppose if there were any Mexicans on this site who said they were brown and not black, thereby creating that distance, in the sense you suggest, then they will take heat from me.
 
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dj. I don't know what race you really are.

What I do know is that you are a delusional, psychopathic liar.

.
.
 
Posted by Kamillion (Member # 11484) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumman:
Kamillion asks:
''Don't you guys get tired of arguing about race?''

Ignoring the topic of this thread are you?

''Surely, there are more important things to do.''

Yup, like paying attention to the topic. [Wink]



Uncle Gru, please enlighten me if there is something I've missed out:

* Africans are identified by lineage, not colour.
* There are non-Africans who are black and therefore look more like the "stereotypical African" than some Africans...
*It is bullshit to try to split Africans into sub-races.
* Africans are far far more diverse than any other group or "race" out there.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumman:
Djehuti says:

''Why are Mexicans called 'brown' and not black??''

I suppose if there were any Mexicans on this site who said they were brown and not black, thereby creating that distance, in the sense you suggest, then they will take heat from me.

BrownPride Forums

^^Go and give them hell Grum...
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
Kamillion says:

''Uncle Gru, please enlighten me if there is something I've missed out'':

quote:
* Africans are identified by lineage, not colour.
* There are non-Africans who are black and therefore look more like the "stereotypical African" than some Africans...
*It is bullshit to try to split Africans into sub-races.
* Africans are far far more diverse than any other group or "race" out there.

And I agree on that. So how do you reconcile the above with what I said, which is: ''I suppose if there were any Mexicans on this site who said they were brown and not black, thereby creating that distance, in the sense you suggest, then they will take heat from me.''

MindoverMatter718 I clicked on your link and but didn't see anything of interest but some juvenile topics so that turned me off in a hurry. Now, if that site is what I think it is from watching a television program the other day for a few minutes about some brown thugs in Tennessee then count me out. Having said that you will be advised my issue isn't what Kamillion posted, my issue is what I've said all along and that is some people want to distance themselves from their very dark ancestry. I don't. Some here do.

Having said that can one talk and say anything about whom they choose to identify with, or what shade they don't see themselves as, i.e. ''I'm brown not black'', and can keep running all day with it. Of course they can do it. Will that prevent me from being critical of them, no it won't because once they commit to that then they are running from their blackness plain and simple. The white boys and girls really got a hold on them.
 
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^But when are Mexicans even considered black in the AA community?

I think it's more of an identity with a Native American background, since African Americans identify as black, and Euro-Americans as white.

Mexicans don't see themselves as black like AA'S or white like EA'S, and AA's do not see Mexicans as being black either and EA's same thing.

This is most likely where the brown notion comes from, since they're not white or black in American society, hence they choose brown as an identity with their (Mexican) Native American ancestry.
 
Posted by Kamillion (Member # 11484) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grumman:
Kamillion says:

''Uncle Gru, please enlighten me if there is something I've missed out'':

quote:
* Africans are identified by lineage, not colour.
* There are non-Africans who are black and therefore look more like the "stereotypical African" than some Africans...
*It is bullshit to try to split Africans into sub-races.
* Africans are far far more diverse than any other group or "race" out there.

And I agree on that. So how do you reconcile the above with what I said, which is: ''I suppose if there were any Mexicans on this site who said they were brown and not black, thereby creating that distance, in the sense you suggest, then they will take heat from me.''

MindoverMatter718 I clicked on your link and but didn't see anything of interest but some juvenile topics so that turned me off in a hurry. Now, if that site is what I think it is from watching a television program the other day for a few minutes about some brown thugs in Tennessee then count me out. Having said that you will be advised my issue isn't what Kamillion posted, my issue is what I've said all along and that is some people want to distance themselves from their very dark ancestry. I don't. Some here do.

Having said that can one talk and say anything about whom they choose to identify with, or what shade they don't see themselves as, i.e. ''I'm brown not black'', and can keep running all day with it. Of course they can do it. Will that prevent me from being critical of them, no it won't because once they commit to that then they are running from their blackness plain and simple. The white boys and girls really got a hold on them.

Perhaps, you're missing out the FACT that learned habits are not broken overnight. Especially if it's a habit *EVERYONE* around you is into (i.e. the colour identification thing).

It takes time and constant exposure to truth to get over lies. Ya dig.

Imagine a world where all people under 5 feet tall were programmed to believe they were one race and anyone above that height (some arbitrary value based on who's in charge, just like the "white" colour thing) was another race. How easy do you think it would be to remove this programming??? Much more difficult than removing "colour racism" if you ask me. Yet, in the world we live in today there is barely any "heightism". You will suffer from racism, sexism and agism before you suffer from heightism, that's for sure.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Washington:
[Marc writes] You’d agree that the University of Pennsylvania, one of the Ivy League schools, is full of scholars, right?

In their Museum Library, put in the word “race” and you get over 10,000 entries.

Now. You are tell us that ALL SCHOLARS AGREE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘RACE’’ and the Museum Library has over 10,000 books and stuff by scholars on race.

You are saying these 10,000 sources don’t exist (as ALL scholars agree there is no such thing as race)?

You are certainly right that some scholars still hold to a race model, Risch and Pritchard for example. They are increasingly a minority though based on American Assoc Physical Anthro poll results posted on ES in prior threads. The brown vs black thing though may be moot with the ancient Egyptians who had both shades and mingled freely, without needing any race mix to explain why. In addition, dictionary definitions of a "black" person or even "Negro" specifically includes people with brown skin.

 -
 
Posted by Grumman (Member # 14051) on :
 
MindoverMatter718 wrote:

^''But when are Mexicans even considered black in the AA community?''

I'm not talking about whether anyone classifies Mexicans as black. I'm saying if very recent parentage is a very dark skinned African and the other white and the offspring denies the black. That's all I'm saying.


Kamillion says:

''Especially if it's a habit *EVERYONE* around you is into (i.e. the colour identification thing).''

Are you talking about white people in general or several people of color? If you are talking about some white people then how is it you seemingly can suggest a proposal, or a remedy, for some ''habits'' as you call it, ''that are not broken overnight'', and probably can be at some point in time, according to you? And whomever you may be talking about as it regards this habit, that is constantly talking about color, don't you think it may be their truth in spite of what you imply as their non-exposure to the truth.

''It takes time and constant exposure to truth to get over lies.''

What 'truth' are you referring to? Is this your truth? If it is a truth and you can readily see it, then why can't others?

''Imagine a world where all people under 5 feet tall were programmed to believe they were one race and anyone above that height (some arbitrary value based on who's in charge, just like the "white" colour thing) was another race. How easy do you think it would be to remove this programming???''

I can't imagine this scenario because I have no recollection of anyone getting murdered and hung because of height, just phenotype. Even though height is relative in order for this to work there will have to be another color involved to aggravate the height.

Further, do you honestly think you can relieve some white people of their arbitrary value based on who's in charge, just like the "white" colour thing?


''Yet, in the world we live in today there is barely any "heightism".

See.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
There is a lot of "heightism" out there. Taller women for example- say 5'7 and above, will often refuse to date or marry shorter men, and being short is often viewed more negatively in some polls, according to various socio-medical researchers. See below.

Pediatric endocrinology: mechanisms, manifestations, and management By Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, Erica A. Eugster

http://books.google.com/books?id=9gvBlktAT6YC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=%22tall+women%22+%22shorter+men%22+date&source=bl&ots=L18bSSyaOS&sig=1Tfc9xf7tDWp1N4jJBPDWDB-mBM&hl=en&ei=5qeYSv 3yH8me8QaU1LC5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=43#v=onepage&q=&f=false
---------------


All of that though is trivial compared to the damage or hate or outright genocide wrought by differences based on race or perceived race.
 
Posted by BitchSlapped (Member # 6729) on :
 
^ The race problem is more sickeneing than I thought. Just imagine...someone more related to you by lineage/blood than even your most loved ones and whenever you look at him, all you see is an incarnation of people who have persecuted you for years...yet he treats you better than those who "look like you" and ignores/forgives your mistakes and still you can't break the ice...cuz the eyez are blue. What a terrible illness this colour thing [Frown]
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3