The comparative table for Type B males [Table 15] shows that we are dealing with a variety that is remarkably close to the population of Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods( el Batrawi, '35), as it is to the much later but nearly identical population of Siwa Oasis in Ptolemaic times (Derry, '27)
Now we have just established that Type B Mesolithic Northwest African crania are identical to Lower Nubian crania, which makes them pretty much Negroid. To take this another step further, we even find a West African population in Gabon which is also similar to Type B:
In Table 16 we note the same parallels to ancient Lower Nubians that characterize Type B males, and the similarity to Derry's Siwa series is again strong, but we find also a strikingly close resemblance to a series of West African crania from Fernand Vaz in the Gaboon (Trevor, '49) This resemblance is in form rather than size, as the Gabunese series is made up of much smaller individuals, but it is still far closer than is the rather tenuous resemblance between the males of Type B and those of Fernand Vaz.
Unfortunately the racial and cultural origins and affinities of Trevor's Fernand Vaz series are shrouded in mystery, but two of the specimens are catalogued as Fang, and the rest can hardly have come from very far away. According to Seligman ('35, p. 182) the Fang are immigrants probably from somewhere a little west of the Congo-Nile watershed, and he is inclined to consider them as of partly Hamitic origin although now much modified by mixture following their arrival on the West African coast.......... The series described by Trevor was collected presumably between 30 and 50 years after the arrival of the Fang in the Gaboon, and so we may assume that it is a relatively unadulterated sample of the original immigrant type together with perhaps, a certain proportion of the type of the older and probably Bantu inhabitants of the region.
Now we know today that Seligman's Hamitic Hypothesis has been debunked and is no longer accepted, we have established that Type B males from Mesolithic Northwest Africa were without a doubt Negroid. Part two in the next post.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
We find that Type B is also remarkably close to Angel's ('44) Ancient Greek "Classic Mediterranean" Type B, which, in its turn, is even closer to Derry's Siwa series than are el Batrawi's A-Group Lower Nubians.
And also in the Natufians we find affinities to Type B:
The Natufian skull from Shuqbah in Palestine that was illustrated and briefly described by Keith('31, pp. 221-223) is very like some of our Type B specimens, although the mandibular angle is more open, the mandible itself less massive, and the cranial vault fuller and more rounded as viewed from the side. The orbits are slightly rounder, and the nose is broader throughout its entire length. The resemblance remains none the less impressive.
Here again we find affinites to Type B in Greece and the Natufians, who have a slight Nubian affinity according to Lawrence Angel though I can't find the exact quote where he stated this.
Source:
L. Cabot-Briggs
Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa
pgs 61, 62
Comments?????????
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
So called 'mainstream' anthropology moves closer and closer to Diop which each passing year. (whether he gets any 'credit' or not)
It was Diop who was among the 1st to state that the Medit-Caucasian race was little more than a face saving rhetorical effort to disguise heterogeniety in Europe.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians, read:We find that Type B is also remarkably close to Angel's ('44) Ancient Greek "Classic Mediterranean" Type B, which, in its turn, is even closer to Derry's Siwa series than are el Batrawi's A-Group Lower Nubians.
And also in the Natufians we find affinities to Type B:The Natufian skull from Shuqbah in Palestine that was illustrated and briefly described by Keith('31, pp. 221-223) is very like some of our Type B specimens, although the mandibular angle is more open, the mandible itself less massive, and the cranial vault fuller and more rounded as viewed from the side. The orbits are slightly rounder, and the nose is broader throughout its entire length. The resemblance remains none the less impressive.
Here again we find affinites to Type B in Greece and the Natufians, who have a slight Nubian affinity according to Lawrence Angel though I can't find the exact quote where he stated this.
Source:L. Cabot-Briggs
[b]Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa
pgs 61, 62Comments?????????
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).][/B]
Very interesting!
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You mean the Southern Europeans don't get E3b and Benin sickle cell from 'proto-caucasoid' sources! Deinekes will be infuriated! So much of the argument of the Eurocentrists is simply based on ignoring the fact that the game has moved on since Carelton Coon.
One thing Dienekes has failed to address concerning Coon was that Coon stated THIS as per quoted from the same source:
Coon ('39, p.63) has remarked that "many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction" show a considerable negroid tendency, but here it assumes the role of a sexual as well as racial characteristic
L. Cabot Briggs
Stone Ages of Northwest Africa
p. 62
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]
Good old Carleton Coon.
If the early Delta population was Natufian, even Carleton Coon, an anthropologist whose racist statements sometimes embarrassed his colleagues, would concede a Negroid tinge. On one occasion he wrote of Natufians that "the wide, low vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face." But he hastened to conclude that these people were REALLY "white," that "these late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor Negroid affinities." These same people would probably be classified as "Negroes" in the United States, where such MINOR Negroid affinities are always enough to tip the scales. In the Middle East, however, they remain "white". Such inconsistencies have evoked charges against the professional taxonomists ranging from hypocrisy to racism, by those Blacks who are aware of their operations. They see a definite attempt to insist that the Neolithic innovators who developed agriculture, pottery, metallurgy, and weaving could not possibly have been what we now call "Negroes".
One thing that the recent studies on the Natufians has revealed is that Paletine and not Norther (Lower Egypt) was actually the buffer zone between indigenous African populations and Eurasians up to the end of the New Kingdom.
Again: Any conclusion can be deduced.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
...from someone who believes that Ethiopians are descendant from King Solomon and Moses.
....from someone who thinks that Berber originates with the FlintStone-age tool making industry.
....from a total fool, from whom only a foolish conclusion can ever be deduced.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:....from someone who quotes from wikipedia and britannica as primary sources on physical anthropology and linguistics.
I don't quote any wikipedia. Just admit you don't know **** about physical anthropology. You are just talking out of your ass all the time and you think someone takes you seriously.
Just don't think i take you seriously dude.
quote:
rasol:...from someone who believes that Ethiopians are descendant from King Solomon and Moses.
Let me get your point straight... Are you denying cultural relationships between northern Ethiopians and southern Arabians?
King Solomon and Moses were both Semitic speakers (Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages), so were southern Arabians.
Proto-Semitic is basically the same as Afro-Asiatic but the modern Semitic speech (called Sabaean) and script was introduced to Ethiopia from southern Arabia during the first millennium B.C.
During the first millennium B.C. and possibly even earlier, various Semitic-speaking groups from Southwest Arabia began to cross the Red Sea and settle along the coast and in the nearby highlands. These migrants brought with them their Semitic speech (Sabaean and perhaps others) and script (Old Epigraphic South Arabic) and monumental stone architecture. A fusion of the newcomers with the indigenous inhabitants produced a culture known as pre-Aksumite. The factors that motivated this settlement in the area are not known, but to judge from subsequent history, commercial activity must have figured strongly. The port city of Adulis, near modern-day Mitsiwa, was a major regional entrepôt and probably the main gateway to the interior for new arrivals from Southwest Arabia. Archaeological evidence indicates that by the beginning of the Christian era this pre-Aksumite culture had developed western and eastern regional variants. The former, which included the region of Aksum, was probably the polity or series of polities that became the Aksumite state.
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/sahelaselassie.html
quote:
rasol:....from someone who thinks that Berber originates with the FlintStone-age tool making industry.
What have the Imazighen anything to do with the subject?
You are not even relevant just admit you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
quote:
rasol:....from a total fool, from whom only a foolish conclusion can ever be deduced.
The only straw head here is you so keep your bs shut.
By relying on old craniology (which was also used by the nazis and racist British) you just demonstrate how much you know about physical anthropology.
http://skepdic.com/cranial.html
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Bringing back old and outdated craniometry!?Again: Any conclusion can be deduced.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
quote:
rasol:...from someone who believes that Ethiopians are descendant from King Solomon and Moses.
quote:No, I am saying you are a bit of a knucklehead. Got it straight now?
Let me get your point straight... Are you denying cultural relationships between northern Ethiopians and southern Arabians?
Case in point.....
quote:No knucklehead, Proto-Semitic refers to a single language that is the ostinsible basis of all semitic. Semetic is one sub-group of Afro-Asiatic language group which consists of hundreds of different languages and many sub groups. They are not 'basically the same e thing'. Ignorance of this fact is no crime. However the fact that this has been explained serveral times by several posters, and yet you are unable to grasp it shows that you are 'basically' a fool. And that is how we regard you. Case dismissed.
Proto-Semitic is basically the same as Afro-Asiatic
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
LOL it's quite obvious that you and rasol are one of the same. No wonder you two always "hang around" by the same time.
The first inhabitants of Northwest Africa were prehistoric Cro-Magnons, any strawhead would know that.
quote:
rasol:No knucklehead, Proto-Semitic refers to a single language that is the ostinsible basis of all semitic. Semetic is one sub-group of Afro-Asiatic language group which consists of hundreds of different languages and many sub groups. They are not 'basically the same e thing'. Ignorance of this fact is no crime. However the fact that this has been explained serveral times by several posters, and yet you are unable to grasp it shows that you are 'basically' a fool. And that is how we regard you. Case dismissed.
What is your source for this?
Proto-Semitic is the same as Afro-Asiaitic, the language family which spread out of Africa.
Also Akkadian is the earliest-attested Semitic language.
The Semitic language family has the longest recorded history of any linguistic group. The Akkadian language is first attested in cuneiform writing on clay tablets from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) from the mid-third millennium B.C., and Semitic languages continue to be spoken in the Middle East and in northeastern Africa today.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
Listen X4Dummy, anyone who goes on talking about North Africa Capsians is still stuck on Coon. You need to update your sources and test them for validity.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO PROVIDED. Yet here you are, still begging for a hand-holding, elementary training-wheels included free education.... by making ignorant statements and baiting others into repettition of facts until they finally penetrate your thick skull, eh?
Originally posted by Orionix:
What is your source for this?
Go back and read the replies to you from Thought, AlTakuri, myself and Ausar, and the sources cited. Don't repeat your ignorant remarks any more until you understand them.
You can lead the mule to water, but you can't make him drink.
Educating you is too dirty a job. Do your own dirty work!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
rasol:YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN SO PROVIDED. Yet here you are, still begging for a hand-holding, elementary training-wheels included free education.... by making ignorant statements and baiting others into repettition of facts until they finally penetrate your thick skull, eh?
Make one more personal attack and don't expect me to take you seriously. Fact is that during this whole process you are the one being educated, what obviously drives you mad.
Until then, cut your crybaby whining. You already have an entire thread devoted to your drama queen antics.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:...make one [b]intelligent remark and maybe someone will start taking you seriously.[/B]
Who cares about what YOU consider intelligent or not? Who even takes you seriously... Also i bet you don't even have an academic.
quote:
rasol:Until then, cut your crybaby whining. You already have an entire thread devoted to your drama queen antics.[/B]
Sorry but you are the one doing the crying.
Not only that but you're also starting to sound like a closet queen while getting educated during this whole process.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:Good advice, but while you can lead a mule to water....
[X4Dummy] You need to update your sources and test them for validity
Maybe just have his mother buy him an updated volume of Britannica? Or perhaps she too knows a wasted effort when she sees one. )
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
rasol:....but will his mother actually buy him an updated volume of Britannica? She knows a wasted effort when she sees one too.
Lol i bet you aren't even able to comprehend Britannica you dumbfuck.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
i bet you aren't even able to comprehend Britannica you dumbfuck.
Now you're plagiarising your own mother!
fyi: Also explains where he gets the potty mouth from.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
fyi: Also explains where he gets the potty mouth from.
How old are you really? 12-43?
quote:I always laughed at the idea that Egypt is supposedly a'unique' geography allowing for the denormalisation of historical inquery into it's peoples, cultures and origins. Yes Egypt is a geographical crossroads as is Palestine-Isreal, Turkey and Greece, Syria, Iran and Iraq, etc..
Thought Writes:
One thing that the recent studies on the Natufians has revealed is that Paletine and not Norther (Lower Egypt) was actually the buffer zone between indigenous African populations and Eurasians up to the end of the New Kingdom.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
LOL it's quite obvious that you and rasol are one of the same. No wonder you two always "hang around" by the same time.The first inhabitants of Northwest Africa were prehistoric Cro-Magnons, any strawhead would know that.
X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
What is your source for this?Proto-Semitic is the same as Afro-Asiaitic, the language family which spread out of Africa.
Also [b]Akkadian is the earliest-attested Semitic language.
The Semitic language family has the longest recorded history of any linguistic group. The Akkadian language is first attested in cuneiform writing on clay tablets from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) from the mid-third millennium B.C., and Semitic languages continue to be spoken in the Middle East and in northeastern Africa today.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/10.html[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).][/B]
Proto-Semitic is NOT the same as Afro-Asiatic, it belongs in the same family as Afro-Asiatic, thats like saying Proto-Romance languages are Indo-European, though Romance languages are a branch from Indo-European.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
I am afraid to ask what is meant by 'sexually' Negroid as opposed to racially.
I think by that he meant it shows more frequently in one gender
than in the other. I dont know whether he thought it shows more in
females than in males but to me it seems that Med girls often have a
variety of prognathism thats rarer in their males. The same for their nasal
characteristics that approach sub platyriny, rounded tip, and open nostrils to a
greater extent than the males.
quote:
Originally posted by Said Mohammad:X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
Cro-Magnons well also found in Europe. They were no "race", the were prehistorical anatomically modern humans. You have no point.
quote:
Said Mohammmad:Proto-Semitic is NOT the same as Afro-Asiatic, it belongs in the same family as Afro-Asiatic, thats like saying Proto-Romance languages are Indo-European, though Romance languages are a branch from Indo-European.
So? It is still in the Afro-Asiaitic group of languages. Also the speakers of Proto-Semitic were illiterate. The script and dialect were introduced from the Near East Sumerian culture (4,000 years ago).
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:[B]
Originally posted by Orionix:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:[QUOTE][B]X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
Cro-Magnons well also found in Europe. They were no "race", the were prehistorical anatomically modern humans. You have no point.
[/QUOTE]
X4Dummy, you still don't get it again. European Cro-Magnon and North African Cro-Magnon are differentiated though still similar. North African Cro-Magnon were more prognathous and had wider noses than European Cro-Magnon. You saw the descriptions of the types I posted and none of them fit the standard Howell's Caucasoid traits.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
S. Muhammad:X4Dummy, you still don't get it again.
European Cro-Magnon and North African Cro-Magnon are differentiated though still similar. North African Cro-Magnon were more prognathous and had wider noses than European Cro-Magnon. You saw the descriptions of the types I posted and none of them fit the standard Howell's Caucasoid traits.
You cannot even compare them with modern humans!
Their brain was about 4% larger than the modern human. We are not exactly the same.
Saying they were black or Caucasian is non-scientific bs. Cro-Magnon are considered to be an evolutionary branch of modern humans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog6/page6_2.shtml
Also who the hell says that prognathism is a African trait?
This comes from the very same pseudo-scientific methods of distinguishing Africans from Europeans by some mythical physically inherited traits.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
quote:
Also who the hell says that prognathism is a African trait?This comes from the very same pseudo-scientific methods of distinguishing Africans from Europeans by some mythical physically inherited traits.
Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait. These measurements are still used by Forensic scientiist,and thus still used by mainstream specialists. Corey Sparks, a leading anthropology student, published a journal article about how your genetics effects chracteristics of crania.
The old theories of Franz Boaz has been proven to be wrong.
PHILADELPHIA (AP)--Nearly a century ago, Franz Boas, the man known as
the founder of modern anthropology, launched a study of cranial
measurements of 13,000 people and concluded that skull shapes are
determined more by environment than by race.
It was a powerfully influential finding, because at the time, skull
size and shape were thought to be connected to intelligence.
Now, though, a new analysis suggests the distinguished anthropologist
got it wrong: Race--or more properly, ethnicity _ is a bigger
determinant than environment.
Whether Boas deliberately distorted his findings is not clear. But
researchers think he may have had preconceived ideas about what the
data should show.
``It's pretty clear that Boas was in the forefront of racial equality
and sex equality, and it's pretty clear that he was in the forefront
of rejecting the ideas of racial typology and scientific racism that
existed in the early century,'' University of Tennessee anthropology
professor Richard Jantz said. ``It wouldn't be hard to imagine that he
had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to get out of this study, but
I wouldn't want to say we know that's true.''
Jantz also said that Boas was ``seriously hamstrung because he
couldn't analyze all that data with the resources available to him at
the time.''
In Boas' day, the general view was that Europeans were the dominant
race, an argument often based on brain size. For decades, scholars
opposed to such notions have cited Boas' study of immigrants and their
offspring.
But Jantz and Penn State graduate student Corey Sparks used a computer
to re-crunch Boas' numbers. They reported in the Oct. 7 issue of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the data actually
show that race had more influence than environment on skull
dimensions.
``Unfortunately, research design was deficient, and his findings were
never critiqued in a systematic way until recently,'' Jantz and Sparks
said in their paper.
But American Anthropologist, the journal of the American
Anthropological Association--which Boas helped found in 1902 _ plans
to publish another study in March in which researchers led by Clarence
C. Gravlee of the University of Michigan conclude, ``Boas got it
right.''
Gravlee said he had not interpreted Boas' study as saying race or
genetics had no influence on head shapes, only that environment also
played some part.
``We independently find that there are differences between those born
in Europe and those born in the United States. In a single generation,
there was some change, no matter how small,'' he said.
The magazine has asked Jantz and Sparks to write a companion piece for
which they will do more research into how and why Boas reached his
conclusions.
Sparks said he and Jantz are not suggesting a return to the idea Boas
rejected--namely, that a larger cranium equals a bigger brain equals
higher intelligence.
``There still are occasional individuals that think that, but it's
pretty much been debunked. There is so much variation in brain size
that we all overlap in brain size with other population groups,''
Sparks said.
Boas, who immigrated to the United States from Germany in the 1880s,
taught at Clark University and at Columbia University and founded the
anthropology department at Barnard College. His students included
Margaret Mead.
Boas took measurements of skull length, width and the ratio between
the two in 1909 and 1910 of European-born immigrants and their
American-born children from seven population groups: Bohemians,
Central Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Scots, Sicilians, and a group of
people of Jewish ancestry from western Russia, Poland, Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Romania.
Boas did not directly compare the study subjects' cranial volume _
that is, their brain size.
In a 1912 American Anthropologist article, Boas said the length of
exposure to the American environment had dramatic effects on cranial
form. He said this was evidence of cranial ``plasticity,'' the idea
that environment caused changes in skull dimensions and that
differences were due more to environment than heredity.
For example, he reported that Eastern European Jews tended to have
very round heads but were becoming more long-headed, while southern
Italians were exceedingly long-headed but were becoming more
short-headed.
But Jantz and Sparks said that in America, blacks and whites have not
converged toward a common skull shape, as might be expected if Boas'
theory were correct.
Jantz and Sparks said their analyses did show small differences
between the European-born and American-born members of the same
population groups, but not as great as the differences between
population groups.
``We're not sure if it was wishful thinking on his part before he even
started the whole thing, or whether he saw these very small
differences and said that was enough to prove his point,'' Sparks
said.
___
On the Net:
Jantz and Sparks article: http://www.pnas.org
Gravlee, Bernard, Leonard article: http://www.aaanet.org/aa
This study looks at the Terry Collection, Colonial Sites, and African material in an attempt to trace the presence of admixture in Blacks through 7 nonmetric traits
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/rtp/students/2003/virtualposters/poster_other03_truesdell.html
Thought Writes:
Please tell us SPECIFICALLY what craniometry is and then give one of our examples as it suites your expressed definition.
Thought Writes:
Orionox, “proto” means first. Semitic is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family and proto-Semitic is the pristine form of Semitic. Proto-Afro-Asiatic is the first form of the Afro-Asiatic languages.
Thought Posts:
http://www.sembase.org/
“Evidence indicates that all Semitic languages have developed from a common language in use long before writing (and hence unattested), which Semitists term Proto-Semitic. This would have been a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages, along with sister languages, possibly including some ancestor of Egyptian (Proto-Egyptian?), along with other languages. At a much earlier date there would presumably have been a Proto-Afro-Asiatic. The territory of the Afro-Asiatic languages would have been Western Asia (the Middle East), and parts of Africa, although for all we know Proto-Semitic may have originated in Africa and migrated to the Middle East.”
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
X4Dummy you still don't get it, do you? The crania I'm talking about are Mechta, Afalou, Aioun Berich, etc, these crania are the ones that are called "Cro-Magnoid", UP, or Cro-Magnon, you actually argue without knowing anything.
Thought Posts:
COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262.
ISSN 0018-442X.
Abstract:
We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.
Thought Writes:
In the same study, Groves and Throne find the "intermediate" Afalou to be closest to the modern Dogon!
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status.
Thought Writes:
What is most interesting about this study is that the Afalou unit POST-DATES the Taforalt unit, implying gene flow from south to north with the onset of the Holocene wet-phase.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Yes Egypt is a geographical crossroads as is Palestine-Isreal, Turkey and Greece, Syria, Iran and Iraq, etc..
Thought Writes:
Which is why it is important to contextualize history within the framework of a multi-disciplinary approach. Prior to the late Neolithic period population density would have been greater in Africa than anywhere else in the world. Hence if these regions were cross-roads, the roads were being crossed primarily FROM Africa to Eurasia.
Thought Writes:
What script and language was introduced from Sumeria and where to?
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait. These measurements are still used by Forensic scientiist,and thus still used by mainstream specialists. Corey Sparks, a leading anthropology student, published a journal article about how your genetics effects chracteristics of crania.
The old theories of Franz Boaz has been proven to be wrong.
Biologically there is no such thing as racial traits since race is social and most anthropologists regard it as such:
Most anthropologists regard race as a cultural concept rather than a biological reality. In the biological sciences, the term race has historically been used to describe a distinct population in which all the members share a suite of biological traits. Today, most anthropologists agree that there is no way to divide the world's human population in the cut-and-dry manner that the definition of race traditionally requires.
...A forensic anthropologist must extract as much information as possible to assist in the identification of an individual. Part of that job requires identifying that individual's ancestral phenotype. Ancestral phenotypes are suites of traits that are associated with geographic populations. At first, this sounds a lot like a synonym for race; however, the difference lies in the lack of distinct divisions. The task simply relies on the idea that any given individual may have characteristics known to be common in a particular geographic area.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm
Also the Human Genome Project proves that when traditional racial classifications are used (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid) many (if not most) populations are intermediate.
quote:
Cavalli-Sforza begins by admitting that, yes, human groups do vary strikingly in a few highly visible characteristics, such as "skin color, eye shape, hair type, body and facial form--in short, the traits that often allow us to determine a person's origin at a single glance (p.9)." He further admits that these traits are at least partly genetically determined, and that they evolved in the most recent period of human evolution as a response to the various environments that the human groups are exposed to. In his own words: "...there are clear biological differences between populations in the visual characteristics that we use to classify races (p.9)."According to Cavalli-Sforza, these biological differences are only minor, as the remainder of mankind's genetic makeup is supposedly almost the same in all races.
He states: "It is because they are external that these racial differences strike us so forcibly, and we automatically assume that differences of similar magnitude exist below the surface, in the rest of our genetic makeup. This is simply not so: the remainder of our genetic makeup hardly differ at all."
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/HumanRaces/Meaning ofRace/MeaningofRace.htm
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
You do realize that Cro-Magnons ARE anatomically modern?
{Their brain was about 4% larger than the modern human.}
Thought Writes:
Source please?
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait.
Thought Writes:
You are correct Ausar. Of course not all Africans (Blacks) are Negroid nor are all Negroids African.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Biologically there is no such thing as racial traits since race is social
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 21 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Thought Writes:
Race is a social construct, however phenotypic traits based upon genetic adaptation may be mapped via the use of locus-specific measurements. Natural selection may act on different alleles to produce a similar adaptive phenotype in populations.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:Thought Writes:
You do realize that Cro-Magnons ARE anatomically modern?
Yes mainly but not completely. Source please?
quote:
Thought Writes:
Fossil Hominids: Cro-Magnon Man
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:You are correct Ausar. Of course not all Africans (Blacks) are Negroid nor are all Negroids African.
What are you referring to "Negroid" here?
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
What are you referring to "Negroid" here?
Thought Writes:
I apologize, I am not certain what you are asking Supercar?
quote:
Aveloar prognathism is a negriod trait.
And Thought’s reply was:
quote:
You are correct Ausar. Of course not all Africans (Blacks) are Negroid nor are all Negroids African.
That is why I asked you, Thought, what you were referring to as “Negroid”. What constitutes that terminology?
You do realize that Cro-Magnons ARE anatomically modern?
Orionox Wrote:
Yes mainly but not completely.
Thought Writes:
Source?
Orionox Wrote:
Their brain was about 4% larger than the modern human
Thought Writes:
Of course “Cro-Magnons” were diverse and did not represent a single taxonomy or culture. Hence “Cro-Magnons” as a group would NOT have brains about 4% larger than the modern humans.
Thought Posts:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html
“The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.”
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
That is why I asked you, Thought, what you were referring to as “Negroid”. What constitutes that terminology?
Thought Writes:
Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.
Clarified now.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.
According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?
quote:
Originally posted by YuhiVII:
According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?
The true "Negro" theory makes no sense as we can infer from this:
The cultural, economical and political events which have been sketched above induced vast expansions and migrations, many of which were northward or southward, crossing the climatic and vegetation zones. These zones themselves shifted northward or souhward with time, the forest front advancing north during the climatic optimum in the Sahara, and retreating southward when the Sahara dried up. From what has been said about climatic adaptation in Chapter 6, it can be deduced that changes of climatic zone released selection afresh in the populations concerned. However, several tens of generations, or even a hundred, are needed to attain a new genetic equilibrium. Many populations of the Western Sudan have lived in their present environment for too short a time to have reached the equilibrium state of climatic adaptation. It is therefore all the more striking to see how clear is the statistical association between human morphology and vegetation zones in sub-Saharan Africa, even after excluding Elongated Africans, Pygmies and Pygmoids(see Table 6). From the Sahelian arid zone to the rain forest, stature gradually decreases, the nose and face becomes gradually broader in proportions, and the head becomes slightly rounder. As pointed out repeatedly, the factors of these morphological clines lay in the environment, not in gene flow from North Africa or Arabia.
Clear-cut though they are, these clines concern anthropometric averages in the various zones, and within each zone there is a wide variety of populations. Each has its own biological history, which responded to many interacting factors. At present it is impossible to reconstruct the puzzle in the Western Sudan and Guinea forest, because too few populations have been studied by anthropo-biologists in adequate detail. Only a few pieces of the puzzle will be discussed here.
Some have already been investigated in the preceding chapter where the case of the Ful was mentioned. Long after dessication of the Sahara has pushed the Ful southward in the Senegal, they had expanded eastward and southward. This brought some of their communities into a considerably moister habitat, where two forces thrust their gene pool toward adaptive equilibrium: climatic selection, and gene admixture with local populations who had lived in the new biotope for longer. In turn, the Ful, as a potential source of gene admixture, affected these local populations.
The People of Africa
Jean Hiernaux
pgs 156-157
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.
quote:
According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?
According to Keita and several other more progressive bioanthropologists, there are broad, elongated, diminuative, Khosanoid and coastal type Africans. Keita characterises them all as Africoid, which means roughly that they have physical characteristics that are Native to Africa. Moreover, many if not most Africans have a combination of these features and may not neatly fit into any one catagory. I agree with this concept and this term and think it is more consistent with modern science. Caucasian anthropology is ultimately based on Aryanist mythology of the origins of man in Eurasia and the archtypical nature of the European template, to which the correct rebuttal at this point is simply: You wish!
Hutu are typically of broad African types, Tutsi are typically elongated, Twa are typically diminuative. All of the above are native to the single small country of Rwanda.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 December 2004).]
I guess the question now would be what percentage of the living North African and Arabian peninsula populations would be morphologically "Africoid"?
The purpose of this page is to provide a brief introduction to the anthropology used in determining the biological ("racial") affinities of the ancient Egyptians.
Special attention will be focused on the work of S.O.Y. Keita, who bridges the gap in many ways between the Afrocentric and Eurocentric camps. While Afrocentrists do not accept the biased interpretations of Eurocentric scholarship, and the Eurocentrists guard the gates against Afrocentrists, Keita is one of the few who have been accepted by both sides. The historian, Basil Davidson, is another. Even Bernal has been characterized as an "antiquarian" by most of the "establishment." Keita's reputation as a physical anthopologist and his balanced approach to the problem have earned him probably the most trusted place among anthropologists involved in the debate.
The Method of Study
Most research conducted on ancient Egyptian remains has been in the area of "metric" studies (Keita 1993). These studies measure mostly craniofacial features of skulls. These features would be realized in living persons by broad or narrow noses, full or thin lips (caused by projection of the jaw pass the plane of the nose), and other similar features.
Thus, for the most part, even modern studies attempt to establish pretty much the same thing as the older anthropological studies. The main difference is that instead of measuring by indices or angular measurements, a technique known as Mahalanobis is used which measures distances between population (D^2).
That is, it shows which groups "cluster" together due mostly to having similar facial and cranial traits. Other methods often used are the Penrose statistic and discriminant functions. Basically, these use more complex mathematics in statistics and differential equations. Usually, the older studies tended to be "morphological" in nature. They classified groups according to the well-known racial types such as Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc. More modern methods tend to relate people in "clusters and clines" based on their closeness in particular traits, as already mentioned. The racial terminologies are usually not used.
However, in studying the cluster and cline method, one outside the Eurocentric perspective cannot but see an attempt to resurrect older "racial" theories under a new guise. Indeed, such old racial notions as the "Great White race," "hyperdiffusion," "dark whites," etc., seem to appear again as ideas with different more discrete labels, and different methods of determination.
The theory of "demic diffusion" (Barbujani et al., 1994) tends to not only support the old Indo-European race concept, but to expand it to include peoples formerly thought of as Ural-Altaic, Dravidian, etc. All these peoples are given a Near Eastern "Caucasoid" origin, and some suggestions have that even the Western Hemisphere was populated by these caucasoid Nostratic peoples of "Turkish" descent.
However, despite new mathematical methods, the same fallacies apply to new classifications as the ones conjured up by the olderl establishment whose racist biases are undeniable. To some extent, newer methods based on non-metric and genetic studies have come to fore, but also showing the same types of bias.
Non-metric studies do not measure features by length, breadth, etc., but take into account less obvious traits in the anatomy. Genetic studies concern themselves with genetic markers, which are said to help distinguish between different "races." In most genetic studies, racial classifications such as Mongoloid, Negroid, etc., are still used to this day.
The Fallacies in the Methods
Without trying to prove the intent of bias in modern anthropology (at least in this article), the presence of bias and the problems and errors in modern methods will be pointed out instead. The most important problems related to include:
1. Greater variability assigned to "Caucasoid" types. This type may have complexions ranging from very fair to very dark, and wide ranges of all other characteristics, often apart from "admixture." However, it is often implied (if not directly suggested) that other types do not have such variability.
2. Related to the previous point is the "labeling" of characteristics. Thus, as an example, there is the implication that narrow noses are "Caucasoid."
3. The inconsistency of results and evidence. The unwarranted assignment of greater value to certain results and evidence while downplaying that which does not agreee.
4. Poor interpretation due to natural biases. This is directly related to the "good ole boys" network in which few non-Euroamerican perspectives are available. These leads to errors that are various obvious to those outside to those outside this group. These are particularly important in bringing linguistic, cultural, historical and other studies into line with the anthropological and archaeological data.
5. Poorly planned studies based on old erroneous methods.
These are some of the faults related to the studies themselves. There are other problems related to the problems of academic racism and fraud that will not be discussed here. A more detailed look into each of the above points will now be given:
1. In the most recent well-known anthropological work attacking Afrocentric positions on the "race" of the Egyptians, Brace et al. (1993) commit the decades old error of giving greater variabilty to those traditionally labeled "Caucasoids." While, Brace et al. attempt to avoid using such labels, their classification methods nonetheless show that they subscribe to the same idea (only under the guise of "clusters and clines"). In attempting to show that greater gene flow has occured between Somalis and Europeans, they assign undue importance to the traits like narrow noses and narrow faces, while discounting evidence such as dark complexion and "supra-Negroid" limb ratios (long, slender limbs). Thus, while suggesting that the dark skins of Egyptians may not be due to gene flow at all, but only to adaptation, they see narrow noses in Somalia as suggestive of gene flow with northwest Europe more subtantial than that with the geographically contiguous sub-Saharan Africa!:
"There is the very real possibility, for example,
that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the
people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing
of a population that come from somewhere else."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 20)
"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa
are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of
samples marginally including South Asia and running
all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe
than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)
That gene flow is suggested by the Brace et al., data is proven by the following quote:
"Our own battery of craniofacial measurements, however,
deals with traits that , for the most part, have little
demonstrable relationship to specific selective forces.
For this reason, their use are largely indicators
of the genetic relationship of the groups compared."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)
However, Brace et al.'s "own battery" of tests is based mainly on measurements of the nose. According to the same article, nasal "elevation and elongation" is influenced by adaptation to the environment. In fact, there is little to suggest that any of the nasal measurements that make up the vast majority of the twenty-four variables used by Brace et al., are not influenced by selective forces. Since these make up the vast number of variables used, the distances, or relative similarity, shown in the Brace et al. graphs (dendograms) do not support their argument on genetic relationship.
Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. Eskimos, American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples is due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, 1991)
There also is no evidence supporting claims that skin complexion and limb ratios are any less genetically determined than nose structure. Probably, light-colored eyes and hair are among the rarest prominent external traits among the human species. They are found mostly in Europe, and aside from albinos, are hardly found at all outside of Europe, West Asia, the northwest part of India (generally not past Gujarat) and possibly a limited region in the northwestern Africa. In the latter two areas their occurrence is very rare, and even in most of West Asia it is uncommon. Even populations that have resided for long periods in cold climates like the Altaic peoples of Siberia, the northern Chinese, the Eskimos and Native peoples of Canada do not possess such traits. Thus, light hair (including light brown and red hair) and light eyes (blue, green, etc.) might be seen as very strong genetic traits, and their complete or near complete absence among a group as evidence of minimal genetic relationship. Given such genetic resistance to such adaptation, the genetic distance between a significantly large Europoid people who had, say, 25% light hair and eyes and that of a proportional group that, outside of albinism, had zero % of these traits would be enormous. However, from the Eurocentric perspective, the color of skin, eyes, hair, etc., is given little importance in anthropological studies. This is not justified, and it shows the different standards in judging shades when the situation is related to politics, society, etc., as compared to matters of anthropology, history and the like.
2. Related to the previous point, there was, and to a great extent, still is a practice of labeling traits according to race. Thus, the long, high narrow nose becomes "Caucasoid." Indeed, the importance of the nose in Western anthropology is so great that one might label it "nasal science." For in the division of the races, the nose has played a greater part than the skull altogether. The nasal nature of the Brace et al. study is reminiscent of an earlier work by Risley (1915), that sought to racially classify the castes of India according to nasal index. According to Risley's thinking, the higher castes would have been primarily of Caucasoid ancestry and thus would have longer noses. Later studies by Ghurye (1961) and Dutt et al.(1973), however, show Risley's studies were invalid. The glaring discrepancy of the data in the two Indian studies as compared with Risley, despite measuring the same populations, was also startling.
One might wonder whether the claim of Afrocentrists and others of vandalism by Europeans of Egyptian, Indian and other non-European sculpture by breaking off the non-Europoid noses is not connected in some way to this nasal 'fetish.' The nasal index was popularly used by diffusionists to prove "white" origins of civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, Mayan and Polynesian. For example, in order to "claim" the great sailing accomplishments of the early Austronesians, the idea of their previously being a branch of "dark whites" unmixed with "Malays," was, and to an extent still is widely offered. This dark white relationship was founded on such concepts as long, narrow noses being labeled "Caucasoid." Although most Indonesian, Micronesian, Melanesian and Polynesian populations are actually mesorhinne, i.e., they possess medium broad noses, there are substanial numbers of individuals with narrow noses. However, at the same time, most Oceanic populations have the trait known as the sacral, or "Mongolian" spot at rates of 100% or nearly so. In comparison, most European populations have rates much lower than 10%, and often lower than 2% (Montagu, 1960). Few if any theories have been offered showing that the sacral spot is due in any great part to selective processes, yet this highly suggestive evidence is ignored, and the nose is focused on instead. In other words, only evidence that supports the idea of Caucasoid cultural and racial superiority, or "white" hyperdiffusion is given weight.
The fact that one of the most discriminating nasal characteristics is often ignored in studies of population affinities is revealing. This is the shape of the nasal profile, a non-metric trait. In forensic anthropology, it is this profile that allows investigators to determine the difference in ancestry between the Amerind or Polynesian, who might have narrow noses, as compared to Caucasians. The Caucasian type is one of the only groups that possesses almost entirely a straight profile, while most other groups have concave or concavo-convex. Most "Negroids," have either concave or straight profiles. Interestingly, in ancient and modern Egypt, the nasal profile is also a mixture of concave and straight. In an interesting study by forensic anthropologists of the Egyptian scribe, Pepi (Kennedy et al., 1986), the following interesting comments are made concerning the racial identification traits of ancient Egyptians:
"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."
Notice while the described traits are not "universal" in certain areas of Upper Egypt, yet these features definitely predominate even in these areas. In fact, the studies of Keita have shown this is so, and such traits are by no means uncommon in Lower Egypt (Keita, 1993). However, even such a trait as the concave nasal profile alone would not prove much. Any reasonable study would have to avoid any labeling of traits whether explicit or implied.
3. Inconsistent results and data also flaw most approaches in pinning down biological affinity. Keita (1993) mentions non-metric studies by Berry and Berry (1967) that group a combined series from Egypt with one from Punjab. It further found a West African series to be very similar to one from India, and exactly similar to one from Burma! Even using metric studies, Howells' (1973) found a late dynastic series from Giza clustered with tropical Africans in one study, but with northern Europeans when another technique was used! Even some modern studies like those of Keita and Brace et al. disagree in their conclusions. Keita (1993) believes the ancient Egyptians to be holocene "Saharo-tropical" variants who migrated relatively recently from tropical Africa and the northern Sahara to Southern Egypt before the pre-Dynastic period. Brace et al. (1993) suggest time again that the Egyptians, Somalis and other East Africans were cold-adapted migrants who had to adapt their pigment and limb ratios to the African climate. Keita finds no evidence of Africa-Europe/West Asia-Africa migrations to explain dynastic Egypt. Indeed, there is no suggestion early East Africans were ever cold-adapted.
The importance of the divergent results is that no single study is likely to offer sufficient evidence alone. Thus, casual dismissal of studies which do not agree with one's thesis is highly faulty. In this regard, Keita has been exemplary in carefully analyzing all the data and explaining his findings in his writings.
4. The problems here are self-explanatory. How can a guarded gate system be trusted to provide reliable results? It may be very easy for Europeans to assume original humans were white, but the non-European will notice the perspective problem immediately. In the sense of understanding culture, language, etc., all of which is important in verifying studies, Western scholars have often come up short. A system which is racially non-integrated and that has a long history of racist thinking is not likely to provide trustworthy results in questions bearing on race. Obviously, though, the gate keepers will disagree. 5. Poor approaches. The idea of Brace et al. to prove genetic relationship through a single dendogram that can be usefully termed "cranionasal" or "nasiometric" was indeed flawed. Even Keita, whose own phenograms covered a much broader spectrum of characteristics, and who carefully analyzed previous studies, was careful in suggesting "genetic" relationships. The latter would have been much more justified in doing so, but preferred to refer to ancient Egyptians as indigenous African variants (and not migrants from outside of Africa) whose culture, language, etc., was closely tied to the rest of the continent, particularly the Nile River region.
Brace et al., also made the mistake of pooling Predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians and Late Dynastic groups each into single categories. This method would do little in revealing the highly heterogenous population of Egypt. Sharp differences in features sometimes occurs over smaller spaces of times, and there also is a geographic gradient in features. By pooling the Egyptians north of Assyut together with those to the South, we get little idea of just how many groups indeed shared common features with many sub-Saharan Africans including groups from West Africa. How categories like "African" and "North African" were decided upon is puzzling since a large number of variants can be found in both regions. In order for Brace et al. to prove no affinity between West Africans and ancient Egyptians, which indeed was one of the main goals of their work, they would have to show that no groups in West Africa showed affinities with groups in Egypt or adjacent areas. This cannot be done by clustering all Africans together.
To illustrate this point if one were to group all the residents of modern Hawai'i together, it might be difficult to show any affinity between this grouping and any grouping in Europe, Japan or even Polynesia! Yet, we know that elements from all these areas can be found there.
Now, that we have reviewed some of the major failings in the Eurocentric approach, we will move to examine Keita and how he has properly addressed the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keita's Approach
Keita is one of the first Africans to reach prominence in Western anthropological circles (if not the first). That is, at least in the area of historical anthropology. If this has made him extra careful, and inspired him to more fervent effort, then it shows in his work.
In his most extensive effort to establish the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians, Keita (1993) presents no single dendogram of his own to support his contentions. Instead he throughly analyzes previous important studies, including his own, and brings them together in a cumulative and logical argument supporting his case. All approaches including metric, non-metric, morphological, genetic, etc., are used.
Keita's (1988, 1992) own phenograms are among the most well-planned in dealing with this problem. Keita notes that while the use of too few variables would lead to insufficent discrimination of types, too many variables would also lead to excessive discrimination. In the latter case, even peoples whom geographical, linguistic, cultural, historical and other factors show are obviously related, might be shown to be unconnected when using too many trivial discriminating variables. Keita uses phenograms with different quantities of variables and emphasizes only those results verified by all approaches. The choice of variables is broad, and Keita makes few attempts at gauging the selective quality of each trait. Indeed, views like those expressed by Brace et al., (1993) e.g., that the elongation and elevation of the nose is related to the local rate of moisture in the air is inconsistent with a number of examples found throughout the world. For example, the native Australians, despite living in one of the driest regions of the world for tens of thousands of years, have one of the broadest noses of any peoples. However, Keita generally avoids excessive focus on nasal measurements and simply chooses a wide range of cranial traits, while avoiding excessive discrimination. However, the traits selected do include many widely thought to be determined mostly by genetic factors. The choice of series that are specific in both temporal and geographic ranges is also an important advantage. The pooling together of north and south Egyptian crania over time ranges as wide as "Predynastic," "Dynastic," etc., is avoided. This allows the identification of specific populations of different times and locations that might be physically quite different from each other.
Keita's use of Multiple Discriminant Functions II & III in his phenograms (Keita, 1988, 1993) help demonstrate that the basic population might have been different than that shown by the highly discriminant Function I. In analyzing the First Dynasty royal tomb remains, unknown analysis is used comparing the crania with other known series. This is one of the best approaches to the problem and supports the theory of Keita, Hassan (1988) and others tha in the early dynastic period,the dominant South had engaged in political marriages with nobility from northern Egypt to consolidate their control of the region. Unknown analysis compares individual crania in a series with other known series, rather than using the whole series as a type. With this approach, Keita found that 57% of the First Dynasty Abydos royal tomb crania had affinities with Nubian and Sudanese populations.
None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt. Both Keita (1993) and Hassan (1988) have suggested that Saharan elements played a role in the modification of Badari and early Nakada types during the late Nakada period. These Saharan elements cannot be identified simply as "Caucasoid" though. Keita and Hassan see them as indigenous African variants among whom gene flow from outside Africa played only a minimal role. Keita classes these Saharans with northern Egyptians and calls them "northern coastal" types. These were by no means homogenous.
The late Nakada series preceding the formation of Dynastic Egypt was closest to the Nubian series at Kerma. Starting with the first dynasty, a trend toward hybridization of southern and northern types began, but with occasional anomalies. For example, the Third Dynasty and the Old Kingdom Giza remains are primarily of "Southern" affinity (Keita, 1992, 1993).
Again, the northern coastal types are indigenous African variants according to the available evidence. That they were not exactly the same as the modern coastal inhabitants could be explained by migration that occured after the breakdown of local sovereignty following invasions from West Asia and Europe. Most important was the Muslim period that brought some 2 million immigrants, mostly from the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean. In fact, in modern Cairo today, a substantial portion of the population are Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Turks, etc., of fairly recent arrival into the region.
According to Keita (1990) and Livingstone (1967), the Haratin are among the major descendants of the original Saharans. Close similarity in ABO serology between modern Haratin populations and those of ancient Egyptians. These Haratin are considered to be "Negroid" in physical type (Livingstone, 1967). Other serological tests have shown close affinity of certain Berber-speaking groups with tropical Africans in the high rates of cDe, P and V, and low Fy^a antigens(Keita 1990, Mourant et al., 1976, Chamla, 1980). They also group close with West Africans in the high incidence of HbC, HbS and the sickle cell condition (Livingstone, 1967).
However, in terms of phenotype and culture, the Southern Egyptians and Nubians are most closely related to Nile River peoples in the Sudan and to other peoples in adjacent regions. These peoples are, in turn, a blending of the same Saharan type with the type found in the Badari and early Nakada cultures that would fit into the so called "authentic African" typology. However, Keita (1993) rightly rejects such an idea of the authentic African, and similar terms like "Forest Negro," "True Negro," etc. He notes that the rejection of relationship between types not both meeting the "True Negro" standard, would be as invalid as rejecting relationships between Europeans who were non-Nordic, or for that matter, who were not of a type resembling W.C. Fields or Jimmy Durante. Indeed, the suggestion by Brace et al., of genetic relationships between Nordics, Somalis and Asian Indians, based primarily on nasal factors is the height of bad anthropology, and this work belongs to the 1990's rather than the beginning of the 20th century.
The very fact that narrow noses can be found over practically the entire globe among large populations who are highly variant in other ways should suggest that this is not a good choice for a genetic trait. However, early hyperdiffusionists saw it in a different light; one in which quite fantastic racial claims of a "white" origin for all civilization could be made. As mentioned before, blondism and light eye color are far more restricted in numbers and geography and would appear to be more genetically discriminant than nose structure. However, as this would be anti-hyperdiffusionist (in the "Caucasoid culture-bearer" sense) these traits were brushed aside.
So, while the Badari and early Nakada were clearly Africoid in character, even the neolithic Saharan element that came to cast more and more influence on Southern Egypt could also be characterized as African variants. In fact, in most cases, these hetergenous peoples were strongly "Negroid." (Gabel 1966, Keita 1993).
In concluding, we can illustrate the problem in this way using the old three race theory still commonly used by geneticists and forensic anthropologists:
Let A = Africoid, C = Caucasoid, M = Mongoloid; and the monotypic trait types so that in pure form:
A = A monotypic traits
M = M monotypic traits
C = C monotypic traits;
In addition, there are variants to the above traits that are similar to the monotype yet significantly different. Lets label these types:
A2, A3, A4 types,
M2, M3, M4 types,
C2, C3, C4 types;
And also there are variants that don't quite fit any of these patterns (at least not from the non-Eurocentric perspective) such as many South Asians, Australians, etc. For the sake of convenience lets say there are four such types (there are probably more):
D type,
E type,
F type,
G type;
Now, we will take the Eurocentric position and classify all types into the original three monotypic groups:
A does not = A2, A3, A4, M, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types
M does not = A, A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types
However,
C = A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, C4, D, E, F and G types
Armed with such a contrived system, the Eurocentric, hyperdiffusionists can argue just about anything they please without regard to the true facts.
How reliable is Keita?
[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 22 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html
How reliable is Keita?[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 22 December 2004).]
How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted? You know Brace also believes that modern humans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA in their genepool aalthough this isn't supported by genetics, time and time again. Keita is reliable, even Mary Leftowitz cited him as a source she is the biggest opponent to Afrocentrism.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
You know Brace also believes that modern humans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA in their genepool.
That I didn't know.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
[b]That I didn't know. [/B]
Correction, C.Loring Brace believes that modern Europeans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA, not ALL humans per se. That position is still false and refuted by genetics.
quote:
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html
How reliable is Keita?
Keita is probably the most universally respected bioanthropologist who deals with the AE skeletal remains.
Brace, as S. Mohammad has pointed out, clings to some views dogmatically in spite of the fact that they are directly contradicted by genetics and also refuted by other physical anthropologists.
Neanderthal have been found to have radically different DNA from ALL living human beings, so it is a bit stubborn minded to go on insisting that Europeans are descendant from them.
There is a reason, that Brace insists on this, it is out of ideological necessity, but that is beyound the scope of this post. lol.
Here is something relevant from Japan Times:
DNA evidence backs up 'out-of-Africa' human origin theory
Genetic research unveiled Thursday [may 2001] provides compelling support for the theory that anatomically modern humans rose out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and swept aside populations of prehistoric man, with no interbreeding.
A team of Chinese and American geneticists obtained blood samples from more than 12,000 men from across East Asia and examined characteristic DNA sequences called markers on the Y chromosome (the male chromosome).
The Y chromosome is considered one of the most powerful molecular tools for tracing human evolutionary history because it remains unchanged over eons when passed from father to son.
The researchers found that every one of the men could trace his ancestry to forefathers who lived in Africa over the past 35,000 to 89,000 years. They also found absolutely no genetic evidence that modern people, Homo sapiens, mated with archaic humans, Homo erectus, that already lived in Asia, having migrated from Africa about 1 million years ago.
The findings, appearing in the journal Science, appeared to confirm the so-called out-of-Africa theory that modern people originated in Africa about 100,000 years ago and then migrated outward, replacing Homo erectus around the globe.
"Our work not only provided the evidence that supports the out-of-Africa theory, but also showed that such a replacement is complete," human population geneticist Li Jin of Fudan University in Shanghai and the University of Texas in Houston, who led the study, said.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news255.htm
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?
Thought Writes:
We have to also realize that Brace does not deny that the Ancient Egyptians were African, he claims that they were East African and hence not True Negroids. However, we now know based upon genetic studies (which post-date Braces study) that the primary genetic baseline populations of ALL of Egypt is East African in source, with high frequincies of Central/West African haplotypes in Upper Egypt and high frequincies of Berber haplotypes in Lower Egypt. Later incursions (Greek/Roman and Arab) have altered this aboriginal pattern.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Unfortunately the racial and cultural origins and affinities of Trevor's Fernand Vaz series are shrouded in mystery, but two of the specimens are catalogued as Fang, and the rest can hardly have come from very far away. According to Seligman ('35, p. 182) the Fang are immigrants probably from somewhere a little west of the Congo-Nile watershed, and he is inclined to consider them as of partly Hamitic origin although now much modified by mixture following their arrival on the West African coast.......... The series described by Trevor was collected presumably between 30 and 50 years after the arrival of the Fang in the Gaboon, and so we may assume that it is a relatively unadulterated sample of the original immigrant type together with perhaps, a certain proportion of the type of the older and probably Bantu inhabitants of the region.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).][This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).][/B]
As an aside if this origin is true about the fang i would be curious if they were related to the Funj of sudan. The names sound quite similiar.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?
quote:That's funny, I was just writing about this in the Hawass thread. Brace is like an intellectual version of Hawass, and in my opinion capable of more harm.
Thought Writes:We have to also realize that Brace does not deny that the Ancient Egyptians were African, he claims that they were East African and hence not True Negroids. However, we now know based upon genetic studies (which post-date Braces study) that the primary genetic baseline populations of ALL of Egypt is East African in source, with high frequincies of Central/West African haplotypes in Upper Egypt and high frequincies of Berber haplotypes in Lower Egypt.
Hawass will say blatantly ridiculous things which are easily refuted by facts. Brace will envelope his racial biases in a cacoon of clines and clusters and challenge you to reveal the falsehood that lies within.
It takes time and patience to explain Braces fallacies. This made more difficult by the biased individuals who leap at Brace conclusions like a thirsty man in the desert pouncing upon a mirage.
Yes Brace admits that indigenous AE are skeletally most similar to elongated East African types - which consist of dozens of modern Black African ethnic groups containing 10's of millions of members. Yet Brace tries to cluster them 'out of Africa'.
Begging the rhetorical question exactly how many present day Black African peoples do the AE have to resemble in order to qualify as "True" Black Africans? At what point does one admit that a thing...is what it is, and stop trying to invent new labeling contructs that will make it into...something else?
Brace's biased views also contain deep internal contradictions but it requires and educated mind to detect them. They go over the head of the layperson.
For example how many people note the parodox involved in Brace's assessement of Herto man:
"The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.
Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.
That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.
Notwithstanding the dubious reasoning that Brace's 'battery' of cranial measurements dictate a genetic relationship...if Herto man is the ancestor of Ethiopians but not Europeans, and AE resemble most closly Ethiopians......then AE would be a kind of Ethiopoid, and highly distinct from Neanderthal/Caucasoid.
I'm sure that Brace recognizes and has devised rhetoric to the effect of 'clustering' his way out of the parodox, but most people don't even follow along well enough to recognize the paradox to begin with.
Brace wants Europeans to be a unique separate and special 'race' and he wants to pull AE into it, but the facts, genetic and skeletal, keep getting in the way.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?
quote:That's funny, I was just writing about this in the Hawass thread. Brace is like an intellectual version of Hawass, and in my opinion capable of more harm.
Thought Writes:We have to also realize that Brace does not deny that the Ancient Egyptians were African, he claims that they were East African and hence not True Negroids. However, we now know based upon genetic studies (which post-date Braces study) that the primary genetic baseline populations of ALL of Egypt is East African in source, with high frequincies of Central/West African haplotypes in Upper Egypt and high frequincies of Berber haplotypes in Lower Egypt.
Hawass will say blatantly ridiculous things which are easily refuted by facts. Brace will envelope his racial biases in a cacoon of clines and clusters and challenge you to reveal the falsehood that lies within.
It takes time and patience to explain Braces fallacies. This made more difficult by the biased individuals who leap at Brace conclusions like a thirsty man in the desert pouncing upon a mirage.
Yes Brace admits that indigenous AE are skeletally most similar to elongated East African types - which consist of dozens of modern Black African ethnic groups containing 10's of millions of members. Yet Brace tries to cluster them 'out of Africa'.
Begging the rhetorical question exactly how many present day Black African peoples do the AE have to resemble in order to qualify as "True" Black Africans? At what point does one admit that a thing...is what it is, and stop trying to invent new labeling contructs that will make it into...something else?
Brace's biased views also contain deep internal contradictions but it requires and educated mind to detect them. They go over the head of the layperson.
For example how many people note the parodox involved in Brace's assessement of Herto man:
"The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.
Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.
That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.
Notwithstanding the dubious reasoning that Brace's 'battery' of cranial measurements dictate a genetic relationship...if Herto man is the ancestor of Ethiopians but not Europeans, and AE resemble most closly Ethiopians......then AE would be a kind of Ethiopoid, and highly distinct from Neanderthal/Caucasoid.
I'm sure that Brace recognizes and has devised rhetoric to the effect of 'clustering' his way out of the parodox, but most people don't even follow along well enough to recognize the paradox to begin with.
Brace wants Europeans to be a unique separate and special 'race' and he wants to pull AE into it, but the facts, genetic and skeletal, keep getting in the way.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 December 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]
People forget that Brace#s sole purpose was to debunk so-called "Afrocentric" claims to Egypt. When he said Nubians weren't black a red flag should have went off. That guy is a charalatan.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
People forget that Brace#s sole purpose was to debunk so-called "Afrocentric" claims to Egypt. When he said Nubians weren't black a red flag should have went off. That guy is a charalatan.
Thought Writes:
Funny thing is Brace is a Liberal and Richard Poe is a conservative. In my opinion Liberal racism is much more dangerous and insidious.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Funny thing is Brace is a Liberal and Richard Poe is a conservative. In my opinion Liberal racism is much more dangerous and insidious.
I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.
Previously posted:
quote:
Keino wrote:When I use a word,
'Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I chose it to mean-nothing less and nothing more. - Lewis Carol.Marcus Garvey
January 16, 1923The New York World under date of January 15, 1923, published a statement of Drs. Clark Wissler and Franz Boaz (the latter a professor of anthropology at Columbia University), confirming the statement of the French that Moroccan and Algerian troops used in the invasion of Germany were not to be classified as Negroes, because they were not of that race. How the French and these gentlemen arrive at such a conclusion is marvelous to understand.
The—custom of these anthropologists is whenever a black man, whether he be Moroccan, Algerian, Senegalese or what not, accomplishes anything of importance, he is no longer a Negro. The question, therefore, suggests itself, "Who and what is a Negro?" The answer is, "A Negro is a person of dark complexion or race, who has not accomplished anything and to whom others are not obligated for any useful service." If the Moroccans and Algerians were not needed by France at this time to augment their occupation of Germany or to save the French nation from extinction, they would have been called Negroes as usual, but now that they have rendered themselves useful to the higher appreciation of France they are no longer members of the Negro race, but can be classified among a higher type as made out by the two professors above mentioned......
Let us not be flattered by white anthropologists and statesmen who, from time to time, because of our success here, there or anywhere, try to make out that we are no longer members of the Negro race. If we were Negroes when we were down under the heel of oppression then we will be Negroes when we are up and liberated from such thraldom.Professor George A. Kersnor, head of the Harvard—Boston expedition to the Egyptian Soudan, returned to America early in 1923 and, after de—scribing the genius of the Ethiopians and their high culture during the period of 750 B. C. to 350 A. D. in middle Africa, he declared the Ethiopians were not African Negroes. He described them as dark colored races ... showing a mixture of black blood. Imagine a dark colored man in middle Africa being anything else but a Negro. Some white men, whether they be professors or what not, certainly have a wide stretch of imagination.
If someone says he does not believe in race than he is not racist. Who are you to judge him.
A racist is a person who believes in craniometery and that pseudo-scientific stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.
Thought Writes:
It is of interest that many of the most Liberal areas of the USA (New York, California, etc.) have the highest concentrations of Mediterranean derived Europeans. In that regard it is interesting to note the disassociation of Mediterranean lands and people (Jews, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish, etc) from Africa. Perhaps there is a fear in some Liberal circles that the recent revelations from linguistics (Afro-Asiatic) and genetics (PN2 Clade) will hinder their long sought inclusion into Anglo-Saxon society. Recall that Hitler implied that Jews were essentially “Mulattos” and anyone watching the Godfather carefully understands that it is really about the Anglo-Saxonization of Italians.
Thought Writes:
There are no signs of fascism on this forum. In fact TROLLER are able to post here unabated.
{If someone says he does not believe in race than he is not racist. Who are you to judge him.}
Thought Writes:
David Duke at one time said he was not a racist. Most people realize that humans are capable of saying one thing, but having different intentions.
{A racist is a person who believes in craniometery and that pseudo-scientific stuff.}
Thought Writes:
You have use the term craniometery several times on this forum. Please define what this means?
quote:
Thought Writes:You have use the term craniometery several times on this forum. Please define what this means?
Craniometry is the measurement of cranial features in order to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
http://skepdic.com/cranial.html
Brain volume data and other craniometric data is used in mainstream science to compare modern-day animal species, and to analyze the evolution of the human species in archeology.
http://copernicus.subdomain.de/craniometry
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Craniometry is the measurement of cranial features in order to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
http://skepdic.com/cranial.htmlBrain volume data and other craniometric data is used in mainstream science to compare modern-day animal species, and to analyze the evolution of the human species in archeology.
http://copernicus.subdomain.de/craniometry
Thought Writes:
Thanks for defining your terms Orionix. Now you have stated that some (you never clearly stated WHO?) on this forum use Craniometry. Please give us a SPECIFIC example of someone on this form using Craniometry? Thanks in advance.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Thanks for defining your terms Orionix. Now you have stated that some (you never clearly stated WHO?) on this forum use Craniometry. Please give us a SPECIFIC example of someone on this form using Craniometry? Thanks in advance.
In the book Stoneage races of northwest Africa he is clearly using early biological anthropology (skull measurements and the classification of which into distinct human types). This is called scientific racism.
Please refer to the thread's original creator and don't demand more information for me on this subject. Thanks.
Edit: Except in the field of forensic anthropology i don't believe any respectful scientist is still using these old methods.
Early anthropology heavily relied on the concept of race which today is largely rejected in science.
In modern biological anthropology polymorphisms and other quantitative methods are used, including the comparative analysis of genetic codes.
Also the human genome analysis found out that all humans are almost identical genetically and blurred the picture for biological anthropologists who are not even the majority in anthropology.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 26 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Two questions:
1) Have you read this book?
2) Where are you getting your definition of Scientific Racism from? Racial classification systems in and of themselves have NEVER been deemed Scientific Racism? Racial classifications may be scientifically inaccurate, but this does not equate to Scientific Racism which relates to the concept of “The Essence“. It seems as though you are misappropriating terminology.
{Please refer to the thread's original creator and don't demand more information for me on this subject. Thanks.}
Thought Writes:
If you don’t want us to address your posts don’t place them on this forum. Only a TROLLER would make such a suggestion! If you have a point you believe in make it and expect people to challenge you on it if it is silly (like the misuse of the term Scientific Racism ).
{Also the human genome analysis found out that all humans are almost identical genetically and blurred the picture for biological anthropologists who are not even the majority in anthropology.}
Thought Writes:
I am uncertain what you are trying to state here?
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:Two questions:
1) Have you read this book?
No i've just seen parts of it posted by S. Mohammad and it looks old to me.
quote:
Thought:2) Where are you getting your definition of Scientific Racism from? Racial classification systems in and of themselves have NEVER been deemed Scientific Racism?
Was that a question or a statement?
Race
Cultural concept based on the popular but mistaken notion that human beings can be divided into biolgically distinct entities by means of particular physical features such as skin color, head shape, and other visible traits that are transmissible by descent. Genetic studies undertaken in the last decades confirm that human races do not exist in any biological sense.
Source: Britannica 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human%29]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human%29
quote:
Thought:Racial classifications may be scientifically inaccurate, but this does not equate to Scientific Racism which relates to the concept of “The Essence“. It seems as though you are misappropriating terminology.
Race is not scientific. What is scientific about race? Please post your sources.
quote:
Thought Writes:If you don’t want us to address your posts don’t place them on this forum.
Ok i won't. Thanks for the advice. I don't like this PC debates anyway.
I am uncertain what you are trying to state here?quote:
Thought Writes:
What are you so uncertain about?
Listen i don't care how you define scientific racism but the fact is that early anthropology was biased. Also the concept of human races is social.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 26 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
I never said that “Race” was science in a biological sense (although it is a reality in Social Science). My point is that you are CONFUSSING Taxonomy (Biological Anthropology) with Scientific Racism (Social Science).
{Listen i don't care how you define scientific racism}
Thought Writes:
If you don’t care, why are you addressing the issue as though you do care? Scientific Racism is based upon the attribution of different levels of value and worth on different groups assorted by taxonomy. Taxonomy is invalid because we now know that humans may look or not look like other humans, yet still share or not share in common genetic lineages.
He should read Stephen Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for a thoughtful critique of phrenology and scientific racism. Skeptic's dictionary, wikipedia, britannica isn't going to cut it.
S. Muhammad's post is insightful and helps clear up much misconception concerning concepts like CroMagnon and Capsian...but asking Orionix to understand is like asking an infant to run the 100 meter's when he is still learning to walk.
Nice try though Thought.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:Orionix is confusing craniometry with phrenology.
I'm not confusing anything. Craniometry is even older than cranioscopy. Cranioscopy is just a branch.
quote:
rasol:He should read Stephen Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for a thoughtful critique of phrenology and scientific racism. Skeptic's dictionary, wikipedia, britannica isn't going to cut it.
Stephen Gould did a good job in proving how cranioscopy is pseudo-science.
quote:
Thought:S. Muhammad's post is insightful and helps clear up much misconception concerning concepts like CroMagnon and Capsian...but asking Orionix to understand is like asking an infant to run the 100 meter's when he is still learning to walk.
Nice try though Thought.
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. This is tautology since race is social.
The first Cro-Magnons were found in southwestern France in 1868. They had replaced the Neanderthals (earlier humans). The term doesn't have much meaning.
The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html
When cranial measurements are used in order to prove someones race than it's also pseuedo-scientific. Race is social and has very little standing in modern biological anthropology.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. This is tautology since race is social.The first Cro-Magnons were found in southwestern France in 1868. They had replaced the Neanderthals (earlier humans). The term doesn't have much meaning.
The term 'Cro-Magnon' has [b]no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.htmlWhen cranial measurements are used in order to prove someones race than it's also pseuedo-scientific. Race is social and has very little standing in modern biological anthropology.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).][/B]
X4Dumbass, what don't you understand about what I posted? Craniometry itself isn't scientific rácism, but the use of craniometry to prove inferiority or superiority of races is scientific racism in the same way people attempt to use IQ tests as proof that some races are inherently superior or inferior. Thats what your thick skull fails to realize.
Craniometry can be used to prove biological affinities, but not race, since race is arbitrarily determined and is social. Thus using the craniometric information that I posted from that book, we can say that Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed strong biological affinites with sub-Saharan/East Africans and this is supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. So quit trolling about craniometry and race moron, you were the one calling Northwest Africans 'Caucasian Capsians'. STUPID ASS!
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:X4Dumbass, what don't you understand about what I posted? Craniometry itself isn't scientific racism, but the use of craniometry to prove inferiority or superiority of races is scientific racism in the same way people attempt to use IQ tests as proof that some races are inherently superior or inferior.
Mr. Toni Morello racism and racialism is the same if you didn't know that.
The belief that race exists in the biological world is racism in itself. The concept behind human races is offensive to the idea of human biodiversity and individualism.
quote:
S. Muhammad:Thats what your thick skull fails to realize.
What exactly do i fail to realize you clown?
quote:
S.Muhammad:Craniometry can be used to prove biological affinities, but not race, since race is arbitrarily determined and is social. Thus using the craniometric information that I posted from that book, we can say that Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed strong biological affinites with sub-Saharan/East Africans and this is supported by archaeological and genetic evidence.
Ok but sub-Saharan/east African doesn't mean black anyomore that European means white.
Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed biological affinities both with Europeans, Middle Easterns and sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:
S.Mohammad:So quit trolling about craniometry and race moron, you were the one calling Northwest Africans 'Caucasian Capsians'. STUPID ASS!
Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians you troll? I didn't write this.
The term Berber is cultural and
racially meaningless. So is the term Arab.
You should stop seeing everything through the racial lense all the time. You are annoying.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians. I didn't write this.
Orionix (aka Lyin-ix) wrote:
quote:
* Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times.* Most Berber's could pass for caucasians.
* Berber's are never Black.
* The native Amazigh of coastal NW Africa were probably white
Of course, catching you in a lie with a search feature is a bit like harpooning a goldfish. Why bother? Let the backtracking begin!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:Of course, catching you in a lie with a search feature is a bit like harpooning a goldfish. Why bother? Let the backtracking begin!
Yes but i'm not the one who started these racial debated. You were so this doesn't count.
I just asked about the Siwa who are Sahalian in cultural origin.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001029.html
Also how did you use the search function when it is not even working?
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Also how did you use the search function when it is not even working
quote:
rasol:Easy. I just looked up 'moron', and all your remarks turned up.
Actually you are the mentally challenged one who thinks Africa is synonomous with black (aka African = black). I am very familar with your fascistic style.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:What you should do, is familiarize yourself with your own prior remarks...then you wouldn't get caught lying about them so often.
I didn't lie about anything and if you think i did that is your problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Funny thing is Brace is a Liberal and Richard Poe is a conservative. In my opinion Liberal racism is much more dangerous and insidious.
The New York Times, which is considered a liberal news paper highly touted Leftkowitz's Not Out of Africa.
quote:
I didn't lie about anything
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]I didn't lie about anythingYou need help.
No you are the one.
I think you are the same person posting under different screen names all the time.
quote:The board moderators would know that I don't log on as different posters. You use paranoia to rationalise your penchant for lying,plagiarism and making a fool of yourself on public forums. Hence, your need to lie to yourself to the effect that I, Supercar, Ausar, S. Mohammad are all the same person..tormenting you, when it is really you who are tormenting yourself.
I think you are the same person posting under different screen names all the time.
Repeat, you should seek help.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:The board moderators would know that I don't log on as different posters.
They cannot not know this in anyway. But it would be interesting to have your IP checked (by the board administrator).
quote:
rasol:You use paranoia to rationalize your penchant for lying, plagiarism and making a fool of yourself on publich forums.
I don't usually post on public forums.
Listen dude i didn't lie about anything so get of my back.
quote:
rasol:Hence, your need to lie to yourself to the effect that I, Supercar, Ausar, S. Mohammad are all the same person tormenting you, when it is really you that are tormenting yourself.
Yes you could be the same attention straving person.
I know how this message board systems works. Anyone can log in with multiple screen names and no one will know.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
[B] Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians you troll? I didn't write this.The term Berber is cultural and
racially meaningless. So is the term Arab.
X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian and I proved your dumbass wring? It was in that same thread, so quit lying moron.
quote:
You should stop seeing everything through the racial lense all the time. You are annoying.
There was nothing racial, I was speaking about biological affinities, **** for brains.
quote:That won't help you in any way. Better you should have your head examined. What a nutcase you are.
But it would be interesting to have your IP checked.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:That won't help you in any way. Better you should have your head examined. What a nutcase you are.
Yes it will help me very much because i will know your IP. You're a freak mutcase
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian
Blackman wrote:
quote:
Hehehehe,
Orionix just pours on his comical show and confuses himself by lying to himsef.
....and on it goes.
quote:
The New York Times, which is considered a liberal news paper highly touted Leftkowitz's Not Out of Africa.
I have no clue why anyone would consider the New York Times a liberal paper. A look at the New York Times magazine -- particularly issues in the late '90s -- shows it to be pretty right-wing. (I stopped reading it -- or at least paying money to read it -- in the late 90s...)
The NYT magazine pushed The Bell Curve *hard* -- charles murray on the cover, plus mentions of the book's ideas in quite a few subsequent issues.
The American "liberal media" (which the right is always harping on) is a myth.
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
S. Mohammad:X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian and I proved your dumbass wring? It was in that same thread, so quit lying moron.
There is no evidence that the Upper Kenya Capsian has any relationship to the North African Capsian of southern Tunisia.
In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda there were earlier cultural phrases such as the Kafuan and Oldowan.
There is no evidence for any relationship.
quote:
S.Mohammad:There was nothing racial, I was speaking about biological affinities, **** for brains.
Northwest Africans show clinal degrees of biological affinities with Europeans, Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans Why the hell is it so hard for you to grasp?
Also there is no certitude about the Haratin. Some say they are indigenous to the Saharan zone and other say they are the descendants of imported slaves.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Northwest Africans show clinal degrees of biological affinities with Europeans, Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans Why the hell is it so hard for you to grasp?
I know that and I never said all Mesolithic Northwest Africans are biologically akin to sub-Saharans, I only mentioned Types A and B. Learn to read what I post and quit knocking down cheap strawman arguments.
quote:
Also there is no certitude about the Haratin. Some say they are indigenous to the Saharan zone and other say they are the descendants of imported slaves.
Who mentioned anything about the Haratin? There is some certitude because Haratin are biologically the closest to ancient Egyptians on the basis of blood groups, so it isn't to far fetched
I never said the Kenyan Capsian and North African Capsian were the same. I said there was a such thing as the Kenyan Capsian(though it was wrongfully named). Don't words in my mouth.
quote:
In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda there were earlier cultural phrases such as the Kafuan and Oldowan. There is no evidence for any relationship.
Not that you have the foggiest clue about Capsian, since....when we first educated you on the Kenyan Capsian you repeatedly denied that it even existed.
Your 'non-racial' racial agenda was to somehow 'prove' the 'causasian' basis of Capsian, which you failed to do then, and are pitiably reduced to denying even having tried to do now.
And...actually yes, there are some scholars who link Paleolithic Black Africans of the Maghreb to those of other parts of Africa including Kenya...both in terms of anatomy and culture. But how would you know? After all, according to Lyin-ix and I quote:
quote:
There is no such thing as a Kenyan Capsian
Now, havin given up on that stupidity, he want's to 'debate' its nature, and in so doing have us further 'supply' him with information.
But the problem for Lyin-ix is that he does not seek knowledge, but rather seeks ignorance. Information for him is only a means to a perverse ends. So, I will continue to laugh at you, and certainly will provide you with no further information.
Lyin-ix should zip his fibbing mouth and listen to S. Mohammad, who is infinitely wiser than he:
S. Mohammad schools Lyin-ix with:
quote:....which makes the Capsian completely useless to Lyin-ix goal of acheiving the holy grail of pure blissfull ignorance, via the white race fantasy (non racial, of course
Capsian refers to a tool industry, NOT a group of early white North Africans.
) of the MYTHICAL "native caucasoids of north africa".[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
S.Mohammad:I know that and I never said all Mesolithic Northwest Africans are biologically akin to sub-Saharans, I only mentioned Types A and B. Learn to read what I post and quit knocking down cheap strawman arguments.
Do you really believe that there are only 4 distinct types of northwest African faces?
There is something flawed with your theory. I think these are rough generalisations and there is much more variation.
quote:
S.Mohammad:Who mentioned anything about the Haratin? There is some certitude because Haratin are biologically the closest to ancient Egyptians on the basis of blood groups, so it isn't to far fetched
Yes but there is great overlapping in blood groups between populatons. The distribution is mostly individual. E.g a Swede and an Kenyan may share the same blood group.
quote:
S.Muhammad:I never said the Kenyan Capsian and North African Capsian were the same. I said there was a such thing as the Kenyan Capsian(though it was wrongfully named). Don't words in my mouth.
The modern name is Eburran. The industry was found in a small area near lake Nakuru.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
rasol:Not that you have the foggiest clue about Capsian, since.... when we first educated you on the Kenyan Capsian you repeatedly denied that it even existed.
There is no evidence for any relationship between the Eburran culture of Kenya and the Gafsan culture of Tunisia.
quote:
rasol:Your 'non-racial' racial agenda was to somehow 'prove' the 'causasian' basis of Capsian, which you failed to do then, and are pitiably reduced to denying even having tried to do now.
I have no agenda but when i would have it will be more reliable than yours that is for sure.
quote:
rasol:And...actually yes, there are some scholars who link Paleolithic Black Africans of the Maghreb to those of other parts of Africa including Kenya...both in terms of anatomy and culture.
I know there are but they don't have any scientific basis for their claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
There is no evidence for any relationship between the Eburran culture of Kenya and the Gafsan culture of Tunisia.
Thought Posts:
The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004
"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."
"The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of afroasiatic, placing the porot-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
quote:
I have no agenda but when i would have it will be more reliable than yours that is for sure
I am sure we can all continue to rely on Lyin-ix for plagiarisations, backtracking, far fetched claims, vulgarity and lies. In other words...laughs-o-plenty.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. [This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?
Because race is SOCIAL.
Also if a Caucasian race does not exist than a black race does not exist either. Otherwise you're a two trick pony.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no..]
quote:
Thought Writes:
Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?
No-no is a highly technical term Thought, you can look it up in wikipedia.... didn't you know-know that?
quote:
Thought Posts:The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."
"The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of afroasiatic, placing the porot-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
Do you have access to the full study?
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:Please tell us SPECIFICALLY why the term "Black", in and of itself is a scientific "no-no"?
quote:Black is a phenotypical feature which like 'blonde', or prognathous, or aqualine, or mesomorphic, or diminuative....exists, regardless of what one thinks about race.
Because race is SOCIAL.
You confuse all things: craniometry and phrenology; race and racism; Capsian and Caucasian; Black and race.
quote:If A ! = C then therefore B! = C. Broken logic.
Also if a Caucasian race does not exist than a black race does not exist either.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Thought Posts:The Origins Of Afroasiatic
Chrsitopher Ehret, S.O.Y. Keita, Paul Newman
Science
Letters Section
Vol 306
December 3, 2004"A critical reading of genetic data analysis, specifically those of Y Chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving FROM the Horn or Southeastern Sahara NORTHWARD to the Nile Valley, NORTHWEST AFRICA, the Levant, and Aegean. The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages."
"The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of afroasiatic, placing the porot-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
The idea of the stone age whites of NorthWest Africa origins of Berber is shown to be a holdover from pre molecular genetics era anthropology and outdated semito-hamitic linguistics. Modern linguistics and genetics have decimated this notion.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Because race is SOCIAL.Also if a Caucasian race does not exist than a black race does not exist either. Otherwise you're a two trick pony.
X4Dumbass, biological affinity, NOT race is whats really being discussed. Racial terms like Black, white, Negroid, and Caucasoid are arbitrary, but biological affinities outweighs all of this.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
rasol:Black is a phenotypical feature which like 'blonde', or prognathous, or aqualine, or mesomorphic, or diminuative....exists, regardless of what one thinks about race.
We had discussed this already. Black is a social and cultural category.
I think that only in the USA blacks means predominantly African descended and white means predominantly European descended.
quote:
rasol:You confuse all things: craniometry and phrenology; race and racism; Capsian and Caucasian; Black and race.
Phrenology is a branch of craniometry and race goes with racism. Everything is true except Capsian and Caucaians.
quote:
rasol:If A ! = C then therefore B! = C. Broken logic.
According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist. Broken logic.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist. Broken logic.
Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used(erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.
quote:That's your jibberish not mine, as I do not speak of black or white races. So...more broken logic from you.
According to you Caucasian is meaningless and rejected but black African is still valid. Only the white race does not exist.
As for for the erstwhile caucasianists...they nonsensically speak of 'black caucasians' who are neither
white, nor european, nor asian nor descendant from peoples of the caucacus mountains, so you aren't describing their nonsense correctly either, but merely piling yours on top of it.
That is why the concept of Caucasian is dieing. It is simply, a far fetched notion stretched to the breaking point and now forced to backtrack in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is the hyperdiffusionist Eurocentrists who have overreached with their concept of Caucasian and so rendered the term little more than oxymoron, that continues on today more out of zombie/inertia....much like you are in this thread.
And that is why your prior argument about the caucasian caveman origins of Berber was such a fallacious disaster, as S. Mohammad's parent post succenctly shows, and you cannot dispute in the least...for all your ill informed ranting.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:X4Dumbass, biological affinity, NOT race is whats really being discussed. Racial terms like Black, white, Negroid, and Caucasoid are arbitrary, but biological affinities outweighs all of this.
In the book you posted the author makes the same mistake.
He is trying to divide northwestern Africans according to 4 facial types (Type A, Type B, Type C and Type D). Also why do you think the book was called Stone Age races of Northwest Africa
This is exactly what the concept of biological racial taxonomy is all about: generalization.
Basically there could be 10,000 (just throwing a number) recognisable northwest African faces but the author chose only four for his own purpose
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Basically there could be 10,000 (just throwing a number) recognisable northwest African faces but the author chose only four
All clustering is based ultimately on generalisation. You supported the notion of clustering as long as you thought you could cluster NorthWest Africans with Europeans; now when the results expose the fallacious nature of your preferred caucasoid delusions....you reject the methodology; classic example of bias.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:Truth. And Polynesian, and Native Australian, and Chinese, and Native American and Zulu, and....
Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used(erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:All clustering is based ultimately on generalisation. You supported the notion of clustering as long as you thought you could cluster NorthWest Africans with Europeans;
The clustering of populations by geography is supported in molecular genetics but the human genome project analysing thousands of DNA polymorphisms found out that the biological variations are 85-90% individual.
quote:
rasol:now that the results expose the fallacious nature of your preferred caucasoid delusions....you reject the methodology; classic example of bias.
What preferred caucasoid delusions are you talking about?
You are the kind who sees the world in terms of black and white. I think it's quite sad actually.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:Caucasian wasn't just used to identify the white race, its also used (erroneously) for North Africans and South Indians along with Middle eastern people.
Caucasian means white race. I believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes.
quote:As always you miss the point. The clusters and clines are susceptible to the choices made in terms of populations sampled, and geographic conception. This is true whether analyzing phenotype or genotype. No I don't expect you to comprehend and would in fact be shocked if you did.
The clustering of populations by geography is supported in molecular genetics but the human genome project (analysing thousands of DNA polymorphisms found out that the biological variations are 85-90% individual.
quote:Keep backtracking...watch out for that cliff behind you.
What caucasoid delusions are you talking about
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:Truth. And Polynesian, and Native Australian, and Chinese, and Native American and Zulu, and....
No the term Caucasoid (white) was used for Europe (first place; except the Finns and Laps), the Middle East and the predominant part of North Africa. The rest were not considered Caucasoid.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
[b] Do you have access to the full study?
Thought Writes:
Yes, but not in electronic format. Please refer to the seperate thread I have created for this Letter and Response. Thanks.
quote:In fact, yes they were and by some of the most prominent [wst] anthropologists I might add.
Originally posted by Orionix:
No the term Caucasoid (white) was used for Europe (first place; except the Finns and Laps), the Middle East and the predominant part of North Africa. The rest were not considered Caucasoid.
And no, I won't supply you with more information. Your tactic of begging by way of belligerent ignorance has limited charms as far as i'm concerned.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]
Thought Writes:
I have never stated that the terms Black OR White equate with a racial paradigm. Where is this coming from?
{I think that only in the USA blacks means predominantly African descended and white means predominantly European descended.}
Thought Writes:
If you recognize the fact that Americans use the term Black as an equivalent to indigenous African what are really challenging? Are you saying there is no such thing as indigenous African?
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Caucasian means white race. I believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes.
Thought Writes:
Why do you believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes?
quote:
Thought Writes:I have never stated that the terms Black OR White equate with a racial paradigm. Where is this coming from?
Projection. It is EXACTLY what Lyin-ix does. So he assumes that everyone else's discourse is a mirror image of his own.
quote:
Thought:If you recognize the fact that Americans use the term Black as an equivalent to indigenous African what are really challenging? Are you saying there is no such thing as indigenous African?
According to the American definitions indigenous African means black and indigenous European means white.
But i don't care about the American definitions. Each nation or culture have their own.
quote:
Thought Writes:Why do you believe the term should have referred to Europeans and Anatolians for all its purposes?
Because geographically they are relatively close to eachother.
If race had any use at all in the biological sciences is to distinguish between geographic groups of people.
Thought Writes:
Ok, but your point was that “Black” was somehow a racial term. Please provide evidence to support these two seemingly contradictory positions?
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Because geographically they are relatively close to eachother.If race had any use at all in the biological sciences is to distinguish between geographic groups of people.
Thought Writes:
How would geography isolate enlighten us on the lineages and origins of living and ancient Europeans?
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Do you really believe that there are only 4 distinct types of northwest African faces?[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]
The beautiful thing about Briggs works is that beside its
unquestionable academic merit he spent time among his subject.
Field work outside the ivory tower is how one become an
athoritative specialist.
In a broadside, not under discussion, Briggs does us the
inestimable favor of including 157 photographs with clear view
of the faces of The Living Races Of The Sahara Desert.
[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 27 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:Thought Writes:
Ok, but your point was that “Black” was somehow a racial term. Please provide evidence to support these two seemingly contradictory positions?
My point was that if black is a social pile for indigenous African than white is indigenous European.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
[b] My point was that if black is a social pile for indigenous African than white is indigenous European.
Thought Writes:
Ok?
Berbers live throughout North Africa, but nowhere has denial of their identity been more systematic than in Morocco, ethnically the most Berber of the regions countries.
Although 60 percent of the its population claim Berber descent and nearly 40 percent speak 1 of 3 Berber languages, Morocco's constitution delcares the country part of "Arab" North Africa, and makes no mention of the Berber.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 December 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
From January National Geographic:Berbers live throughout North Africa, but nowhere has denial of their identity been more systematic than in Morocco, ethnically the most Berber of the regions countries.
Although 60 percent of the its population claim Berber descent and nearly 40 percent speak 1 of 3 Berber languages, Morocco's constitution delcares the country part of "Arab" North Africa, and makes no mention of the Berber.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 December 2004).]
The Maghreb is plagued with unrest as its people grapple with
their identity crisis split between Imazighen, Berber, and Arab
stirrings.
Whats interesting is I find elements among the "Arab" camp who
recognize Maghrebi connections with the rest of Africa whereas
Amazigh activists have a tendency to deny any relationship to
Sahara Sudanese culture or lineage.
If they can let go of outdated European conceptions of their identity and embrace the reality of distinct and related 'Africaness', they may discover a more beautiful and powerful concept of self awareness than the dubious honorary 'Europoid' identity given them by the west.
ok, so i've actually been following this thread--all 3 pages (mostly)--and i have a question to ask you all. this may not seem important to you, depending on where you live, but it is actually an issue i need to deal with. well, i don't need to deal w/it--i already have--but i fear that there are otehrs around me who have yet to deal w/it and i would like to know what your perceptions are based on your knowledge on this topic:
as a modern-day egyptian, would i be considered "african-american" or of african origin?
i already have an idea from some around me, and based on my very limited knowledge, i get the impression that studies on modern-day egyptians shows that they are closely related to ancient egyptians; but was wondering what you all thought about it.
[[me personally? i have come to the conclusion--and i accept it w/o hesitation--that i am of african descent/african origin; i have no qualms w/this, but i just don't "look" the part. my sister looks more mulatto, but i'm wondering about me.]]
thanx!! in advance.
quote:
shereens:
hi, there, and happy belated new year!ok, so i've actually been following this thread--all 3 pages (mostly)--and i have a question to ask you all. this may not seem important to you, depending on where you live, but it is actually an issue i need to deal with. well, i don't need to deal w/it--i already have--but i fear that there are otehrs around me who have yet to deal w/it and i would like to know what your perceptions are based on your knowledge on this topic:
as a modern-day egyptian, would i be considered "african-american" or of african origin?
i already have an idea from some around me, and based on my very limited knowledge, i get the impression that studies on modern-day egyptians shows that they are closely related to ancient egyptians; but was wondering what you all thought about it.
[[me personally? i have come to the conclusion--and i accept it w/o hesitation--that i am of african descent/african origin; i have no qualms w/this, but i just don't "look" the part. my sister looks more mulatto, but i'm wondering about me.]]
thanx!! in advance.
Shereens, do you have a photo of yourself. Seriously, that would immediately determine the answer to your question, as far as those who haven't seen you in person, are concerned. Remember that Egypt has had a long history, with many foreign invasions over they years. So definitely, Egypt's population had changed over time, from ancient times to recent.
Other Africans who migrated to the USA of their own free will
are best described as Egyptian American, Senegalese American, etc.
See the following:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm
Modern Egyptians are closely related to the ancient Egyptians,but there has been admixture from the Middle Kingdom period down to the Greco-Roman period. The muslim population has slight admixture from Turks,and the Christian population have mixed slightly to heavily with Syrian and Greek populations.
Still in many regions of Egypt we have retained a good portion of our culture intact despite various invasions by various foreigners.
quote:
I think African American describes those whose ancestors experienced
the middle passage.Other Africans who migrated to the USA of their own free will
are best described as Egyptian American, Senegalese American, etc
I agree with this.
#2. i guess after writing my post, i realize my question is probably more political than not. this issue means nothing to me, really, except when it comes to checking that minority box and if i'm eligible for certain programs.
in the u.s., there is the "one-drop rule": if a person has one drop of negro/african in them, then they are considered black. there are folks who are half black/half white, but do not look african who are still considered african-american. others have two very black african parents, but b/c somewhere up the line they had one white ancestor, they then happen to exhibit the european features very much; yet they are black/african-american. i know for a fact that other black africans consider me to be african-american as well.
yes, it's true that u.s. society is trying to level the playing field for those africans who were viciously discriminated against institutionally; however, even modern-day africans who migrate freely to the u.s. are still considered "african-american". there are no separate nationalities listed, unless you are talking about far east asians (then that group gets broken down further into vietnamese, filipino, etc).
even modern-day latinos/hispanics, no matter from what social class, who travel from south america or central america to the u.s. are eligible as "latinos/hispanics".
that is my real question...
ultimately, i have always considered myself to be a "mutt", and proud of it (i do get the sense, though, that arabic-speaking middle-easterners have a more difficult time thinking of egypt as african...)
--s--
Thought Writes:
How does a mulatto look?
{in the u.s., there is the "one-drop rule"}
Thought Writes:
A rule is a law. All laws have some authority behind them. Who enforces the so-called “One-Drop Law”? And if you say SOCIETY please tell us specifically HOW society enforces this law?
{if a person has one drop of negro/african in them}
Thought Writes:
How does one have a drop of Negro in them? And aren’t all human genes subsets of African genes anyway?
{there are folks who are half black/half white, but do not look African}
Thought Writes:
My understanding of the principles of physics is that two things can’t exist at the same place, at the same time, without one thing being dominant and the other thing recessive. Furthermore how would you know that these folks are actually HALF Black and HALF white? How does the TYPICAL African LOOK?
{i have always considered myself to be a "mutt”}
Isn’t the term “mutt” short for Muttonhead, which is a dog? African HUMANS have a much nobler heritage!
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Isn’t the term “mutt” short for Muttonhead, which is a dog? African HUMANS have a much nobler heritage!
mutt (DOG)
noun MAINLY US
(UK) a mongrel
mongrel (DOG)
noun (US INFORMAL ALSO mutt) MAINLY DISAPPROVING
a dog whose parents are of different breeds
mutt (PERSON)
noun MAINLY US INFORMAL
a person who behaves in a silly or careless way
Either way Shereen, I don't think you really mean to call yourself a "mutt". However I do understand that you are trying to explain your mixed ancestry and how you fit into the US system (also Western system) of racial classification. I would imagine this is a problem for many modern Egyptians as well as some other folks of mixed racial ancestry. Having met a few (modern day Egyptians)I couldn't say for sure which box they should check!At the end of the day I believe the decision is a personal one.
quote:
Thought Writes:How does one have a drop of Negro in them? And aren’t all human genes subsets of African genes anyway?
[/B]
So much harm has been done effecting the way African people see themselves thru the eyes and mindset of others, who often have had ill intent towards us.
That's one of the reasons that there is much value in studying the ancient African cultures Nile Valley and other(s). History is especially important to African people.
Sight Writes:
I to agree that how one chooses to classify ones self is indeed personal. But in keeping with the topic of this forum, which is Ancient Egypt, one has to look at the issue within the context of Egyptology and hence biological anthropology. Within the realm of science and biological anthropology almost ALL humans on earth are “mixed”. So when we study the modern Egyptian population as a tool to ascertain the origins of Ancient Egyptians we should study these origins NOT within the framework of a absolutist paradigm, but within a more careful and fluid context. The question is really a matter of PRIMARY origins, not simply admixture.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Sight Writes:I to agree that how one chooses to classify ones self is indeed personal. But in keeping with the topic of this forum, which is Ancient Egypt, one has to look at the issue within the context of Egyptology and hence biological anthropology. Within the realm of science and biological anthropology almost ALL humans on earth are “mixed”. So when we study the modern Egyptian population as a tool to ascertain the origins of Ancient Egyptians we should study these origins NOT within the framework of a absolutist paradigm, but within a more careful and fluid context. The question is really a matter of PRIMARY origins, not simply admixture.
To reiterate my point and in keeping with the topic of this forum "Ancient Egypt", most people I think can establish that it was an African civilization; I personally accept that. However Shereen's question poses a dilemma which is faced by modern day Egyptians (some of different "PRIMARY origins"). Indeed I see what you mean by the "absolutist paradigm" but how do we practically establish somebody's "PRIMARY origin" in a country with a history like modern day Egypt? By phenotype? Or DNA tests perhaps? For example, if my DNA says am 1/2 African, 1/4 Greek and 1/4 Jewish, of these 3 which is PRIMARY? Do I pick that which is more predominant (whether or not I look typical of one of the above peoples or even feel connected to them culturally i.e "fit in")?I can understand the dilemma. No wonder we have some new categories like "Cablinasian" apparently. Maybe that's the way to go, break the paradigm!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Shereens,The U.S. government has already solved your problem.
ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.
The Definition for Caucasians in the U.S. is anyone whose ancestors came from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle-East.
The majority of Modern Day Egyptians, look Caucasian, with a slight Admixture of other racial types. Even the Nubians, are not all Dark skinned as some would have you think!!
The term African American, can not be used by people from Egypt or other North African Natives, becasue here in the U.S., the Blacks, have hijacked the Term for themselves only.
Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.
As a matter of fact, if you attempt to label yourself as such, African=American on Government Forms, your choice will be deleted and changed to Caucasian.
The U.S. government is not stupid, they knew quite well what they're doing.
Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, and Other Non-Europeans are also Caucasians, and not only just the people in Europe.
By the way, there is no such thing as a European Continent, it is called Eurasia, one big land mass, that holds very white people, as well as very dark people, such as the Dravidians in India.
The term African, does not mean Black.
It is only a Geographical Term, as as Eurasian is a Geographic term.There are people in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other European countries who are actually darker than some Egyptians, yet they're still Caucasians.
Shereens, the problem is not you, it is the Afrocentrics, who have been trying to hijack the Egyptian Culture and Civilization for Decades, but we must not let them steal our Heritage. They just can't find any other worthy African heritage to latch on to.
Be a proud Egyptian, because, we are alot better than all of them!!
.
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 11 January 2005).]
Thought Writes:
Troller!
quote:
ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.
lol that doesn't mean darn thing, it doesn't matter what you are classified as in the U.S. People will look at Egyptians as an Arabs thats all.
quote:
Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.
Actually I have to inform you that their are many African-Americans lighter than their Egyptian counterparts.
What I find strange about your above statement is that you desperately try to connect yourself with the "white" people (if I may say that). In the U.S no white person would ever see themselves as equals with Egyptians or anybody else.
quote:
Originally posted by efe_adodo:
Abaza, Actually I have to inform you that their are many African-Americans lighter than their Egyptian counterparts.What I find strange about your above statement is that you desperately try to connect yourself with the "white" people (if I may say that). In the U.S no white person would ever see themselves as equals with Egyptians or anybody else.
Thought Writes:
I think it is safe to say that modern Egyptians are HIGHLY variable. But to imply that one person is “mixed” and another is not flies in the face of the known genetic data. All humans are mixed, hence what is one REALLY getting at when they say “I am mixed”. Is that an attempt to distance ones self from something? Souther Europe is just as variable as Northern Africa, yet the typical Southern European agenda seems to be to create the myth of European homogeneity.
{ For example, if my DNA says am 1/2 African, 1/4 Greek and 1/4 Jewish, of these 3 which is PRIMARY?}
Thought Writes:
Given the fact that Jews and Greeks are known to have a substantial African genetic makeup I would say you were PRIMARILY African.
{Do I pick that which is more predominant (whether or not I look typical of one of the above peoples or even feel connected to them culturally i.e "fit in")?}
Sight Writes:
That is the point. We are attempting to move away from typological thinking and the racial construct. How one looks does not determine ones lineage.
{I can understand the dilemma. No wonder we have some new categories like "Cablinasian" apparently. Maybe that's the way to go, break the paradigm!}
Thought Writes:
In my mind that path only prolongs the racial paradigm by not addressing the fact that ALL humans are mixed and that even Northern Europeans have some recent African ancestry (by recent I mean Holocene era).
quote:
Originally posted by efe_adodo:
Actually I have to inform you that their are many African-Americans lighter than their Egyptian counterparts.
Thought Writes:
There are also many San people who are lighter than modern Egyptians.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
The U.S. government has already solved your problem.ALL EGYPTIANS ARE CLASSIFIED AS CAUCASIANS.
The Definition for Caucasians in the U.S. is anyone whose ancestors came from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle-East.
Of course this is what they are good at because they know YOUR ancestry better than yourself. A famous story is that one of Mostafa Hefny a Black Egyptian being classified as White and suing!
Look it up on the CNN website:
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/index.html
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
The term African American, can not be used by people from Egypt or other North African Natives, becasue here in the U.S., the Blacks, have hijacked the Term for themselves only.Therefore, if you call yourself African-American, people would think you're Black.
Which you assume she is NOT!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
As a matter of fact, if you attempt to label yourself as such, African=American on Government Forms, your choice will be deleted and changed to Caucasian.
There goes one of the most basic human right: self-identification.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
The U.S. government is not stupid, they knew quite well what they're doing.
Oh yes Abaza indeed Shereen is the one who is so stupid not to know what or who she is!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
By the way, there is no such thing as a European Continent, it is called Eurasia, one big land mass, that holds very white people, as well as very dark people, such as the Dravidians in India.
Oops Shereen! Watch out for this because if you do call yourself "Caucasian" you might be mistaken for a "very dark" Dravidian!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
The term African, does not mean Black.
It is only a Geographical Term, as as Eurasian is a Geographic term.
True the term African derives from the geographical region called Africa just as the term Caucasian derives from region called the Caucasus! And your point is?
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
There are people in Italy, Spain, Greece, and other European countries who are actually darker than some Egyptians, yet they're still Caucasians.
In this case all people lighter than Southern Europeans can and should call themselves Caucasians! Including of course some Chinese, Japanese and lets not forget the Mongolians!
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Shereens, the problem is not you, it is the Afrocentrics, who have been trying to hijack the Egyptian Culture and Civilization for Decades, but we must not let them steal our Heritage. They just can't find any other worthy African heritage to latch on to.
At last you have spoken the truth! Shereen is NOT the problem here but it is clear that you want to force her to identify herself by your wishes. You are the problem here! You are trying to tell her who and what she is/should be. More and more we see these cheap tactics. There is no need to "hijack" a culture that was "hijacked" a long time ago. You only need to un-"hijack" it!
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:
ABAZA:
Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, and Other Non-Europeans are also Caucasians, and not only just the people in Europe.[/B]
Simple questions for Abaza :
How are Egyptians and North Africans caucasians? What are Caucasians? Are you a Caucasian?
If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
Thought Writes:
You can't reason with a troller. Remember, Abaza was the one who aid Europeans ALLWAYS lived in Egypt. ALLWAYS is a long time and implies that Europeans lived in Egypt before homosapiens migrated out of Africa!
quote:This is a very important and subtle idea. The new school of racism in western anthropological study is called the 'no race' school. They are very fond of the concept of mixed-mulatto races, no race and non-racial...as long as it applies to 'other peoples'.
I think it is safe to say that modern Egyptians are HIGHLY variable. But to imply that one person is “mixed” and another is not flies in the face of the known genetic data.
You are not supposed to grasp the concept that mixed race also implies 'pure' races. Without implicit 'pure' races there is nothing to mix. As in chemistry...compound mixtures imply 'elements', whether explicitly defined or not. And whom do you suppose is the implied 'elemental'? ? ?
Paraphrasing Bishop Tutu - they said let us pray together, we closed our eyes, and when we opened them, we had the Bible, but they had the land. This also applies to the wst scholarship's no race school of racism. How many of us will fall for this latest swindle??
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You are not supposed to grasp the concept that mixed race also implies 'pure' races. Without implicit 'pure' races there is nothing to mix.
Well put!
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:In my mind that path only prolongs the racial paradigm by not addressing the fact that ALL humans are mixed and that even Northern Europeans have some recent African ancestry (by recent I mean Holocene era).
I see more clearly what you meant and agree!
The whole classification system in America is largely a biproduct of the Eugenic movement in early American soceity. Southern Europeans in certain literature were actually seen as mullatoes or mixed with non-white people. After all the years the Southern Europeans sued to finally be classified as white,and thus everything south of the Mediterranean regions like Northern Africa was placed into that classification.
What Abaza does not know is that clearly multi-ethnic populations like Dominicans,Puerto Ricans,and others were at one time classified as Caucasian. The same is true for Mexicans who immigrate to America. American racial classification system can hardly be taken as any science. It shifts depending upon whatever political paradigm.
An Egyptian scholar named Soheir Morsy wrote a article entitledMorsy, Soheir A. "Beyond the Honorary `White' Classification of Egyptians:
Societal Identity in Historical Context" in Gregory, Steven and Sanjek,
Roger, RACE (Rutgers University Press, 1994).
http://www.italnet.nd.edu/gramsci/resources/online_articles/articles/gran01.shtml
For the tendency of the new Egyptian immigrants to prefer Whites to Blacks, Soheir A. Morsy, ?Beyond the Honorary `White? Classification of Egyptians: Societal Identity in Historical Context,? ibid., 175-198; for the overview on Indians in America, Joan M- Jensen, Passage From India: Asian Indian Immigrants in North America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
What Abaza does not know is that clearly multi-ethnic populations like Dominicans,Puerto Ricans,and others were at one time classified as Caucasian. The same is true for Mexicans who immigrate to America. American racial classification system can hardly be taken as any science. It shifts depending upon whatever political paradigm.
In order to fully understand the shifting nature of the US racial classification system, have a look at this webpage. It's actually a three-part article on the history of US immigration law and is a slightly cumbersome read but at the end you get a clear picture.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html
Caucasian is just a label of convenience and way to group people who share similar features and phenotypes.
Negroid (Black)is also a label of convenience that groups similar people of similar features together.
The same can be said of the Monogloid or Asian (Yellow) race of people.
There are probably as many differences within each racial group as there are between the groups themselves.
The problem is that these definitions are sometimes quite vauge and often face problems with people who don't fit easily into one racial group or another, such as the Egyptians, Arabs, North Africans, Afghanis, Iranians, Indians, Latin Americans, and Others.
Then the question becomes, where should all these people be classified into our system of five main racial divisions.
One could easily creates tens of different racial groups, but that would not be very convenient or constructive.
What the scientific community turned to, was the law of proximity, which meant how close each of these people were to the other main catergories, such as Caucasian, Negroid, and Monogloid, etc.
By looking at people from the Middle East, for example, the dominant facial features appear to be caucasian-like, yet they're distinct in several other ways. Many are quite dark and some have dark curly or even kinky hair among other features. In this case, they looked at the majority of the people and decided that they were closer to the Caucasian people of Europe than they were to the Negroid people of Africa.
Therefore, these people were classified as Caucasian. I know that many of these people from the Middle East would love to have their own racial group identity, but that may or may not happen.
Egyptians, are in exactly the same position as these other natives of the Middle East. They were judged to be closer to the Caucasian group, than to the Negroid group.
Is there some bias, in how one group of people is chosen to be included in one racial category or another? The answer is of course, because races are social constructs of mankind, and after all, humans are all just one race (homo sapiens).
A good example, is the Southern Italian immigrants, who were labelled as Non-White by the larger White society in the U.S. at that time. They faced a lot of harrassment and used to be called niggers. Nowadays, all Italians are accepted as caucasians by most Americans. But, a few who are a little darker, still face some subtle or mild forms of discrimination to this very day.
Sometimes, governments have to step in in order to set things straight, so that the ignorant members of society don't take things into their own hands and do more harm than good.
If it was up to me, I would eliminate all racial categories all together, because they have done more harm than good.
I main reason, that I object to many of the people on this forum, is because they want to divide the Ancient Egyptians and the Modern Egyptians into Arabs, Africans, Asians, which is something that just does not lend itself to the actual truth.
The AE's were a lot smarter than all these eurocentric and afrocentric people, because they choose to define themselves as a distinct group apart from all their neighbors. They were the "Romat",(the men) or the Egyptians, none of their neighbors measured up to the Native Egyptians.
I would be very happy to have the Egyptians, both Modern and Ancient be assigned their own racial group or category, just as they did in AE.
That is why I always tell people to look at King Tut's Sandals for the Clue about AE.
Egyptians are very Unique and that is why they have had a great civilization and continue to be a great country, but of course in a more limited way, these days!
I hope that I have shedd some light on this controversial topic about The Egyptian Race of People.
The one thing that I can say about most Egyptians is that most of them are very tolerant and hospitable even to others who are different from them.
That
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Simple questions for AbazaHow are Egyptians and North Africans caucasians? What are Caucasians? Are you a Caucasian?
If your answer is yes to the last question, then you are in effect admitting that you are no descendant of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, who took the initiative of building up that civilization. Your choice; let us now know where you stand, or else remain in silence.
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 January 2005).]
Abaza, this is the idiocy you are defending. 
http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/index.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 January 2005).]
Did you read my previous comments, or are you jumping to conclusions without giving yourself a chance to digest the information?
Everyone has already read Mostafa Hefny's story, but what most people forget to mention is that Mr. Hefny is a Nubian and does not represent the majority of the Egyptian people. Nubians are a minority group that happens to live in parts of Egypt and the Sudan. Everyone knows this quite well, except those who are totally ignorant of how Egyptians look like.
I know that some afrocentrics would love it, if all the modern Egyptians would turn around and declare that they're actually Black Africans and therefore, their ancestors are also Black Africans.
Please don't hold your breath, because this is quite unlikely to happen, anytime soon.
Egyptians just want to be left alone. They don't need the afrocentrics or the eurocentrics to define them racially, but it is hard to ignore those two venomus people who are trying very hard to hijack our civilization and culture.
Well, I hope some people will begin to understand that there is a big difference between Culture and Race......Some afrocentrics and eurocentrics just don't
seem to get it!!
Peace!!
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:Sadly yes, and what a waste of time it was. Your posts usually are.
Did you read what my previous comments,
quote:Everyone has already heard your story as well, but that doesn't stop you from regurgitating it, does it?
Everyone has already read Mostafa Hefny's story,
quote:
but what most people forget to mention is that Mr. Hefny is a Nubian
quote:And you do?
and does not represent the majority of the Egyptian people.
quote:..like Anwar Sadat's ancestry you mean? Funny how desparately anti-African pan-Arab 'Egyptians' cling to his image and legacy, only to spit on his mother's grave. Hypocrites.
Nubians are a minority group that happens to live in parts of Egypt and the Sudan.
Here is something written by another Ancient Egyptian of Nubian descent, just for you Abaza:
No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic! - Kamose.
Kamose is referring to the Hyksos or 'foreign rulers' who had come to predominate in the delta. He could easily be referring to you.
From now one: Everytime you call yourself a caucasian (read Hyksos)...I want you remember the Kamose inscription.
quote:Incorrect Professor.
They want to see ancient Egyptians in a 'modern' black sense.
The idea that Egyptians are black is ancient.
* It is an ancient Egyptian idea;
* It is an ancient Hebrew idea;
* It is an ancient Greek idea.
Your delusion that they are not 'black', that they belong so some sort of "european" related "race".... is product of modern European racism. This notion, like European colonialism, is recent, ultimately triffling, and of no enduring value and merit. It relies precisely on.....
quote:...and 'that' is the primary source of your dieing ideology.
"Mainstream" scholars in the United States
Black Americans are only relevant because they are kicking the legs out from under the rotten foundation that you are here trying to prop up. That's why you vent your misdirected anger towards them. That's why you deflect most conversations on AE towards anti African American rants, such as.....
quote:Yes, as always this is your standard excuse - why you cannot engage in a scholarly discussion thru everyone else's fault except your own.
You can't argue with them because they have no boundries.
Allow me to disabuse you of your excuse....
quote:Wrong.
The idea that Greek thought came out of Africa or that southern Europeans are not white puts them (African Americans) into kooky land.
The idea that Ancient Greek culture has Afro-Asiatic roots originates IN ANCIENT GREECE, specifically with Herodotus.
The best known, and perhaps the best scholarship advancing this notion is: "Egypt and the Light of the World", by Gerald Massey.
The primary current scholar who has advanced this particular view is a white American Professor Martin Bernal, "Black Athena".
Professor: since you've given yourself and excuse for your inability to debate 'Afrocentrics' how about offering us a lucid critique of Black Athena, or perhaps, Egypt and the Light of the World?
I'm sure you've read them.
Give us for once, something to think about, and not just someone to laugh at.
Professor...Do your homework! No more excuses.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 January 2005).]
What you fail to realise is that technological developments are like a relay race. Each new scientific find or technological development builds on what went before. In this regard, the major inventions and scientific developments that took place in only certain areas of what is called the West today and only in certain research circles(France, Britain, Holland and later Germany)are all due to the influence of the so-called Renaissance--which really was the transmission of Greco-Egyptian knowledge to Western Europe by way of Moorish scholars and Arabic language researchers.
Thus the scientist Newton spoke of being indebted to the Egyptians and their work in astronomy. But all the inventions that Horemheb speaks about derive from knowledge of mathematics and measurement which were not invented in the West. Smelting of iron did not begin in the West. Writing and symbolic representations are not of Western provenance--all necessary to do scientific and technological work. Clothing was not invested in the West given that most Europeans wore the skins of animals until the Roman era--and even beyond.
All the inventions-except clothing-- Horemheb mentions depend on electro-magnetic theory which would not have been possible without the crucial inventions made elswhere. The truth is that the foundations and building blocks of the theories behind these inventions were non-Western.
Sure, there are modern inventions of Western provenance but given the fact that they derive from earlier crucial steps we have to admit that the West is not much more than a recently arrived(arriviste) civilisation which, however, must take credit for synthesising the spadework of earlier and more pristine civilisations.
quote:
Originally posted by YuhiVII:
In order to fully understand the shifting nature of the US racial classification system, have a look at this webpage. It's actually a three-part article on the history of US immigration law and is a slightly cumbersome read but at the end you get a clear picture.
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html
Although I posted a link to this article earlier, in order to reiterate my point I will quote the most relevant sections(to this discussion):
Race, Nationality and Reality:
INS Administration of Racial Provisions in U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law Since 1898
By Marian L. Smith
"The history of "race" in relation to immigration and nationality law is but one example of the difficulties inherent in writing or administering legislation that employs vague concepts about which the nation is either confused, conflicted, or for which Americans do not have a concrete, constant definition."
"INS changes to the classification of race and administration of racial provisions in immigration and nationality law reflected changes in American thinking or "common understanding." "
"The cases of Majid Ramsay Sharif (Shariph) and Noshad Khan are illustrative.45
Sharif, an Arab, applied for an immigration visa in 1941 but was denied as an alien racially ineligible to citizenship."
"In both cases, because they were not petitions for naturalization, the questions went not to the courts but to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).46 Administrative law could now determine the question of racial eligibility.
"
"In Sharif's case involving the eligibility of an Arab, the board, like the courts, relied on the Thind decision. Unlike the courts, the BIA was persuaded by a brief for the U.S. government in the Thind case that argued that "whiteness," for lack of a better term, is associated with Western civilization, and Western civilization includes "so much of the Near East as contributed to, and was assimiliable with, the development of Western Civilization of Greece and Rome." "
"Having recalled the cultural link between the ancient and modern western worlds, the board concluded "that it was not intended, either in 1790 at the time of the first enactment of the governing statute or certainly in 1940 at the time of its last enactment, that Arabians be excluded from the group of 'white persons'."47 Unless one is prepared to believe immigration officials were naturally more benign that Supreme Court justices, the Sharif case demonstrates a changed "common understanding" in 1941 from that which persuaded the court in 1923. "
"The case of Mostafa Hefny is a good example. In 1997 in Detroit, Michigan, Egyptian immigrant Hefny filed suit against the US government for classifying him as racially white when he was obviously black. This classification resulted from use of the obsolete Office of Management and Budget Directive #15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting," which classified Egyptians as white. Egyptians had long been considered eligible for naturalization by the courts, and the reader will recall how the Board of Immigration Appeals' 1941 reconsideration of the Thind decision in the Sharif case declared natives of the cradles of Western Civilization to be "white persons.""
Emphasis is mine.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_1.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_2.html
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_2002_immigration_law_3.html
So as we can see from the above examples among many the US government while using it's racial classification system does NOT KNOW per se but uses a set of definitions which shift from case to case depending on a "common understanding". Needless to say this is NOT scientific and very much biased.
Of course in it we see the entrenched thinking that is circular.
Western Civilization is that of white persons, therefore the cradles of Western Civilization are those of white persons and hence all those nationals of nations considered the cradles of Western civilizations are white persons!
This is the history of immigration law in the US that gives us such absurd scenarios as Mr.Hefny being told he was white.
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
supercar,Caucasian is just a label of convenience and way to group people who share similar features and phenotypes.
Negroid (Black)is also a label of convenience that groups similar people of similar features together.
Seriously, you should be embarrassed by answers of this sort. "Caucasian" has become a euphemism for folks of "white" race. The terminology is somehow supposed to imply a connection with Caucasus Mountains in Eurasia, not Africa. How can you say indigenous Egyptians are Caucasians, when it is blatantly clear that they don't trace their ancestry to any such setting. Moreover, indigenous Ancient Egyptians (Kemet's founders) having never left the continent, cannot simply be labeled as some outer-continental race. That is what Eurocentrics and folks like you try to do, when you put pseudo labels like "Caucasians" on them. There is a name for such desperate tactics; it's called crack science. If "Negro" is supposed to signify dark skin tropically adapted folks of Africa, then there is nothing wrong with labeling indigenous Ancient Egyptians and their descendants as being such. You cannot equate "Negro" with "Caucasian". You are resorting to a whole "new" pseudo-species, an idea which was obviously initiated by racist Europeans back in the 19th century, so as to vainly separate white folks from “inferior” people of “color”. The problem with that, was that when Europeans came to other lands that already had complex civilizations, in order to maintain their propaganda of the so-called superior "race", they needed to explain off these developments as those of outsiders. These outsiders were somehow supposed to be strongly affiliated with White folks, rather than the indigenous folks. Those racist Europeans knew very well that in terms of color alone, it would be very awkward to call Egyptians "White" folks; hence the resort to usage of the pseudo-science terminology of "Caucasian", which doesn't even remotely have anything to do with indigenous Ancient Egyptian ancestry. This is why it is very laughable that you call indigenous Egyptians Caucasians, while at the same time, attempting to claim the ancient civilization. Your attempt at separating Egyptians from indigenous Africans, is as blatantly desperate as that of those racist Eurocentrics of the 19th century.
You are the one doing Egyptians a disservice by pathetically trying to credit their indigenous accomplishments to some sort of a back-migration “race”. I hope that I don’t have to reiterate exactly what is wrong with that notion!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 12 January 2005).]
quote:
lamin:
[B]For HOREMHEB,What you fail to realise is that technological developments are like a relay race. Each new scientific find or technological development builds on what went before. In this regard, the major inventions and scientific developments that took place in only certain areas of what is called the West today and only in certain research circles(France, Britain, Holland and later Germany)are all due to the influence of the so-called Renaissance--which really was the transmission of Greco-Egyptian knowledge to Western Europe by way of Moorish scholars and Arabic language researchers.
Thus the scientist Newton spoke of being indebted to the Egyptians and their work in astronomy. But all the inventions that Horemheb speaks about derive from knowledge of mathematics and measurement which were not invented in the West. Smelting of iron did not begin in the West. Writing and symbolic representations are not of Western provenance--all necessary to do scientific and technological work. Clothing was not invested in the West given that most Europeans wore the skins of animals until the Roman era--and even beyond.
All the inventions-except clothing-- Horemheb mentions depend on electro-magnetic theory which would not have been possible without the crucial inventions made elswhere. The truth is that the foundations and building blocks of the theories behind these inventions were non-Western.
Sure, there are modern inventions of Western provenance but given the fact that they derive from earlier crucial steps we have to admit that the West is not much more than a recently arrived(arriviste) civilisation which, however, must take credit for synthesising the spadework of earlier and more pristine civilisations.
Well put, Lamin. Horemheb constantly spams the board with these warped geopolitical views of his. He even forgets about the many inventions in the "West" by people of "color" and black folks. The computer, the cars, and many of the things he mentioned, not to mention other modern inventions that he didn't care to include in his blabber, have critical components or elements developed by black folks and other people of "color". It only nurtures ego-building for folks like Horemheb, to live in a fantasy world, where white folks are supposed to be just "givers" but not "takers". It is simply comforting for him to casually use all the technology around him, while vetting out the notion that such convenience owes its existance to the hard work and the many ideas of people of various color and "racial" background. Such is the demented mode of thinking by Eurocentrics, unlike others who embrace the idea of contribution from all humanity.
Too true, rather than waste time dignifying his spew by addressing it, something of relevance:
Professor Christopher Ehret (UCLA)[historian/linguist]:
Bernal has done fine work. His grandfather was Alan Gardner, a famous and important Egyptologist. He went into other things, but has always been, at heart, an Egyptologist. He knows his Egyptian materials very, very well. And as he started looking at these materials, he became interested in the history of literature dealing with Greek-Egyptian connection. He saw that, as you moved into the 19th century, histories became increasingly distant from what the Greeks themselves said about their Egyptian connections....we can't ignore, for instance, Euclid saying that he stayed in Egypt and, after he returned, wrote the Geometry. A whole bunch of people in the Classics departments have made their careers - the wonder of the Ancient Greeks. If you make any connection between Africa and what the Greeks were doing, our Western upbringing can come back to surface in a way people don't realize is taking place. They don't realize that, actually, Africans were just as advanced.
And then there's the thought of Egypt was this place that got great but then just stopped, stagnated. And that's not a correct reading of history either.....the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. I don't think it does at all.
According to Horemheb Africa and other parts of the world are to be granted no credit for the creation of modern civilisation.
This is a problematic claim so let's break things down a bit. Here are s ome questions:
1)What are the "other parts of the world" you refer to?
2)What do you mean by "modern civilisation"? It is just technology or does it include cultural artifacts in general?
3)When did it begin and what were its direct antecedents?
4)Did it just develop among Europeans(as you would claim) as a kind of "deus ex machina" phenomenon or otherwise?
All of these things will end up creating what we know as the modern world and they all began to take vivid form in about the year 1500.
This is a very complex subject so we'll have to look at many complicated aspects.
I'll be back to finish later.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
5. The European discovery of what we will call the frontier (the Americas, Africa and Asia) which resulted into millions of dollars pouring into Europe to stimulate the economy and provide for unprecedented growth.
What you call the frontier is all the world except for Europe.
There was no discovery. Europe was effectively cut out of the existing
old world trade system. Once Europe learned advanced sailing technology
and cartography from Muslim civ they set out with superior weaponry to
appropriate already known trade routes. This hardly rates as discovery.
Its more akin to piracy.
In the case of the Americas lets be honest and call this what it was,
the total rape and pillage of those two continents.
In Africa there initially was willing collusion for mutually
beneficial trade but it that devolved into underdevelopment and 300
years afterward became colonialism.
Asia Im not so sure about except that India was effectively conquered
and Australia made a criminal settler colony as was N. America.
But its typical of the mentality of the Europeans of those times
to see all the world as the frontier and all the worlds people as fauna.
Most Euro people have matured spiritually as much as they have grown
materially over the last 500 years and realize the so called age of
discovery was no more than an age of exploitation.
The modern world is an outgrowth from the time of European militancy
and dominance. With the dismantling of overt racist policies and less
prohibition of hi tech trade and education to certain nations, the modern
world is the joint product of the global community of all humankind.
A perusal of various whos who registries, patents, and Nobel prizes
shows that virtually every ethnicity contributes to the modern world.
I would say the modern world began around 1950.
Without the hallmark of discrimination and racial attitudes that
characterized the age of Euro appropriation of world resources and
violent dominance over many peoples humanity would have entered the modern
era maybe 200 years ago.
White supremacists like Horemheb will never understand that and will
cling to the idea that whites did everything because of innate superiority
not because of propensities to violence and
unwillingness to share between
1500 and 1900. Normal white people already know the story and through
humanitarian organizations and antiracism are balancing out the
gross evils that led up to our modern world.
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 13 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Supercar, For the life of me I don't see how you get up in the morning and manage to dress yourself. Greco-Egyptian....what a pile of nonsense.
Quite simple really: I use my brains and natural gift of physical appendages. Funny though, I was just about to make the same assessment of you , how you can make it straight to the toilet and take care of business yourself, including the idea that you can think at all. For you to be able to do these things, you need BRAINS!
Talking of brains, what "Greco-Egyptian" gibberish are you pointing to, in reference to anything I said herein?
I stand vindicated on the fractured mentality I mentioned earlier, concerning racist European ideology that past inventions which led to new ones, count for nothing, as long as they aren't by people of European descent. Horemheb and other racists like him, are daily using non-white inspired technology...but that counts for nothing in Eurocentric fantasy land. Exactly when they will wakeup and smell the coffee, is anyone's guess! 
He is using a non-white invention to communicate with us at this moment, but don't expect him to know how this is so.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 14 January 2005).]
that being said, reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
#2. i actually wanted to respond to some of abaza's points, but i don't think i will bother now.
#3. to respond to Thought2's point, i'm sorry if my slang did not catch on. what i meant by calling myself a "mutt" was not intended in a depracating or disrespectful manner; i apologize if i offended anyone. all i meant was that i view myself--and alwyas have--as a mix (ie, a "mutt" versus a "purebreed") and proud of it. and i certainly wasn't referring to myself as a "bitch" either.
#4. thanx!! for your insights and opinions. after doing research of my own, talking to a federal grants program director, talking to other people, and reading your posts, i think i'm a lot clearer now.
#5. i'm african. that wasn't so difficult, now was it?
quote:
shereens:
reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
The observation regarding humans around the globe being mixed (genetically speaking) and that social constructs of "race" boiling down to phenotypes or physical appearances, was the intended point of the replies to your earlier comment. The purpose was not to offend, but shed light on the subject.
no offense taken. all insights, information, and opinions are appreciated. (i can tell you guys are very passionate about this topic.)
When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
Africans are Black, White, Yellow, and Brown.
The term African is not a racial term.
Does that mean that you feel closer to the Negroid (Black) Africans or do you feel closer to the Caucasiod (White) Africans, or neither groups, pehaps more like the Arabs or Berbers.
Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
One thing that most people sometimes get confused, is that African Americans are not just a racial group, but also a Cultural Group. For example, many Black Cubans, feel very little solidarity with Black Americans (African Americans), because they identify with their Latino Culture.
Here in the U.S., there are essentially two ways to identify yourself, one is how people perceive you racially and also, how you see yourself.
As I said before, many Southern Italians, used to be called "Niggers" by the larger White Society, because they were ignorant of how some Dark Caucasians look like.
Paul Anka, who is of Lebanese descent, used to be called Black and nigger, when he was growing up in Canada, because he was darker than all his classmates, yet he is Caucasian.
Finally, I don't believe that the Egyptians are "Mixed", because they have always looked like this, since the times of our Ancient Ancestors (the AE's), i.e., thousands of years ago.
If you have a chance, go to your local Egyptian Museum and look at all the pictures and statues and you'll realize, that the AE's and the modern Egyptians are quite similar and some would even say, that they're the same as the people in Egypt today.
Egyptain Art is the best anti-dote in the face of the afrocentrics, because Caucasian facial features and profiles don't lie.
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and please don't be afraid of the afrocentrics or their tactics. They only want to use Egypt and the AE's for their own goals and to help them with their self-esteem problems.
Please be proud of who you are, because you have a very "Noble" heritage....
Peace!!
quote:
Originally posted by shereens:
#1. not that you guys need this, i know that very well, but i do want to apologize for i feel i am partially the cause of recent hostilities. of course, i'm bright enough to know there are some histories amongst you all on this board, but i still did not expect the very negative reactions amongst yourselves. i didn't mean to create a tizzy.that being said, reading your responses has (honestly) brought me to tears. it's not an abstract issue as some may think--this is real and can really affect people. realizing that my origins and how wittingly/unwittingly i view myself and how others view me have been used, abused, manipulated for political or social agendas is actually hurtful...
#2. i actually wanted to respond to some of abaza's points, but i don't think i will bother now.
#3. to respond to Thought2's point, i'm sorry if my slang did not catch on. what i meant by calling myself a "mutt" was not intended in a depracating or disrespectful manner; i apologize if i offended anyone. all i meant was that i view myself--and alwyas have--as a mix (ie, a "mutt" versus a "purebreed") and proud of it. and i certainly wasn't referring to myself as a "bitch" either.
#4. thanx!! for your insights and opinions. after doing research of my own, talking to a federal grants program director, talking to other people, and reading your posts, i think i'm a lot clearer now.
#5. i'm african. that wasn't so difficult, now was it?
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 14 January 2005).]
quote:
Shereen,When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
Perhaps she wishes to state a fact: that she is a native of Africa. That says quite a bit actually.
You are apparently irked because she refuses to qualify herself on your terms. I've noticed that many Egyptians on this forum do not. You've noticed too.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 January 2005).]
You know quite well, that the word African could be anything.
What Shereen is trying to say, is that she is from Africa, but she does not identify herself as Black African.
Dark Caucasian, is probably the best way to identify her, because her Mom, looks like a Southern European, as many Northern Egyptians look.
Shereen, you should place yourself on a "pedstal", just like your great ancestors and remember that Egyptians, ancient and modern are very smart, good looking, and unique people!!
King Tut's was a master at stepping on all the inferior people, who were the enemies of Egypt. He stepped on all of them at once.
This is fact not afrocentric fiction!!
Peace!!
If you don't mind, I would love to look at your picture, and give you my unbaised opinion.......you can send me an Email if you like.
Peace!!
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Perhaps she wishes to state a fact: that she is a native of Africa. That says quite a bit actually.You are apparently irked because she refuses to qualify herself on your terms. I've noticed that many Egyptians on this forum do not. You've noticed too.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 15 January 2005).]
quote:
Rasol,You know quite well, that the word African could be anything.
quote:
What Shereen is trying to say,
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Shereen,When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 14 January 2005).]
Thought Writes:
Abaza, you ask of Shereen that which you will not give yourself. You want her to elaborate on her ideas and define her terms, but when we request the same from you, you clam-up. This is a sign of a troller. We respect your right to disagree, but the fact that you do not particpate in a manner that indicates that you are not a troller is troubling.
quote:
Originally posted by ABAZA:
Shereen,When you say that you're African, what does that mean?
Africans are Black, White, Yellow, and Brown.
The term African is not a racial term.
Does that mean that you feel closer to the Negroid (Black) Africans or do you feel closer to the Caucasiod (White) Africans, or neither groups, pehaps more like the Arabs or Berbers.
Your answer says very little about your true feelings.
One thing that most people sometimes get confused, is that African Americans are not just a racial group, but also a Cultural Group. For example, many Black Cubans, feel very little solidarity with Black Americans (African Americans), because they identify with their Latino Culture.
Here in the U.S., there are essentially two ways to identify yourself, one is how people perceive you racially and also, how you see yourself.
As I said before, many Southern Italians, used to be called "Niggers" by the larger White Society, because they were ignorant of how some Dark Caucasians look like.
Paul Anka, who is of Lebanese descent, used to be called Black and nigger, when he was growing up in Canada, because he was darker than all his classmates, yet he is Caucasian.
Finally, I don't believe that the Egyptians are "Mixed", because they have always looked like this, since the times of our Ancient Ancestors (the AE's), i.e., thousands of years ago.
If you have a chance, go to your local Egyptian Museum and look at all the pictures and statues and you'll realize, that the AE's and the modern Egyptians are quite similar and some would even say, that they're the same as the people in Egypt today.
Egyptain Art is the best anti-dote in the face of the afrocentrics, because Caucasian facial features and profiles don't lie.
Hope to hear your thoughts on this and please don't be afraid of the afrocentrics or their tactics. They only want to use Egypt and the AE's for their own goals and to help them with their self-esteem problems.
Please be proud of who you are, because you have a very "Noble" heritage....Peace!!
I said this before, but I'll reiterate, because it applies to both "cultural subordination" and the "identity crisis" indicative of your above comment:
"Indigenous Kemetians weren't Caucasians, but were true Africans who never migrated out of the continent. So where is the justification for labeling them such a "back-migration implicated" terminology? Abaza's next best resort, appears to be that they are "non-black". If someone was to ask him for the definition of this terminology, I am not sure the answer will be as forthcoming. Indigenous Egyptians were tropically adapted, and thus had to have enough melanin dosage in their skin. I guess going by what appears to be his mentality, an argument can be made that other tropically adapted Africans are "non-black", because they aren't literally black!
Science shows, even Eurocentrists can't deny this fact, indigenous Egyptians were indeed tropically adapted. So Abaza: When you say that Kemetians were "non-black", are you then implying that indigenous Egyptians were "Albinos" or lacked melanin content?"
The above is coupled with Thought's:
quote:
Abaza, you ask of Shereen that which you will not give yourself. You want her to elaborate on her ideas and define her terms, but when we request the same from you, you clam-up. This is a sign of a troller. We respect your right to disagree, but the fact that you do not particpate in a manner that indicates that you are not a troller is troubling.
...I challenge you to come up with a logical answer the question put forward!
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians
What the hell are you babbling about? Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid. It says that it's "remarkably close to Angel's Ancient Greek 'Classic Mediterranean' Type B". And if Lower Nubian crania belong to Type B, that means they're NOT Negroid, but rather Mediterranean Caucasoid. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
quote:
One thing Dienekes has failed to address concerning Coon was that Coon stated THIS as per quoted from the same source:Coon ('39, p.63) has remarked that "many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction" show a considerable negroid tendency, but here it assumes the role of a sexual as well as racial characteristic
L. Cabot Briggs
Stone Ages of Northwest Africa
p. 62
That's "negroid" with a lowercase "n". It refers to independently evolved archaic traits that have re-emerged, such as prognathism. Coon also states that Alpines show a "mongoloid tendency". Obviously, he isn't suggesting that they're descended from East Asians. It's just an evolutionary trend.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Now moving on, we find populations outside of Africa with affinities to Type B Northwest African Mesolithic crania, which we have just established, was akin to Lower Nubians and a series of crania from gabon west Africa, which makes type b undoubtedly Negroid. We even find populations with affinites to Type B in Greece and among the Natufians
Euro writes Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid.
Perhaps you should calm down, and read the prior referenced thread: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001283.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 January 2005).]
quote:
Coon also states that Alpines show a "mongoloid tendency". Obviously, he isn't suggesting that they're descended from East Asians.
That's why Coon is a dinosaur. His ideas on race can be contrived towards any conclusion based upon essentially specious rationale.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's "negroid" with a lowercase "n". It refers to independently evolved archaic traits that have re-emerged, such as prognathism. Coon also states that Alpines show a "mongoloid tendency". Obviously, he isn't suggesting that they're descended from East Asians. It's just an evolutionary trend.
Yes and Coon says that Mediterraneans show a considerable Negroid tendency. You also forgot that Briggs found that type B were similar to both lower Nubian and a series of crania from Gabon in central Africa, so are gabon people Mediterranean Caucasoids? Your name ought to be stupid Euro, not evil euro. Who are you to say what Briggs meant when he said negroid? I read his book all the way through. His book states nothing about 'Negroid traits evolving independently, i quote Brigg's work not Coon's.
quote:
What the hell are you babbling about? Your own source proves that Type B isn't Negroid. It says that it's "remarkably close to Angel's Ancient Greek 'Classic Mediterranean' Type B". And if Lower Nubian crania belong to Type B, that means they're NOT Negroid, but rather Mediterranean Caucasoid. Work on your reading comprehension skills.
Lower Nubians are Mediterranean Caucasoids? I don't get it with you Euros, one minute you all use Nubians to prove that Egyptians aren't Negroid but then when Negroid traits show up on Europe or in places deemed as traditional non-Negroid territory, you call people who are obviously Negroid(Lower Nubians) Mediterrranean Caucasoids? That shos paranoi on your part, not a lack or reading skills on my part.
quote:
However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in anumber of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. Now, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'.
The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series)
Similarly, with regards to the Somali
quote:http://countrysidestudies.us.somalia
Increasingly, evidence places the Somalis within a wide family of peoples called Eastern Cushites by modern linguists and described earlier in some instances as Hamites. From a broader cultural-linguistic perspective, the Cushite family belongs to a vast stock of languages and peoples considered Afro-Asiatic. Afro-Asiatic languages in turn include Cushitic (principally Somali, Oromo, and Afar), the Hausa language of Nigeria, and the Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic. Medieval Arabs referred to the Eastern Cushites as the Berberi.In addition to the Somalis, the Cushites include the largely nomadic Afar (Danakil), who straddle the Great Rift Valley between Ethiopia and Djibouti; the Oromo, who have played such a large role in Ethiopian history and in the 1990s constituted roughly one-half of the Ethiopian population and were also numerous in northern Kenya; the Reendille (Rendilli) of Kenya; and the Aweera (Boni) along the Lamu coast in Kenya. The Somalis belong to a subbranch of the Cushites, the Omo-Tana group, whose languages are almost mutually intelligible. The original home of the Omo-Tana group appears to have been on the Omo and Tana rivers, in an area extending from Lake Turkana in present-day northern Kenya to the Indian Ocean coast.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Lower Nubians are Mediterranean Caucasoids?
I'm just going by what you quoted. If Type B is similar to the Classic Mediterranean type, and Lower Nubians belonged to Type B, then it follows that Lower Nubians were similar to Classic Mediterraneans. It's simple logic.
Besides, all of those Types describe Mesolithic Northwest Africans. It's absurd to think they could be Negroid. Stick to SUB-Saharan Africa. The North is Caucasoid territory. It doesn't concern you.
quote:
Who are you to say what Briggs meant when he said negroid? I read his book all the way through. His book states nothing about 'Negroid traits evolving independently, i quote Brigg's work not Coon's.
Again, your reading comprehension is poor. Briggs is merely relaying remarks made by Coon, and I'm telling you that Coon uses "negroid" and "mongoloid" in a European context to describe primitive traits, not racial ancestry.
If the the remains in question have affinity with Nubian and Gabonese series, it suggests that they are likely indigenous African variants.
The term "mediteranian" that you are desparately clinging to is just a classic Coon-ian buzzward. [Coon applied to East Africans, others applied it to Australians, Dravidians, etc. which is ridiculous and why the concept is now defunct.
It does not 'offset' the specific skeletal affinities or physical "prognathous" traits sited.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 January 2005).]
quote:
I'm just going by what you quoted. If Type B is similar to the Classic Mediterranean type, and Lower Nubians belonged to Type B, then it follows that Lower Nubians were similar to Classic Mediterraneans. It's simple logic.
Listen Eurofool, those same Type B have affinities with a series of crania from Gaboon, if sub-Saharan Africa is Negroid territory using your logic what the hell are Type B and Lower Nubians? Moreover, Lower Nubians and Gabonese don't have primitive traits moron, if primitive traits are quasi-Negroid, what you're saying is that Negroids are primitive, a position not held moron. Besides, in the book, Briggs said the Negroid traits in Type B came from the headwaters of the Blue Nile and peoples from the southern Sahara, that sounds nothing like evolution of primitive traits.
quote:
Besides, all of those Types describe Mesolithic Northwest Africans. It's absurd to think they could be Negroid. Stick to SUB-Saharan Africa. The North is Caucasoid territory. It doesn't concern you.
From the description of the crania given, those crania aren't Caucasoids, except for Type D. The North isn't Caucasoid territory except in your whitewashing mind in order to keep southern Euros racially pure.
Even today there remains a huge dark brown skinned population in the Near East. This includes nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Stop using the Turks of Turkey as the standard people in that region.
One Dravidian and native Arab groups have the money. Nordics, and even Southern Europeans will be out of picture because their ancestors do not belong in Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization, etc.
PS: Next, you can try the Atlantis to prove that the Nords are the master race.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 18 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
If the the remains in question have affinity with Nubian and Gabonese series, it suggests that they are likely indigenous African variants.
I don't doubt that they're "indigenous African", but that doesn't reveal much since Africa is racially diverse, and Negroids were not widespread there until the Bantu expansion.
quote:
The term "mediteranian" that you are desparately clinging to is just a classic Coon-ian buzzward. [Coon applied to East Africans, others applied it to Australians, Dravidians, etc. which is ridiculous and why the concept is now defunct.
Bullshit. Coon described East Africans as a mix of Mediterraneans and Negroids, which has since been genetically proven. Likewise, no one has claimed Australians or Dravidians as pure Mediterranean, though the latter probably contain a Mediterranean component.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Listen Eurofool, those same Type B have affinities with a series of crania from Gaboon, if sub-Saharan Africa is Negroid territory using your logic what the hell are Type B and Lower Nubians?
The suggestion is that Type B individuals migrated to West Africa from farther north. Supporting this, we have a quote where Briggs states explicitly that Type B crania are Mediterranean-like. Nowhere does he say that they're Negroid-like (otherwise you would have transcribed it). That's just a ridiculous assumption you're making.
quote:
if primitive traits are quasi-Negroid, what you're saying is that Negroids are primitive, a position not held moron.
Prognathism is considered a primitive trait. That doesn't mean inferior, it just means older. Traits like that are most common in Negroids, but occasionally they resurface in other races as throwbacks. Coon observed prognathous Irishmen, e.g.
quote:
The North isn't Caucasoid territory except in your whitewashing mind in order to keep southern Euros racially pure.
Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans:
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bullshit. Coon described East Africans as a mix of Mediterraneans and Negroids, which has since been genetically proven. Likewise, no one has claimed Australians or Dravidians as pure Mediterranean, though the latter probably contain a Mediterranean component.
To label Dravidians as mediterranean only proves that you're misleading yourself. The Dravidians and the Sumerians whom looked similar are not from Caucasia. They are indigenous people, whom happen to have features that can be labelled as "Caucasoid", but the fact is that these features originated from Africa, hence Africoid.
The Iranian/Central Asian/Caucasoid looking people are foreign, and do not share the same ancestry as the Sumerian, Elamites, or Dravidina. The mixed population are those found in Northern India. The homogenous population are found in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Southern Iraq, Southern Iran and Southern or Eastern parts of the Indian subcontinent.
There is no such thing as a Black Caucasian.
quote:
Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans:
Isn't this double standards? You claim that the Southern Europeans are racially pure despite their hetergenous characteristics, yet you claim that Africans with their heterogenous characteristics as multi-racial. Why is it that the Cacuasian race has such a vast range? It is pretty obvious that the Africans would have an even more wider range since humans originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Isn't this double standards? You claim that the Southern Europeans are racially pure despite their hetergenous characteristics, yet you claim that Africans with their heterogenous characteristics as multi-racial. Why is it that the Cacuasian race has such a vast range? It is pretty obvious that the Africans would have an even more wider range since humans originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:Only on white supremacists websites. In the real world of bioanthropology, the dark skin, curly hair, L2, E3b haplotypes, and sickle cll are understood to have been introduced INTO Europe from Africa and do not lend credence to fantasies of white racial purity, which virtually no molecular geneticist nor anthropologist will attempt to assert.
Southern Europeans are racially pure
quote:...along with their physical affinity with other indigenous Africans it reveals that they are not caucasian, no matter how desparate you are to make them such.
I don't doubt that they're "indigenous African", but that doesn't reveal much
quote:
since Africa is racially diverse
Common, you can do better than that. A 12 year old would laugh at the complete lack of any semblance of logic in your race rhetoric.
quote:
You claim that the Southern Europeans are racially pure despite their hetergenous characteristics, yet you claim that Africans with their heterogenous characteristics as multi-racial.
quote:
The suggestion is that Type B individuals migrated to West Africa from farther north. Supporting this, we have a quote where Briggs states explicitly that Type B crania are Mediterranean-like. Nowhere does he say that they're Negroid-like (otherwise you would have transcribed it). That's just a ridiculous assumption you're making.
You are wrong again. Remember I have Briggs' book and nowhere does he say Type B people migrated into Gabon. He speaks about Hamites migrating into Gabon, but the Hamitic Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. I have his book and NO such claim of a migration of Type B people from Northwest Africa is made. In fact Briggs believes that the Negroid features found in Type B crania comes from the southern Sahara and headwaters of the Blue Nile. Please post the quote where Briggs states that Type B people from NW Africa migrated into Gabon. Don't smear the facts. Your post ins filled with utter denial of Negroid traits in Northwest Africans.
quote:
Prognathism is considered a primitive trait. That doesn't mean inferior, it just means older.
Prognathism when found in people that are 'non-Negroid' are all of the sudden primitive throwbacks traits, of course in the interest of keeping Europeans as pure races, but orthognathism found in sub-Saharans is proof of Caucasoid mixture?? What bull!
quote:
Traits like that are most common in Negroids, but occasionally they resurface in other races as throwbacks. Coon observed prognathous Irishmen, e.g.
Prognathism in Irishmen occurs at a very low frequency as most Europeans are NOT prognathous. And why keep quoting Coon? This is the same moron who said that Fulani, Tutsi, Bahima and Masai are all "Mediterraneans" with dark skin, who in the hell believes that nonsense today?
quote:
Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans
I saw that chart you used and the only African population used were the same Pygmies and deep central African populations, what about East African populations and E3b? E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bullshit. Coon described East Africans as a mix of Mediterraneans and Negroids, which has since been genetically proven. Likewise, no one has claimed Australians or Dravidians as pure Mediterranean, though the latter probably contain a Mediterranean component.
Bullshit to you, the only east African populations with mixture are Ethiopians, not all East Africans proper. Ethiopians are the most mixed GENETICALLY, but in terms of phenotype, their phenotype wasn't significantly affected by mixture with southern Arabians. Look at these anthropometric means of East African populations. NOTE: Tutsis and Masai are have no foreign or exotic genetic element in them:
Tutsi of Rwanda:
[color=green]
Masai:
[color=blue]
Galla(Oromo):
[color=red]
Sab Somali:
[color=gray]
Warsingali Somali:
[color=navy]
Source:
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa
pg 142
Galla(Oromo) are supposed to be "mixed" but look how close they are to the unmixed Tutsi, in short, you cannot say East Africans are anthropometrically a mix of so-called "true Negroes" and Mediterraneans. Thats utter nonsense, get your head out of sand and quit with the outdated racial thinking.
quote:
Even today there remains a huge dark brown skinned population in the Near East. This includes nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Stop using the Turks of Turkey as the standard people in that region.
Very true.
The original inhabitants of Arabia, then, according to Sir Henry Keith, one of the world's greatest living anthropologists, who has made a study of Arab skeletal remains, ancient and modern, were not the familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt, by environmental and other evolutionary process, became in parts transformed, giving rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.
Betram Thomas, The Arabs(Garden City: Doubleday, 1937) 339.
Euro-Disney is a good example of the 'no race' - 'mixed race' school of racism in vougue among some Eurocentric.
They need 'other races' to either be mongrel or simply not exist - so that they can be 'pure'. It's twisted, and sad when you think about it.
[remember our pal Orionix who did not 'believe' in race, lol]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Somatically some elongated types are even more 'distinct' from Europeans than broad types. For example extreme-tropical, 'super negroid' limb-ratios such as found among the Naqada pre-dynastic Kemetians.
True. Check this out:
The Tutsi and Hutu have intermixed to some degree but, as groups, they remain strikingly different. The Tutsi exhibit 'Hamitic' facial features to a marked degree. Do they systematically differ from the Hutu in the direction of Caucasoids?
The Tutsi are taller than the Hutu by nearly ten centimetres; the average male stature is 176 cm. Such tallness is by no means characteristic of North Africa or Western Asia: for example, the inhabitants of the central plateau of Yemen have an average stature of 164 cm. In skin colour, the Tutsi are darker than the Hutu, in the reverse direction to that leading to the Caucasoids. lip thickness provides a similar case: on an average the lips of the Tutsi are thicker than those of the Hutu. In most cases, however, they are not everted as in many West Africans. Like that of the Hutu, the hair of the Tutsi is spiralled(perhaps less tightly so, but this has not been quantified).
In detailed study, relative growth in the two groups and in Europeans has been compared. In the development of a number of body proportions with age, which appears to be largely determined by heredity, the Tutsi are more different from Europeans than the Hutu. In cephalic index, the Hutu are nearer to Yemenites than the Tutsi, whose long, narrow head makes their index lower than that of the other two groups..............
These comparisons do not lend support to the idea that the Tutsi are a mixture of Caucasoids and West Africans. If the West African element, introduced by mixing with the Hutu, were subtracted, their physique would differ even more from North Africans or Western Asians. Apparently, either 'Hamitic' facial features developed in the Tutsi's ancestral line independently of any exotic source or, if an exotic element was introduced, it was such a long time ago that selection has thoroughly remodelled the resulting gene pool. Even if the second hypothesis was correct, the physical appearance of the Tutsi would result from evolution which took place in sub-Saharan Africa.
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa
pg 61
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
In fact Briggs believes that the Negroid features found in Type B crania comes from the southern Sahara and headwaters of the Blue Nile.
Show me where Briggs claims that Type B has Negroid affinities. I've already shown you where he says it resembles the Classic Mediterranean type.
quote:
I saw that chart you used and the only African population used were the same Pygmies and deep central African populations
It doesn't matter. Greeks and Italians still place in the same branch as Northern Europeans and Basques.
quote:
E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?
E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic. It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the specific cluster that makes up the bulk of Southern European E3b actually originated in Southern Europe and is not found at all in Eastern or Southern Africa. It's found only at low frequencies in the Near East and Northern Egypt, no doubt representing Ancient Greek input.
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000531.html
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
But southern Europe is racially pure(?)
You morons need to work on your reading skills. I said Southern Europeans are close to pure. No one is 100% pure.
quote:
the dark skin, curly hair, L2, E3b haplotypes, and sickle cll
Skin color is influenced by climate. Curly hair can be found in red-headed Irishmen. L haplotypes are negligible throughout Europe. E3b is not Negroid. And sickle cell is an adapted trait. Anything else?
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture - most physical traits are - that does not prove the concept of racial 'purity' - it merely calls into question the concept of race.
Tropical African DNA in southern Europe:
the detection sub saharan African L sequences were found throughout the country [Portugal] in frequencies as high as 10% and are supportive of African admixture with the native portugese population -pereira, prata, et. all
Genetic haplotype is not classifiable by phenotype - caucasoid/negroid etc.. E3 and L were introduced into southern Europe from Africa making southern Europe genetically heterogeneous, and DISTINCT from Northern Europe and NOT racially pure.
Benin sickle cell originates in tropical Africa, it's presence in southern Europe proves tropicaL African intermixture:
“The presence of the sickle cell gene in Portugal "means that Portuguese and Africans have met and they've interbred"
"Haplotype analysis shows that the Hb S in Europe originated in Africa. The genes probably moved along ancient trading routes between wealthy kingdoms in western Africa and the trade centers in the Mediterranean basin."
"The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily,4 Northern Greece,10 Southern Turkey,11 and South West Saudi Arabia,6,7 suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa. "
Harvard U./Howard U., Graham R. Serjeant, MD http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/143/rev9239.html
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C08/C08Links/www.mcet.edu/genome/sicklecell/genesis.html
http://www.mcet.edu/genome/sicklecell/genesis.html
Racial purity in southern Europe is an oxymoron - a white race fantasy that no respected bioanthropologist will support.
Any questions?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 January 2005).]
quote:
E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?
quote:
E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic.
quote:Wrong again. It is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and parts of Kenya. It was spread into West Europe primarily from NorthWest Africa, and into Eastern Europe primarly from NorthEast Africa either directly, or indirectly via the levantine corridor.
It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:
Rasol is correct about Caucasians beginning in northwest Africa, as far as we know.[/B]
Of course I didn't say that. However all people originate in East Africa.
E3b originates in tropical Black Africa circa 26kya. At this point in time the direct ancestors of Europeans lived in Eurasia having migrated out of Africa 10's of thousands of years earlier.
E3b is introduced into Europe from it's African point of origin along with the spread of agriculture ~6kya, and then subsequently in historical times by Nile Valley Africans and Northwest Africans.
This is why E3b is present in signficant frequency in Southern Eurasia and generally negligible in the North.
Thus Southern Europeans have multiple and highly divergent lines of descent -
* ancient haplotypes that originate among Eurasians.
* recently introduced haplotypes that originate in Africa.
* haplotypes from tropically adapted [Black] peoples...and haplotypes from pale skinned Eurasians.
* haplotypes separated by 10's of thousands of years.
This is completely incompatible with EuroDisney's race purity fantasy, and he knows it. However ideologically, and EMOTIONALLY he finds this truth unacceptable and has so become obsessed with proving that which is in point of fact - a non starter.
Southern Europeans are heterogeneous, and not 'racially pure'.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 January 2005).]
and the Moors:Where E3b originates:
Southern Europeans and E3b:
It has been suggested that recent geneflow may have brought e3b chromosomes from northwest africa into southern Europe as a consequence of Islamic occupation.
The relatively recent mrca estimated for E3b2 and the lack of differentiation support this view.
The degree of African contribution is highly variable across different populations. Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Fulvio Cruciani,1 Roberta La Fratta, et. al
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001383.html
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 January 2005).]
Now stop trolling.
....all the old outdated ones anyway.
Few current anthropologists still assert the hamite myth, at least not blatantly. And several, such as Jean Hiernaux [cited in this thread] and of course SOY Keita have fairly demolished it.
Trouble is, it keeps coming back in other disguised forms, because the underlying political need - to salvage aryanist anthropology - is greater than ever.
Witness EuroDisney's misguided dispair over the African origins of E3b, [let's just lie and call it near eastern] and Gabonese-Nubian-African skeletal affinities of Paleolithic NorthWest African remains. [let's just call'em medit caucasians with 'mystery' negroid features]
Greg Gordon offered an excellent analogy. Aryanist anthopology actually does remind one of the Nazi's searching for the Lost Ark in the Indiana Jones movies!
Dr. Jones...we HAVE you now! NO escaping...thees time!
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] Skin color is influenced by climate. Curly hair can be found in red-headed Irishmen. L haplotypes are negligible throughout Europe. E3b is not Negroid. And sickle cell is an adapted trait. Anything else?
You are damn right that genes are not "negroid", or "caucasoid" for that matter. If your statement is meant to say that E3b is not of tropical African origins, I would assume that you must have collected such information from a reliable source. In such an event, I would love to know which self-respecting bio-anthropologist would make that deduction?
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
[B] You are damn right that genes are not "negroid", or "caucasoid" for that matter.
Truth.
Haplotype or (dna) relate biological lineage - common ancestry.
"oid" as in caucas-oid relates physical appearance or phenotype.
Race as in Blumenbachs's outdated-misguided caucasoid-negroid-mongoloid theorise that that phenotype proves ancestry.
Modern molecular genetics has revealed this notion to be flawed.
To demonstrate the 'racial purity' of Southern Europeans one would need to show that they are identical to Nordics in phenotype, due to the fact that they are of identical genetic lineage.
In fact, Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in phenotype (the whole idea of medit. caucasian vs. Nordic aknowledges this), and in genotype, (PN2-clade revolution in genetics has proven this) with distinct lineages introduced from Africa, both directly & indirectly into Europe. In short southern Europeans are phenotypically distinct from predominently pale-blonde-blue-eyed Nordics, and are genetically distinct with infusions of African DNA since the Neolitchic and onwards.
A more intelligent tactic for EuroDisney would be to argue that NO ONE is racially pure. But, how can one be a member of a superior race if no one is racially pure?
EuroDisney stikes me as a 'bull' and not a 'matador'. He will keep charging at the red cape of racial purity until modern science puts him out of his misery once and for all. Poor thing.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 20 January 2005).]
quote:
Evil Euro:
And sickle cell is an adapted trait...
Evil, sickle cell is not simply an adaptive trait, but an inherited blood related health deficiency or blood disorder that has resistive capability against such diseases like malaria. The question is where or how, if not why, did southern Europeans inherit this trait, if not from African connections?
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 20 January 2005).]
* Note, the Greeks also get Benin sickle cell from Africa, of course so the hot-potato deflection is inneffectual.
EuroDisney's intended counterpoint, that Benin sickle cell is not a reliable 'negroid' marker, but that is non-sequitor for the reasons already given: no gene is caucasoid or negroid, period.
Btw: Sickle cell condition is autosomatically recessive. This means that in order to be selected for two copies of the gene are required. A population that has Benin sickle cell has tropical African [black] ancestry....all excuses notwithstanding.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture
Then don't cite it as evidence of African admixture, moron.
quote:
Tropical African DNA in southern Europe:
I already said that no one is 100% pure. Stop attacking straw men. Yes, Southern Europeans have negligible amounts of sub-Saharan DNA, with the Portuguese having the most (though not nearly as much as you think). But then Negroid (and Mongoloid) genes have also turned up in Northern Europeans. For example:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/non-white-admixture-in-dutch-and.html http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/non-caucasoid-admixture-in-austria-and.html
quote:
Benin sickle cell originates in tropical Africa, it's presence in southern Europe proves tropicaL African intermixture:
I guess you missed this important qualification:
"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought."
Ragusa et al. (1992) Presence of an African Beta-globin Gene Cluster Haplotype in Normal Chromosomes in Sicily. Am J Hematol; 40:313-315
quote:
Wrong again. [E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea
That's not sub-Saharan Africa, stupid. It's Northeastern Africa, which was not remotely Negroid when E3b arose some 26,000 years ago. Hell, it's only between 5% and 60% Negroid today, and that's due to movements in historical times. More importantly, the sub-Saharan (Negroid) component in modern NE African populations is predominantly maternal, while the paternal side is composed almost entirely of Middle Eastern and North African (Caucasoid) lineages (see, e.g., Passarino et al. 1998 -- under "Discussion").
Furthermore, E3b has been shown to correlate with Caucasoid racial characteristics:
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000578.html
quote:
Witness EuroDisney's misguided dispair over the African origins of E3b, [let's just lie and call it near eastern]
Ignoramus. E3b exited Africa beginning in the Upper Paleolithic and then spread out from the Near East 15-20,000 years later, taking the form of clusters with distinct origins (one of which -- E-M78a -- is specific to Europe). This has all been demonstrated by Luis et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004 and Cruciani et al. 2004. Get your sources up to date.
quote:
Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in...genotype, with distinct lineages introduced from Africa
So what? Everyone's non-European if you go back far enough. Are you aware that the most common haplogroups in Northern Europe (R1a and R1b) split from an ancestor in Northeast Asia about the same time E3b exited North Africa? So according to your reasoning, the "pure Nordics" you refer to should be considered Asiatic or Mongoloid, since you consider E3b carriers African/Negroid. Cleary, you're an idiot.
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture, moron
quote:tsk. tsk EuroDisney. Quote the whole sentense please
Then don't cite it as evidence of African admixture
quote:
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture - most physical traits are - that does not prove the concept of racial 'purity', it merely calls into question the concept of race.
In order for you to assert race purity you assume the burdan of proof of the hypothesis that physical traits - skin color - skull shape - hair texture result from common lineage.
When said physical traits are divergant, your hypothesis is falsified.
Look back over this thread EuroDisney.
Your pure race caucasoids catagory now includes prognathesism, sickle cell anemia, dark skin, dark eyes, and curly black hair. Physical traits that falsify your hypothesis. Only a 'moron' as you put, would go on asserting a hypothesis that has been clearly disproven on its own terms.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 January 2005).]
Unlike other sub-Sahara African populations, Ethiopians display a high frequency of type 1, which is by far the most frequent type in Caucasoids and Asians. However, such a high frequency does not appear to be due to an explicit Caucasoid influence.
“Hell, it's only between 5% and 60% Negroid today, and that's due to movements in historical times.”
You’re wrong again. The 60% Negroid figure came from a study on Ethiopians, not all of North-East Africans, stop distorting the facts. That figure represents the most ‘Negroid’ mixture found in those Ethiopians who absorbed the Middle Eastern ancestry. Not all Ethiopians are have 40% Middle Eastern ancestry.
“More importantly, the sub-Saharan (Negroid) component in modern NE African populations is predominantly maternal, while the paternal side is composed almost entirely of Middle Eastern and North African (Caucasoid) lineages (see, e.g., Passarino et al. 1998 -- under "Discussion").
Furthermore, E3b has been shown to correlate with Caucasoid racial characteristics:” http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000578.html
Quit trying to dodge the facts racialreality. That’s data from Coon’s outdated, debunked source. Dienekes focused only on Berbers who have E-81. What about the E-M78 in East Africans? E3b hasn’t been scientifically proven to correlate to any set of racial characteristics. Since E3b arose in East Africa 26,000 years ago, are you saying the earliest bearers of this gene were Caucasoids? If so, so called ‘Caucasoid’ features found in East Africans do not result from mixture with Middle Easterners, as Said Mohammad showed with his table of anthropometric data with ‘mixed’ and unmixed East African populations.
quote:
Wrong again. [E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's not sub-Saharan Africa, stupid. It's Northeastern Africa,
Stupid indeed! I see we are once again in the business of providing elementary education for the geographically impared rejects from EuroDisneyLand:
Sub Sahara Africa:
Region of Africa South of the Sahara desert.
Horn of Africa: NorthEastern Peninsula of Sub-Saharan Africa
List of Sub-Saharan African countries:
Republic of Angola (Angola).
Republic of Benin (Benin).
Republic of Botswana (Botswana).
Burkina Faso (Burkina).
Republic of Burundi (Burundi).
Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon).
Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde).
Central African Republic.
Republic of Chad (Chad).
Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros (Comoros).
Democratic Republic of Congo.
Republic of the Congo (Congo).
Republic of Co.AE3te d'Ivoire (CoAE3te d'Ivoire).
Republic of Djibouti (Djibouti).
Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea).
State of Eritrea (Eritrea).
Ethiopia.
Gabonese Republic (Gabon).
Republic of the Gambia (Gambia).
Republic of Ghana (Ghana).
Republic of Guinea (Guinea).
Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Guinea-Bissau).
Republic of Kenya (Kenya).
Kingdom of Lesotho (Lesotho).
Republic of Liberia (Liberia).
Republic of Madagascar (Madagascar).
Republic of Malawi (Malawi).
Republic of Mali (Mali).
Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania).
Republic of Mauritius (Mauritius).
Republic of Mozambique (Mozambique).
Republic of Namibia (Namibia).
Republic of Niger (Niger).
Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria).
Republic of Rwanda (Rwanda).
Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome and Principe).
Republic of Senegal (Senegal).
Republic of Seychelles (Seychelles).
Republic of Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone).
Somalia.
Republic of South Africa (South Africa).
Republic of Sudan (Sudan).
Kingdom of Swaziland (Swaziland).
United Republic of Tanzania (Tanzania).
Republic of Togo (Togo).
Republic of Uganda (Uganda).
Republic of Zambia (Zambia).
Republic of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe).
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 January 2005).]
Where do these fools come from Charlie? They are so into racial self delusion that they ignore their own source material, whenever they don't like what they are reading. Astounding really.
History Lesson:
History shows that you are incapable of intelligent and topical discourse. At least EuroDisney stays on topic. You can't even do that.
Here endth the lesson.
quote:
Evil Euro:
Ignoramus. E3b exited Africa beginning in the Upper Paleolithic and then spread out from the Near East 15-20,000 years later, taking the form of clusters with distinct origins (one of which -- E-M78a -- is specific to Europe). This has all been demonstrated by Luis et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004 and Cruciani et al. 2004. Get your sources up to date.
I know that this was intended to be some kind of a counter argument reference to E3b origins in sub-Saharan Africa. The only problem with its use here though, is that it doesn't counter sub-Saharan origins of this gene group. It simply asserts how this branched out from Africa, and morphed into its new state in the given geographical region.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in...genotype, with distinct lineages introduced from Africa
quote:And therin lies your problem:
So what? Everyone's non-European
Your pure race was invented by Johann Friedirch Blumenbach, whose primary assertation was that the European [white] race was the original race, from which all others are degenerate. By the logic of the inventor of the caucasian race; Europeans would be degenerate forms of African! You are a fool to continue asserting Blumenbach's theory, which modern genetics and anthropology have falsified.
Therefore you must stop trying to define -
* genes
* physical traits
* languages
* cultures
* civilisation and
race......
in terms of Europeans, where these elements do NOT in fact originate in Europe or necessarily especially relate to Europe, at all.
quote:
if you go back far enough
quote:
So according to your reasoning, the "pure Nordics" you refer to should be considered Asiatic or Mongoloid, since you consider E3b carriers African/Negroid
No way. I leave that 'pure' race fantasy to you. According to me 'pure race' is an oxymoron. For believing in it, you're just a plain old moron. Hope that helps.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 January 2005).]
rasol:
"No way. I leave that 'pure' race fantasy to you. According to me 'pure race' is an oxymoron. For believing in it, you're just a plain old moron. Hope that helps"
The idea that Europeans represent some kind of a homogeneous group, and racially pure has outlived its usefulness. It is from this primitive logic, comes the notion of a superior race, and the related antics associated with making up history along the way, in an attempt to explain off accomplishments of foreigners, however minimal the genetic and cultural lineage with Europeans.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
rasol...The problem you have is one of trying to fight a big battle with a little stick. Its like a trained Parrot who has only been taught to say 'black' over and over again. By the way son, did you pinch yourself this morning to see if you were still black??? when pressed you avoid historical subjects and either call names are revert to the black thing again. I knew you were an idiot when you wanted to argue about the most basic tenets in the development of western civilization.
The problem with racialreality is that he's obsessed with racial and cultural purity. In other words, Middle Eastern ancestry in southern Europeans is Neolithic not Middle Eastern in the interest of keeping southern European cultural achievements purely European. However, Middle eastern ancestry in Ethiopians is proof of Caucasoids bringing culture to the once primitive Ethiopians, at least according to the logic used by racialreality aka Racial Myths.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...you are simply making this stuff up. For one thing all races have elements within it who preach supremacy. That is just part of a community favoring ideas, features and attitudes that are simular to their own. Its part of human nature. You seem to have bought into this idea that racism is exclusive to the Europeans. You could make the case that this board is doing the same thing, all you guys talk about is race from a black and African perspective.
As long as you are blaming Europeans for everything from hurricanes to the common cold nobody is going to take you seriously.
Oh please man, give this nonsense a rest. Everytime someone makes a meaningful point about blacks in Egypt you come with the same meaningless talk about Afrocentrism. You never argue anything against the point being made so in essence you argue with your head in the sand.
[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
OI see Bass, its OK for him to spout anti European racist dribble but I can't call him on it. If you can't confront the issues go crawl back into what ever hole you came out of.
Can you ever hold one debate without mentioning Afrocentrism and points not central to the discussion? Basically, you cannot call anyone out on anything if all you do is talk the same jazz. I his points were being made in reference to Evil Euro's posts, not anything in general.
quote:
The problem with racialreality is that he's obsessed with racial and cultural purity
Yep. And such a misguided concept for someone living in the 21 century. One of the nice things about the best of Sicily website is that it shows that some folks are ready to move the game on: http://www.bestofsicily.com/genetics.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
OI see Bass, its OK for him to spout anti European racist dribble but I can't call him on it. If you can't confront the issues go crawl back into what ever hole you came out of.
The outmoded 19th century Egyptology existed,did it not? It was perpetrated by the then racist European historians and scientists, was it not? This concerns Egyptology, and I have simply stated what is well known. Hence, your remarks about some racially prejudice members from other ehnicities is irrelevant to the damage that was done to Egyptology, which is now appropriately being corrected by the scientific community.
For example: The curliest and thickest form of hair, sometimes called 'peppercorn' is most commonly found among San, and some Twa diminuative type Africans. At the other extreme is 'east Asian' hair which tends to be completely straight and also thin.
This means that most Europeans hair which is wavy and not straight, thin but not as thin as East Asian is intermediate between the two hair texture extremes.
Also most Black African hair 'woolly-Afro but not peppercorn'... thick but not as thick as 'khoisan' also clusters in-between.
Interestingly Badarian hair samples cluster in between Nilotic African and Khosianoid!
European's also have the most highly variable hair which tends to be thinnest in the Nordic and Euroasian regions, and thickest and curliest in Southern Europe.
European hair is therefore both intermediate - between African and East Asian - and also highly variable, and so cannot lend circumstantical phenotypical evidence to a pure race hypothesis.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:Arguably you are living proof of the damage. The walking wounded so to speak...
First Supercar, there was no damage
Good luck.
This forum offers a wealth of useful information and thoughtful interactions with intelligent discussants.
And we have you for comic relief. It's perfect!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
First Supercar, there was no damage and secondly, it is not being corrected in thge manner you suggest.
Reactionary backward people can be in the midst of real events as we speak, and still deny it's happening. Hence, Horemheb reasoning with you, isn't the way to go about business.
quote:
Horemheb:
The field should be included in Mideastern Studies and not African for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with race.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Lets first cut the kemetian crap, most people today use ancient Egypt. as an Empire Egypt looeked to the middle east. Nubia was the only aspect of its foreign poicy that looked south.
The United states borders on Mexico but we have little in common with Latin America past geography. The extention of the egyptian Empire to the north and its affect on middle eastern politics clearly puts it in that sphere. Additionally, After the Nubian period Egypt was conquored by assyria, Persia Greece and Rome demonstrating clearly that it was a basic part of the Med political system.
Horemheb, thank you for admitting that you don't know the answers to the elementary school type of questions forwarded to you. It's been fun playing games with you. Have a nice weekend!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...I did not answer the culture question because it is not relevant to the issue of why AE should be included in the middle east and not Africa. If you were not so ill informed you would know that we have many people with terminal degrees in African history who did not study Egypt at all in their degree plans. Conversely, everyone with a history degree in middle eastern studies has to do a major portion of their work in AE. I understand that that fact does not conform to the black crap you are hung up on and obsessed by but it is true all the same.
Horemheb, as you would put it: let's cut the half-baked geopolitical "crackpot" crap, and look at the real world just for a minute. What is Kemet civilization, if it's not about its culture? So what if they dealt with people in your misinformed view of what the Middle East is? It only goes to show that these regions became part of the Kemetian empire, not the other way around. United states deals with a number of countries around the globe, not to mention recent adventures in the Middle East. Does this suddenly make the U.S Middle Eastern? This seems to be your train of thought. If only you took time to actually understand Kemetian culture, you would instantly realize how psychologically isolated you truly are for placing Kemet outside of what you preceive as being African. Just a pointer; Kemetians dealt with other Africans on either side of their border, including the Land of Punt (not that you are familiar with any of this, as you last comment clarifies). Remember: a mind is a terrible thing to waste!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Thats the only reason I am still here supercar, might be able to save at least one mind here. The info I gave you is not 'my view' it is 'the view.' Ancient Egypt is taught in every Westerv Civ class AS A PART OF THE MIDDLE EAST. I have taught that class at least 20 times myself. If you will kindly check the Glencoe-McGraw Hill Text on world history you will find your beloved AE taught in the section with mesopotamia.....NOT IN THE SECTION WITH AFRICA. This is just the way it is and the way it has to be. I'm not being ugly supercar...I honestly believe you have been brainwashed with incorrect information.
By the way , in the text I mentioned they do not call it Kemet.
Kemet is being taught in the West, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. This is supposed to be some kind of a wacko logic, that it suddenly makes Kemet European, South American, Australian, Japanese and why not throw the entire globe in. Horemheb, we at least know that you are waisting your mind, but please spare others this predicament. It's your call.
quote:
Horemheb:
The field should be included in Mideastern Studies and not African for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with race.
quote:..is non-sequitor as the middle east a European concept of no relevance to Kemetian history. Failure to grasp that fact is one of the 1st signs of an inadequete education in the history of the Nile Valley.
as an Empire Egypt looeked to the middle east.
quote:
Nubia was the only aspect of its foreign poicy that looked south.
Also, the Kemetian royal etymology literally reads as "He who comes from the South" Nsu Biti.
* Nubia (Ta Seti) played a role in the Foundation of Kemet.
* Nubia was a part of Kemet for centuries.
* Kemet was a part of Kush for nearly a century.
quote:
cut the Kemet crap
quote:That is a tautalogy passing itself off as an answer. However, it's more than you are usually worth, so I give you a D- for this post instead of the usual enivitable F. Keep trying Professor!
I did not answer the culture question because it is not relevant to the issue of why AE should be included in the middle east and not Africa. If you were not so ill informed you would know that we have many people with terminal degrees in African history who did not study Egypt at all in their degree plans. Conversely, everyone with a history degree in middle eastern studies has to do a major portion of their work in AE
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Check the text i mentioned....only an idiot cannot learn...don't put yourself in that catagory.
You are right; you have shown us, from your self-repesentation, how an idiot cannot learn. Go hit the basics of Kemetian culture; it will do you some good. We've moved on from the 19th century European awareness of the world.
We should also note that terms such as "Middle East" are of very recent vintage and were coined by the British and French during a very racially conscious(on the part of the European colonisers) colonial era.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Check the Glencoe text Supercar...it wasn't published in the 19th century but rather three years ago...the 21st...
So are the reactionary backward clowns, as the types in stormfront. They supposedly live in the 21st century, but their intelligence level goes back to where the Vikings left off, if the not pre-stone age era capacity of thinking.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
This is all a matter of semantics of where ancient Egyptian history is taught. Let's compare and contrast what similarities there are between Egypt and other surrounding civlizations in the Near East:
1. ancestor veneration[found in all African soceities and especially in ancient Egyptian soceities]
2. City state urbanization vs. villages[most of mesopotamia and Greece were city states] Egyptian civlization is known as the civlization without cities. Most of Egypt was nothing more than village nomes.
3. Divine kingship and the rain maker king[almost absent in Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern civlizations]
4. Egyptians forbade their priests from wearing sheep skin garments[we find this in Middle eastern and Asiatic countries but not in Egypt] Sinhue in his very own tales of Sinuhe relates how he would not like to be buried in sheep skin.
5. The absence of mummification and mortuary rites associated with it[Sumerians buried their dead underneath houses] I can show you remains of a elaborate mummified remains from the Sahara older than anything in Egypt.
6. Treat of women and Matrilineal desent[the Semetic cultures are patrilineal] Women in mediterranean soceity were subdorant to men. In African cultures women are not. Ancient Egyptian was no exception.
This is all a matter of semantics of where ancient Egyptian history is taught. Let's compare and contrast what similarities there are between Egypt and other surrounding civlizations in the Near East:
1. ancestor veneration[found in all African soceities and especially in ancient Egyptian soceities]
2. City state urbanization vs. villages[most of mesopotamia and Greece were city states] Egyptian civlization is known as the civlization without cities. Most of Egypt was nothing more than village nomes.
3. Divine kingship and the rain maker king[almost absent in Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern civlizations]
4. Egyptians forbade their priests from wearing sheep skin garments[we find this in Middle eastern and Asiatic countries but not in Egypt] Sinhue in his very own tales of Sinuhe relates how he would not like to be buried in sheep skin.
5. The absence of mummification and mortuary rites associated with it[Sumerians buried their dead underneath houses] I can show you remains of a elaborate mummified remains from the Sahara older than anything in Egypt.
6. Treat of women and Matrilineal desent[the Semetic cultures are patrilineal] Women in mediterranean soceity were subdorant to men. In African cultures women are not. Ancient Egyptian was no exception.
[This message has been edited by King_Scorpion (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
You cannot use school textbooks as proof of the AE. Not only is AE tuaght on a very small level, but it's still taught as a Middle Eatern civilization...ONLY because that's the status-quo. That doesn't make it right though. Now, you can learn the truth in numerous colleges where the curriculum is more open and free.
There is no such thing an ancient Middle Eastern history. Reactionary backward Eurocentric clowns come up with these terminologies. The problem with their mindset, is that they actually miss the fact that Middle East is just another geopolitical term that applies to both African and Asian countries. Mental hibernation has done more damage than good to these reactionary folks.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:There doesn't seem to be one.
All of that is not the point of the argument
quote:
IF it were all true that would not change the fact that from a geo-political point of view AE is a middle eastern africa.
Here is something for you Professor. It comes from the Britanica, so you should find the source unobjectionable.
It is written at a very basic level, so you should understand it.
The Middle East -
The term was coined in 1900 and in its earliest uses designated the northern approaches to India from Iran to Tibet. The Middle East therefore occupied the area between the Near East, a term used to signify the Ottoman Empire and its successor states from Serbia to Iraq, and the Far East, consisting principally of China and Japan. Following the break up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I the term Near East declined in popularity (although it has never disappeared) and parts of its domain, namely the Arab Near East, came to be described in British official terminology as the Middle East. The Middle East thus began a journey westwards and was further enlarged during World War II when, in British political and military usage, the term came to signify more or less the area defined above. The Middle East was a wholly [European] strategic concept; countries and peoples were not grouped together because it was thought they had any cultural affinities one with another, but because outsiders, mainly the British, found it convenient to treat them as a bloc for their military and political purposes.
Now try to think about that Professor. No response is even being asked of you. Just quietly sit and think about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
ITS ABOUT TIME, at least 'King' can read and is aware of what i was trying to say...here is the point
1. I don't care whether you think it is right or wrong...AE is taught with the near east in history text
2. It doesn't matter whether you think AE is populated by blacks or Martians, its is still taught as a neareast subject
3. I don't care if you think that fact that its taught that way is regressive or not...its still taught that way. It will continue to be taught that way.
Poor thing: your mind is not in tune with reality. You have no regard for reality, and so why should it matter to you? You could be rescued, you know; it doesn't have to be this way. You now have yourself believing that people criticizing you, are actually being hypnotize by all this logic-free ranting. Hence your reference to King_scorpian.
Horemheb: You being the type who will never get the concept of the terminology of Middle Eastern/Near Eastern, as Rasol appropriately pointed out (which rational people realize isn't a euphemism for 'outside of Africa'), here is what the real world is doing about the Nile Valley as part of African studies, but reationary-backward sections of Eurocentrics have missed it, like you pointed out somewhere.:
Columbia university :http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/africa/cuvl/AncEgypt.html
University of Pennsylvania:http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Country_Specific/Egypt.html
Berkley:http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/AfricanVid.html
University of Florida:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/aleslie/K_12Websites/K-12WebsiteList.html#EDUCATIONAL%20RESOURCES
Cornell University:http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/guides/ancient.html
Boston University:http://www.bu.edu/africa/outreach/materials/videos/vidlevel/adult.html
Fordham University:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html
HistoryTeacher.nethttp://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/1ancientcivilizations.htm
Ohio State University:http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/mmerryfield/global_resources/modules/AfHAncient.htm
BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section3.shtml...
I am sure the list would go on, but rational people will have already gotten the drift.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 21 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Your pure race caucasoids catagory now includes prognathesism, sickle cell anemia, dark skin, dark eyes, and curly black hair. Physical traits that falsify your hypothesis.
With the exception of sickle cell, which I've already explained to you, none of those traits are "non-white" or "non-European". Mediterranean types are documented in Europe as far back as the Upper Paleolithic period, having adapted all of said traits in situ long before the arrival of "recent African genes". Jelinek describes a set of European skulls from 25,000 years ago as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean" (Current Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 5., Dec. 1969, pp. 475-503).
For the last time, Negro, my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid. They -- and Europeans in general -- may be genetically mixed (different haplogroups) and subracially mixed (different phenotypes), but their descent is almost purely Caucasoid. This has been established using autosomal DNA (see this study), which happens to be the best kind of DNA to analyze -- but I wouldn't expect you to know that. What it all proves is not that Southern Europeans are "100% pure", but that they don't have enough non-Caucasoid admixture to affect them from a racial standpoint. Get it, monkey?
quote:
Well according to Arredi and other molecular geneticists...you only have to go back as far as the Moorish conquest of Spain, because that's where much of your African DNA comes from. But, let me guess....she's in idiot too?
No, the only idiot here is you. I don't know what exactly you're referring to (no doubt some study you didn't understand), but all of the material I've seen on the subject shows that Spain was minimally affected by the Moorish occupation. Do some real research before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself. I'll help you out:
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/spaniards.html
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/phoen_moors.html
quote:
I see we are once again in the business of providing elementary education for the geographically impared rejects from EuroDisneyLand:
"Ethiopia: Located in northeastern Africa, in an area known as the Horn of Africa...." (Encyclopedia Britannica)
"Ethiopia, located in the 'Horn of Africa', is not usually considered as part of Sub-Saharan Africa...." (Source)
Map Centre: Northeastern Africa
quote:
One of the nice things about the best of Sicily website is that it shows that some folks are ready to move the game on: [URL]http://www.bestofsicily.com/genetics.htm [/URL]
I already dealt with the methodological flaws of that website in another thread. Posting the link again only confirms that you're a fool who knows nothing about the field of population genetics.
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 22 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Your pure race caucasoids catagory now includes prognathesism, sickle cell anemia, dark skin, dark eyes, and curly black hair. Physical traits that falsify your hypothesis.
quote:No you rationalise in order to remain in denial. That is not a form of 'explanation'.
With the exception of sickle cell, which I've already explained
quote:...non European genes which by definition contradicts your fantasy of a Europe that is quote "racially pure".
in situ long before the arrival of "recent African genes".
quote:Mediterranean is weasel word used to disguise the FACT of heterogenity in Europe.
Jelinek describes a set of European skulls from 25,000 years ago as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean"
quote:A far fetched concept that is not supported by modern genetics, not supported by modern physical anthropology, and asserted by method of dumb repettition of nonsense words, which seek, but fail to assuage their ethnophobic paranoia.
my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid.
quote:LOL. Listen to him...MAY be. Can't even speak the obvious truth straight out.
They -- and Europeans in general -- may be genetically mixed
Classic ethnophobe in denial. When you learn to simply accept the facts of diversity and stop asserting race purity mantras that you know very well are specious, you will be less angry and frustrated, EuroDisney.
quote:
Well according to Arredi and other molecular geneticists...you only have to go back as far as the Moorish conquest of Spain, because that's where much of your African DNA comes from. But, let me guess....she's in idiot too?
quote:Which doesn't matter to you anyway, since you comment out of ethnophobia, in the abscense of all logic and reason.
No, the only idiot here is you. I don't know what exactly you're referring to
quote:
but all of the material I've seen on the subject shows that Spain was minimally affected by the Moorish occupation.
the proportion of haplogroup E chromosomes of African origin (E[xE3b], E-M35*, and E-M81) was <5% in three Spanish locations; 10.0% and 14.2% in northern and southern Portugal, respectively; and >40% in the Pasiegos (table 1). A relatively high frequency of E-M81 in a different sample of Pasiegos (18%) and non-Pasiegos Cantabrians (17%) has also recently been reported (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003). Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression in different parts of the peninsula, as well as drift/founder effects for the small Pasiegos group.
Fulvio Cruciani,1 Roberta La Fratta, et al.
Imagine a EuroDisney reject, reading the above and concluding that the influence of the Moorish conquests in Southern Europe were 'minimal' and that Europeans therefore constitute a pure race.
EuroDisney: It's a small small (minded) 'world' (you live in), after all.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
You know Evil, just from the simple fact that you're calling people Negro's and monkey's takes away all validity you MAY have had...which wasn't a lot anyway. Passionate beliefs can only go so far on this board. And you can stop with the Racial Real links too. That site supports some of the most out-dated and debunked nonsense on the internet. Aside from maybe Stormfront, but they probably get some of their info from there...like you. Evil, are you from the ol'Front? Why keep playing games with us, just come out and tell us your beliefs in the "Master Race."
racial reality is HIS website, he's the webmaster, no lie.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
racial reality is HIS website, he's the webmaster, no lie.
Anyone who wants to try to convince people that Ethiopia is not in sub-saharan Africa is a 3rd rate distortion junkie of the most crude sort.
For such demagogues, fibbing is par for the course. Thus their approach to information is essentially - 'caveat emptor', let the buyer beware.
Perhaps he will next claim that Britain is 'often considered' part of the "Amazon Basin", therefore making the Inca civilisation Anglo Saxon Aryans.
How pathetic. I'm not impressed.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 22 January 2005).]
For those who need elementary school education on geography; here are three African maps-one is about political boundaries, and the others are geological:
(courtesy of worldatlas)
(courtesy of EnchantedLearning)
(courtesy of calacademy)
This one (below) is a bonus for folks like Horemheb, who are lost about what "Middle East" means (ps-not a continent):
It is really sad that this board has boiled down to this. One would think that participants here will have familiarized themselves with this basic stuff long ago, before taking on educated folks on the more serious stuff. 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Well, EuroDisney is a distortion junkie. He knows the geography but rearranges it to suit his ideology. In his next ridiculous post he will provide some lame excuse for his wild claims, complete with Arthor Kemp weblink showing Ethiopia and Egypt to be the location of Aryan Valhalla!
Well, I think Deniakes and his various websites are actually
a N. Med reaction to Aryans who bar them from Valhalla. Instead
of being proud of the distinctive mindset and history of the sunny
Mediterranean their idea is to outwhite the Aryans thus their
contrived exaggerated antiblack attitides.
This way of thinking is also displayed by the Mulatto Movement who
blame hypodescent on the blacks rather than the whites, and the Amazigh
Activists who take great pains to disconnect themselves from all
other Africans excepting Egypt and claim all culture in West Africa
was derived from Imazighen from the neolithic to the Songhai empire.
[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 22 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Columbia university :http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/africa/cuvl/AncEgypt.html
University of Pennsylvania:http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Country_Specific/Egypt.html
Berkley:http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/AfricanVid.html
University of Florida:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/aleslie/K_12Websites/K-12WebsiteList.html#EDUCATIONAL%20RESOURCES
Cornell University:http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/guides/ancient.html
Boston University:http://www.bu.edu/africa/outreach/materials/videos/vidlevel/adult.html
Fordham University:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html
HistoryTeacher.nethttp://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/1ancientcivilizations.htm
Ohio State University:http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/mmerryfield/global_resources/modules/AfHAncient.htm
BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section3.shtml...
I am sure the list would go on, but rational people will have already gotten the drift.
I'm sorry LOL but ...
You officaly OWN Horemheb
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Well, I think Deniakes and his various websites are actually
a N. Med reaction to Aryans who bar them from Valhalla. Instead
of being proud of the distinctive mindset and history of the sunny
Mediterranean their idea is to outwhite the Aryans thus their
contrived exaggerated antiblack attitides.[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 22 January 2005).]
Thought Writes:
Bingo. Here is a "Nordicist" response to the "Meds". These "purity" debates are comedy:
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/7.html
"Also keep in mind, Greeks have 28% Near Eastern HG9 and 28% North African HG21. Much of this ancestry may date from the Neolithic, but it is curious that RM doesn't interpret this data to mean Greeks are 56% "Hamito-Semitic" and therefore very much less than "pure" European."
"The presence of Negroid or partially-Negroid types in Greece is confirmed by cranial evidence. J.L. Angel reports:
In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date."
"Considering the foregoing, it should come as no surprise that Richards et al. (2000) detected Ethiopian mtDNA haplogroup M1 in Greece. Additionally, sub-Saharan Y-chromosome haplogroup A (most common among Khoisians and Ethiopians) was found in an individual from Mitilini (Di Giacomo et al. in press). Other sub-Saharan haplogroups are found in Greece's neighbors. Note, Greece remains relatively little studied with respect to population genetics. The few relevant studies that have been done have fairly small sample sizes. It's too early to say much about levels of sub-Saharan mtDNA markers compared to other countries in Europe. In any event, exact levels of recent sub-Saharan mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers aren't all that relevant, since larger amounts of Negroid genes may have entered Greece via Negroid-admixed, E3b-carrying North African males.
E3b, the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Greece, "probably originated in eastern Africa" (Semino et al. 2004). It has been proposed that the most frequent E3b subclade in Greece, E-M78, which accounts for nearly half of Peloponnesian Y-chromosomes (Cruciani et al. 2004), originated in Somalia (Sanchez et al. 2003). Bearing in mind the above, it is perhaps not so surprising that the much maligned study "HLA Genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan Origin of the Greeks" independently reported a genetic connection between Ethiopians and Greeks (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001).
In addition to ancient admixture, some Negroid admixture may have accrued to Greece during Ottoman times. Buxton and Rice (1931) mention that "in Cyprus there is a greater proportion of platyrrhiny among the lower classes than in other social strata, but this is perhaps due to the importation of negro slaves by the Turks." Angel (1945) mentions a "Turkish period skeleton" from Athens, "which is unquestionably the remains of a Negroid individual, though possibly with very slight white admixture." Interestingly, 4.3% of Y-chromosomes in a sample of Turkish Cypriots are sub-Saharan (Cruciani et al. 2004; values for Greek Cypriots aren't reported)."
Modern Greeks are overwhelmingly dark-haired and rarely fair-skinned.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!These people crack me up. It's amazing what people can come up with....hey it's a creative imagination.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
A far fetched concept that is not supported by modern genetics
Um, yes it is. Learn how to click on links and then read and understand page content. It's a very useful skill:
http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000619.html
quote:
"Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression"
The operative words being "may" and "in part". Further, Pasiegos form an isolated Moorish refuge -- i.e. they're subject to drift/founder effect and not representative of Spaniards.
quote:
I doubt it. Self deluding xenophobes hear only what they want to hear and ignore the facts even when plainly stated
You're talking about yourself there. Again, read (under "Genetics") these plainly stated facts about ethnic Spaniards:
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/spaniards.html
And one more not to be missed:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/iberian-y-chromosomes.html
quote:
Mediterranean is weasel word used to disguise the FACT of heterogenity in Europe.
No. Mediterranean describes a European/Caucasoid phenotype, like Alpine, Dinaric, Baltic, Nordic etc. Such phenotypes were produced by environmental pressures and intermixing among Caucasoids. For example, Nordics are a hybrid of Paleolithic brunet Mediterraneans from Central Europe and depigmented East Baltics from Northern Europe. Genetically, however, they're nearly pure Caucasoid, like all of the other subraces.
quote:
Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression"
quote:
EuroDisney writes:
"The operative words being "may" and "in part"
Actually the operative word for you is -> denial.
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
[re: caucasiod race purity] A far fetched concept that is not supported by modern genetics.
quote:
EuroDisney writes: Um, yes it is. Learn how to click on links and then read and understand page content
Uhm, no it isn't, and once again, you better read your links carefully before citing them.....
quote:
from dienekes.com: Dienekes writes: PS: Of course the authors do not use "racial" terminology
NO. They don't do they. Of course not, because most molecular geneticists have rejected such nonsense as.....far fetched concepts and that is why Dienekes - THE FRAUD - inserts racial classifications himself, in order to generate the hilarious debate that ensues. You miss that, because as usual...you hear only what you want to hear.
Such is the art of self-delusion.
And this is why Dienekes and his website are regarded by bioanthropologists as an internet freak show.
Then again, perhaps your Dienekes-links are really meant to illustrate:
Thought Writes:
These "purity" debates are comedy:
If so, point taken.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No. Mediterranean describes a European/Caucasoid phenotype, like Alpine, Dinaric, Baltic, Nordic etc. Such phenotypes were produced by environmental pressures and intermixing among Caucasoids. For example, Nordics are a hybrid of Paleolithic brunet Mediterraneans from Central Europe and depigmented East Baltics from Northern Europe. Genetically, however, they're nearly pure Caucasoid, like all of the other subraces.
There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.
quote:
There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.
Disinfecting Dienekes:
quote:- Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms {
These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnosticsThese results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.
quote:
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Evil Euro:
The early Mediterraneans are not white, but instead black skinned people with straight hair. They may look "Caucasoid"-like, but they do NOT originate from Caucasus. Their ancestor did come from East Africa, just like everyone of us, but they did not have any Caucasian ancestry.
This would explain why, an old acquaintance of mine looks and appears the way he does.......
As you can see from the picture above, he is a model. But, when we first met, I noticed he had an accent.
So when I asked him where he was from, I was astonished at his reply. He said he was from Sicily, and migrated here to the states when he was 15.
He also told me, he gets mistaken for being black(African-American) all the time. He also stated to me that he does not like being referred to as black.
So when I asked him, what does he prefer to be referred to as? He simply replied back saying "Sicilian"
All I could say at the time was "Interesting to say the least!"
[This message has been edited by EGyPT2005 (edited 23 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
And this is why Dienekes and his website are regarded by bioanthropologists as an internet freak show.[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 January 2005).]
Thought Writes:
Exactly!
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.
Dispelling Fallacy:
"We know that some anthropologists tried to identify the Dravidians with what is known as “the Mediterranean race’. Such a general label which conceals gaps in our knowledge of anthropology is indeed confusing"
Truth:
"Consequently, it might have been less ambiguous, as some experts have done, to call that Mediterranean race the “Negroid race” , since its characteristics are precisely those of the blacks in general: an elongated skull, dark or brown skin, these two adjectives being quite often euphemisms for ‘black’. I refer you to [u]Alexander Moret’s[/u] description of the ancient Mediterraneans. This is the place to mention once again the fact that the ancient Greeks did not label as white the former inhabitants of North-West Africa, that is to say, of the present Magreb_Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia -- since they called the inhabitants Mauroi or ‘moors’, meaning men with ‘ a dark skin’. And Herodotus tells us that the Colchidians, a Middle East people, were as ‘Black as Egyptians”"
Dr. K.P. Aravanan
Vice Chancellor
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 23 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 23 January 2005).]
quote:
Well, I think Deniakes and his various websites are actually
a N. Med reaction to Aryans who bar them from Valhalla. Instead
of being proud of the distinctive mindset and history of the sunny
Mediterranean their idea is to outwhite the Aryans thus their
contrived exaggerated antiblack attitides.
quote:
Evil Euro:
For the last time, Negro, my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid.
With this admission of non-racial purity, this argument should have been over long ago. Of course, the 95% “Caucasoid” bit is utter nonsense, since humans basically share the same genes, about 99.9%, with the remaining small percentage determining phenotypic characteristics.
This simple fact alone blows away any notion of racial purity…something for irrational folks to ponder. Or else, the irrational one would have to prove that Europeans are not humans...as is the rest of humanity.
Sickle cell presence in southern Europe, is just one but part of various indicators of sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. The E3b is another notorious one.
Any question on sickle cell...just check out this Constellation: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001404.html
quote:
Evil Euro:
E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic. It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the specific cluster that makes up the bulk of Southern European E3b actually originated in Southern Europe and is not found at all in Eastern or Southern Africa. It's found only at low frequencies in the Near East and Northern Egypt, no doubt representing Ancient Greek input.
Of course, this would be Evil Euro’s opportunity to show us a current genetic study by authoritative sources, that suggest absence of E3b in sub-Saharan east and southern Africa, and its origins elsewhere other than Africa.
Here is my take on that with this up-to-date genetic study:
Source:
Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b
quote:
Evil Euro:
Ethiopia: Located in northeastern Africa, in an area known as the Horn of Africa...."
A simple reference to the African map, should eliminate such misrepresentations.
quote:
Evil Euro:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):
It only takes linguistic analysis and genetics to falsify that statement. Firstly, Berber is a language and not a race. The language is part of the Afrasian group of languages, which traces its origins in east Africa. Further genetic coding shows that paternal chromosomes are predominantly African. E-M81 is found largely in Berber populations, with some occurrences in southern European populations via Berber contribution. It is also found among Berber speaking Tauregs of Niger.
Niger Tuaregs and Berbers. They sure look Caucasoid:
source: http://www.galenfrysinger.com/tauregs_in_air_mountains.htm
This one's in the house :
Here is an example of a depiction of a Caucasoid Moorish Soldier, as would have appeared in Southern Europe.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 23 January 2005).]
The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup. Furthermore, the results are in agreement with a gene flow from Eastern to Northern Africa from a homeland in Somalia.
But...where do Somali come from? clue...NOT caucasia:
Conventional wisdom once held that Somali migrations followed a north-to-south route; the reverse of this now appears to be nearer the truth.
Increasingly, evidence places the Somalis within a wide family of peoples called Eastern Cushites by modern linguists.
In addition to the Somalis, the Cushites include the largely nomadic Afar (Danakil), who straddle the Great Rift Valley between Ethiopia and Djibouti; the Oromo, who have played such a large role in Ethiopian history and in the 1990s constituted roughly one-half of the Ethiopian population and were also numerous in northern Kenya; the Reendille (Rendilli) of Kenya; and the Aweera (Boni) along the Lamu coast in Kenya. The Somalis belong to a subbranch of the Cushites, the Omo-Tana group, whose languages are almost mutually intelligible. The original home of the Omo-Tana group appears to have been on the Omo and Tana rivers, in an area extending from Lake Turkana in present-day northern Kenya to the Indian Ocean coast.
The Somalis form a subgroup of the Omo-Tana called Sam. Having split from the main stream of Cushite peoples about the first half of the first millennium B.C., the proto-Sam appear to have spread to the grazing plains of northern Kenya, where protoSam communities seem to have followed the Tana River and to have reached the Indian Ocean coast well before the first century A.D. On the coast, the proto-Sam splintered further; one group (the Boni) remained on the Lamu Archipelago, and the other moved northward to populate southern Somalia.
The Samaale again moved farther north in search of water and pasturelands. They swept into the vast Ogaden (Ogaadeen) plains, reaching the southern shore of the Red Sea by the first century A.D. German scholar Bernd Heine, who wrote in the 1970s on early Somali history, observed that the Samaale had occupied the entire Horn of Africa by approximately 100 A.D.http://countrystudies.us/somalia/3.htm
Point of irony for the geographically impaired.
Somalia not only extends into the Southern hemisphere - futher south than any part of Nigeria for example - but also has a largely superficial 'political' non geographical border with Kenya.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Actually the operative word for you is -> denial.
And the operative word for you is -> illiterate.
"The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool.
"...the origins of the Iberian Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. It should be noted that H58 and H71 are not the only haplotypes present in the Middle East and that the Neolithic wave of advance could have brought other lineages to Iberia and NW Africa."
[Bosch et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2001]
quote:
"PS: Of course the authors do not use 'racial' terminology" -- NO. They don't do they. Of course not, because most molecular geneticists have rejected such nonsense as.....far fetched concepts
The denial of race by many modern scientists is the result of PC tyranny, not academic integrity. Thankfully, some responsible geneticists are starting to speak out against it:
"Frequently, it is erroneously contended that the high (85–95%) within-group variance of human populations is inconsistent with the existence of races because differences between individuals are greater than differences between groups."
[Bamshad et al. (2004) Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 598-609]
"Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories."
[Tang et al. (2005) Am. J. Hum. Genet., 76:000]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.
From a recent genetic study:
"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."
[Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998]
quote:
Originally posted by EGyPT2005:
So when I asked him where he was from, I was astonished at his reply. He said he was from Sicily, and migrated here to the states when he was 15.
Ha ha ha! That guy may be "from Sicily", but he's no Sicilian. The island has a large immigrant population, which includes many North and West Africans. If you seriously believe that an ethnic Sicilian could look like that, then Afrocentric ignorance runs even deeper than I thought.
These are real Sicilians:
The assertion of race purity hokem in contradiction to the reality of modern science is the result of YOUR LOW SELF ESTEEM.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
From a recent genetic study:"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian [b]gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."
[Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998][/B]
Recent as in 7 years ago? Who the hell are you trying fool moron. That study says "Caucasoid" genes and "African" . If Caucasoid is taken to mean Yemenis, they're wrong, for the earliest Yemenis certainly were not "Caucasoids" phenotypically.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Niger Tuaregs and Berbers. They sure look Caucasoid:
Berber-Negro hybrids from the southern Sahara have no bearing on the issue of the Moors:
"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."
[John Baker, Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]
quote:
Here is an example of a depiction of a Caucasoid Moorish Soldier, as would have appeared in Southern Europe.
His face is covered and the picture is too dark. No matter. Based on their own depictions, Moors looked like this:
quote:
...various indicators of sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. The E3b is another notorious one.
Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):
Caucasoid Moor:
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."[John Baker, Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]
Crap
“In the Romance languages (Spanish, French and Italian) of Midieval Europe, Moor was translated as Moro, Moir and Mor. Derivatives of the word Moor may be found even today in these same languages. In Spanish, for example, the word for blackberry is mora-a noun which originally meant Moorish Women. Also in Spanish, the adjective for dark complexioned, which now means brunette, is moreno. We find a similar legacy in the French language. In French moricaud means dark skinned or blackamoor, while morillion means black grape. Again, as in Spanish, the Italian word mora means Negro or Moorish Female. Also in Italian, Mora means Blackberry, while moraiola means Black olive.”
Golden Age of the Moor, Brunson & Rashidi pg 36
"Moor" orginally meant black or dark skin people. "Moor" eventually became a generalization for anyone professing Islam. You're extremely jaded. It's rather scary.
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."
Chew on that
Let's get this one in COLOR
Here's a bonus
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
This Euro Evil guy is a clownLet's get this one in COLOR
Here's a bonus
Wow, even after all these images people will still deny any "negro" element in Europe. People should just bury their heads in the sand and leave it there.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro: Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.
Evil Euro, I have a feeling you don't take time to "carefully" read the up-to-date genetic studies I provided herein. In that study, I am *certain*, nor do I know of any other that states otherwise, that Ethiopians don't originate in Caucasia. I am also aware that they never left the continent, except for some historic trade routes with southern Arabia, which doesn't imply the "entire" population had left the continent to justify that label. Your perspective is interesting indeed; any foreign admixture in African populations make them an exclusive member of the foreign race, but African admixture in southern Europeans have no bearing on their "purity" of European. If one actually takes the time to carefully learn about these African populations, I doubt that comments such as above will be forthcoming. I mean seriously, have you actually seen a typical Ethiopian, not to mention the majority section of that population? If you have, it is indeed interesting why any rational person would think they look Caucasoid.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:
Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.
WTF? No study says that Ethiopians are Paternally Caucasoid you moron, you're making stupid idiotic conclusions. That frequently quoted study you use says that at the most, Ethiopians(mostly Amharas and Tigre, not Oromo) have 52-53% paternal Middle Eastern ancestry, learn to read the garbage you cite, moron!
Genetic variation atapolipoprotein E locus in Ethiopia: an E5 variant corresponds to two different mutant alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg).
Scacchi R, De Stefano GF, Ruggeri M, Corbo RM.
CNR Center of Evolutionary Genetics, Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
A previous investigation on apolipoprotein E polymorphism in the Ethiopian population highlighted the presence of a further variant allele named E*5 in addition to the three common alleles. The variant is considered rare elsewhere but has a frequency of more than 1% in this population. Now characterized by gene sequencing and restriction isotyping in many members of the families of the original carriers, the variant isoform has actually been found to be determined by two different gene mutations. Effectively rare in Ethiopians, one of the two, E5 (Gln204Lys, Cys 112Arg), has never been described before. The other, E5 (Glu212Lys), previously described in a subject of Turkish origin, is present at the polymorphic level only in the Ethiopian population. No subjects bearing these variants had anomalous lipid or apolipoprotein patterns. In the course of the present investigation both have been found to occur as rare variants in the southern Italian population as well. The occurrence of the two variants in the populations of Ethiopia and of the Mediterranean basin could be explained by taking into account the relevant Caucasoid contribution to the Ethiopian gene pool.
Now where in here does it say anything about Ethiopians being paternally Caucasoid?
Now this statement made my Evil Euro:
"Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together...with...the Ethiopian Amharic sample [on the Y-chromosome]. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family."
(Poloni et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1997)
I read the ENTIRE full study and nowhere does any of the conclusions Evil Euro reached matched with the study, he selectively took parts of that study, pieced them together and distorted them. Read the study http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v61n5/970152/970152.html and you'll see what I'm talking about. That study tries to say language and genes correspond which is false. Note that south African Lemba are grouped with Afro-Asiatic speakers based on their Semitic mixture, but linguistically they are Bantu speakers. The "Afro-Asiatic" samples are Sephardim(Near Eastern, North African), Lebanese, Algerian, Egyptians, Tunisians, and lastly, Ethiopians. Most of those "Afro-Asiatic speakers " speak Arabic and Hebrew, except for Ethiopians, the problem is, where are the Hausa, Omotic peoples, and Cushitic speaking peoples? Why aren't they included among Afro-Asiatic speakers, that study is clearly flawed. Evil Euro is too stupid to see that all his data he uses as sources are either outdated or conflict with one another, none say Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid. Furthermore, that study says this:
According to the first axis of the two-principal-coordinate analyses in figure 3, the Ethiopian sample is more differentiated, from other African samples, for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. This holds true when additional microsatellite markers on the Y chromosome are analyzed, and it has been attributed to unequal patterns of male and female gene flow between the Middle East and Ethiopia (G. Passarino, unpublished data).
The unpublished Passarino study is the same one Evil Euro has cited that says Ethiopians are 40% Caucasoid. Nowhere in that study did it say Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid, Evil Euro is a liar and distorter of facts.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 24 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Berber-Negro hybrids from the southern Sahara have no bearing on the issue of the Moors
Thought Writes:
Racial constructs such as this are outdated based upon the scientific model.
Thought Posts:
Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
Published online: 26 October 2004; | doi:10.1038/ng1455
Conceptualizing human variation
S O Y Keita1, 2, R A Kittles1, 3, C D M Royal1, G E Bonney1, P Furbert-Harris1, G M Dunston1 & C N Rotimi1
1 National Human Genome Center, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, USA.
2 Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
3 Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Correspondence should be addressed to R A Kittles kittles-1@medctr.osu.edu
What is the relationship between the patterns of biological and sociocultural variation in extant humans? Is this relationship accurately described, or best explained, by the term 'race' and the schema of 'racial' classification? What is the relationship between 'race', genetics and the demographic groups of society? Can extant humans be categorized into units that can scientifically be called 'races'? These questions underlie the discussions that address the explanations for the observed differences in many domains between named demographic groups across societies. These domains include disease incidence and prevalence and other variables studied by biologists and social scientists. Here, we offer a perspective on understanding human variation by exploring the meaning and use of the term 'race' and its relationship to a range of data. The quest is for a more useful approach with which to understand human biological variation, one that may provide better research designs and inform public policy.
'Race': semantics and confusion
The term 'race' engenders much discussion, with little agreement between those who claim that 'races' are real (meaning natural) biological entities and those who maintain that they are socially constructed1. The former group sometimes stresses empirical evidence for the existence of biological 'racial' differences, and the latter stresses the role that human agency has had in creating distinctions between people (on any level). Biologists also disagree about the meaning of 'race', and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation2, 3, 4, 5.
An examination of these discussions indicates that there is a problem with semantics. 'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'6, 7. In anthropology, the meaning of race became formalized for humans and restricted to units based on biological variation in keeping with general zoological practice8, 9. Classifications were based on somatic traits.
'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence11. Do any of the human groups called 'races', including those from traditional anthropology, meet this latter criterion?
We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.
Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.
'Race' and subspecies
Although the subspecies level is formally recognized in taxonomy, it has been criticized. Subspecies were primarily delimited by differences in selected observable morphological traits within a restricted geographical range. In practice, divisions were made based on a few prominent traits, with subsequent variation interpreted in terms of established units.
In the 1950s many zoological taxonomists became dissatisfied with the subspecies as a way to understand variation10, 12, 13. Criticisms included (i) the nonconcordance of traits, which made it possible to produce different classifications using the same individuals; (ii) the existence of polytopic populations, which are the product of parallel evolution; (iii) the existence of true breeding populations (demes) within previously delimited subspecies; and (iv) the arbitrariness of criteria used to recognized subspecies10. In addition, some traits were found to be clinally distributed, making the creation of divisions arbitrary.
Current systematic theory emphasizes that taxonomy at all levels should reflect evolutionary relationships11. For instance, the term 'Negro' was once a racial designation for numerous groups in tropical Africa and Pacific Oceania (Melanesians). These groups share a broadly similar external phenotype; this classification illustrates 'race' as type, defined by anatomical complexes. Although the actual relationship between African 'Negroes' and Oceanic 'Negroes' was sometimes questioned, these groups were placed in the same taxon. Molecular and genetic studies later showed that the Oceanic 'Negroes' were more closely related to mainland Asians.
Molecular systematics makes it possible to explore infraspecific variation to detect patterns that would reflect phylogenetic substructuring. Avise and Ball suggest a definition of 'subspecies' that is consistent with the goals of evolutionary taxonomy11: "Subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly the evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent, genetically based traits."
This definition is different from the previous one in that it emphasizes phylogenetics. It is, in theory, more objective and consistent with neodarwinian evolutionary theory and can be used as the basis for determining whether or not modern Homo sapiens can be structured into populations divergent enough to be called 'races'. We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees14?
'Race' and social construction
'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms.
Human races as human variation
Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.
Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.
Human genome variation, demographic groups and disease
'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome22. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%)23. Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia24. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants25. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation15, 26.
Because substantial genetic variation may be localized to regions or populations, attention has been focused on how geographic origins may contribute to differential distribution of disease and mortality or 'health disparities'. In January of 2000, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched "Healthy People 2010," a program committed to eliminating 'ethnic' and 'racial' health disparities. Although there is considerable debate regarding the definition, measurement and causes of health disparities, there is increased focus on the potential role of the distribution of DNA sequence variation in contributing to observed differences in disease status among groups.
Several competing, but not necessarily exclusive, hypotheses exist to describe the genetic contribution to complex disease, including the common disease–common variant (CDCV) hypothesis and the multiple rare variants (MRV) hypothesis27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. If it turns out to be that much of the genetic variation contributing to disease is old and shared by most human populations, as implied by the CDCV hypothesis, then differences in the health status of population groups (health disparities) will be largely due to differences in exposure to cumulative environmental insults. If the MRV hypothesis turns out to be true, however, then more comprehensive sampling of multiple human populations will be necessary to adequately describe the extent to which a differential distribution of genes underlies the pathophysiology of disease susceptibility or resistance. Under this hypothesis, a substantial proportion of genetic polymorphisms will be rare and will probably be specific to groups that experienced similar evolutionary forces of selection or drift. In the end, both the CDCV and the MRV hypotheses may apply, depending on the phenotype under consideration. The etiologies of diseases such as lupus, diabetes and Alzheimer disease are examples that may require strategies derived from both hypotheses.
An important implication of the MRV model is that no one map of polymorphic markers (e.g., a SNP map such as that generated by the HapMap project) will probably be sufficient for understanding the complex interplay between multiple genetic variants and multiple environmental factors in the etiology of human diseases across all global populations. Therefore, it may be premature at this time to completely disregard all population (or group) identifiers in biomedical research, as some propose. Group identifiers are important for seeing group patterns in disparities. For example, African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic and degenerative diseases. African American males have a 60% greater risk of developing prostate cancer, twice the risk of developing its aggressive form and twice the mortality relative to European Americans33. Study designs should reflect efforts to partition the genetic, environmental and geographic variance for the diseases that contribute most to group disparity statistics, such as obesity and related disorders.
The finding that the demographic group called 'African American' has a higher prevalence of prostate cancer, obesity and hypertension is not to be denied. This does not mean, however, that this is a 'racial' phenomenon, as disease is probably due to gene-environment interaction and not linked to the physical traits assumed to covary with this population. This group has heterogeneous ancestral continental origins, predominantly West African and West Central African. They are heterogeneous in their African origins also. Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery. It is this history, and its constituent elements, that are specific to the group. The Middle Passage African descendants, whether in North America or South America, do have a particular biocultural history34. It may be necessary to craft specific group identifiers to facilitate good research design2. 'Racial' approaches to identity, as found in Office of Management and Budget directive 15, operate from the Platonic mold that groups so defined would necessarily be genetically the same, and this is false. The New World descendants of Middle Passage Africans, whether found in specifically labeled communities (e.g., African Argentinian, African Mexican, African Venezuelan or African Canadian) or in the 'majority' populations ('mestizos' or 'whites') cannot be lumped with newcomers from the continent under the label 'black' or 'African American'. Designations like 'Arab' are also fraught with biohistorical complexity because they often designate peoples who became acculturated. For example, Syrian and Shuwa Arabs illustrate the great biological and cultural variation that may be found under a single ethnolinguistic label.
The causes of health disparities among groups are not well understood, but genetic explanations are frequently the default position for a variety of reasons, including a tradition of biological determinism4. Although genes probably have a role, we must realize that some environmental influences can be so subtle and occur so early in life as to be missed, thereby facilitating acceptance of a genetic explanation that is probably false. The fetal programming and early childhood insult hypotheses for the origins of adult disease may have a role in explaining health disparities35, 36.
'Race' and research
Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications.
Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale. Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations. Generalizations that invoke 'genetic' explanations are to be avoided unless they are warranted. All of these have policy implications for health studies.
'Racial' thinking can still be found in scientific literature15. Evolutionary and other biohistorical studies should be model-based and should acknowledge the ongoing legacy of 'racial' thinking. Collaborations with experts in appropriate fields such as historical linguistics, archaeology, ethnology and recent history would improve the quality of multidisciplinary studies.
Received 9 September 2004; Accepted 23 September 2004; Published online 26 October 2004.
REFERENCES
Andreasen, R.O. Race: Biological reality or social construct. Philos. Sci. (Proc.) 67, S653–S666 (2000). | Article |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Boyce, A.J. "Race": Confusion about zoological and social taxonomies, and their places in science. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 13, 569–575 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Andreason, R.O. A new perspective on the race debate. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 49, 199–225 (1998).
Lewontin, R. Not In Our Genes (Pantheon, New York, 1984).
Livingstone, F. On the non-existence of human races. Curr. Anthropol. 3, 279–281 (1962). | Article | ISI |
Gordon, H. Genetics and race. S. Afr. Med. J. 39, 533–536 (1965). | PubMed | ChemPort |
Stepan, N. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960 (London and Basingstoke, 1982).
Deniker, J. The Races of Man (Walter Scott, London, 1900).
Garn, S. Human Races. (McGraw Hill, Springfield, 1961).
Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P. Principles of Systematic Zoology 2nd edn. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1991).
Avise, J.C. & Ball, R.M. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 45–67 (1990).
Wilson, E.O. & Brown, W.L. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst. Zool. 2, 97–111 (1953). | ISI |
Brown, W.L. & Wilson, E.O. The case against the Trinomen. Syst. Zool. 3, 174–176 (1953).
Ruvolo, M. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26, 515–540 (1997). | Article | ISI |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Kittles, R.A. The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence. Am. Anthropol. 99, 534–544 (1997). | ISI |
Latter, B.D. Genetic differences within and between populations of the major human groups. Am. Nat. 116, 220 (1980) | Article | ISI |
Lewontin, R.C. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. 6, 381–398 (1972).
Long, J.C. & Kittles, R.A. Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Hum. Biol. 75, 449–471 (2003). | PubMed | ISI |
Nei, M. & Roychoudhury, A.K. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927–943 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994).
Underhill, P.A. et al. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann. Hum. Genet. 65, 43–62 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Kruglyak, L. & Nickerson, D. Variation is the spice of life. Nat. Genet. 27, 234–236 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Additional SNPs and linkage-disequilibrium analyses are necessary for whole-genome association studies in humans. Nat. Genet. 33, 518–521 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Allen, M., Salden, T., Patterson, U. & Gyllensten, U. Genetic typing of HLA class II genes in Swedish populations: applications in forensic analyses. J. Forensic Sci. 38, 554–570 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Rosenberg, N. et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381–2385 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Serre, D. & Paabo, S. Evidence of gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14, 1679–1685 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Collins, F.S., Brooks, L.D. & Chakravarti, A. A DNA polymorphism discovery resource for research on human genetic variation. Genome Res. 8, 1229–1231 (1998). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Reich, D. et al. Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature 411, 199–204 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Weiss, K.M. & Clark, A.G. Linkage disequilibrium and the mapping of complex human traits. Trends Genet. 18, 19–24 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Pritchard, J.K. & Cox, N.J. The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant...or not? Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2417–2423 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Selecting a maximally informative set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for association analyses using linkage disequilibrium. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 106–120 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Neale, B. & Shan, P. The future of association studies: gene-based analysis and replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75, 353–362 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Stanford, J.L. et al. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995. SEER Program, National Cancer Institute NIH Pub No 99-4543. (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 1999).
Rout, L., The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).
Barker, D.J.P. In utero programming of chronic disease. Clin. Sci. 95, 115–128 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Sallout, B. & Walker, M. The fetal origin of adult diseases. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 23, 555–560 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
quote:
Look at this 6 year old map by Hammer et al. Do you notice some
weird stuff? Look at the European cluster. Germans are closer to
Spaniards and Italians than they are to Brits or Austrians?
Look at the group having black squares or triangles. Saudi Arabians
are closer to Greeks than they are to Syrians or Palestinians?
And the craziest thing is that Sub Saharan African cluster that
stretches nearly the entire length of the Y range!
Yet when this report, based on genes that arose 1000s of
years before there were either Hebrews or Arabs, was issued
it was lauded because it showed Roman, Yemenite, Kurdish and
North African Jews to be close to the Palestinians.
Considering the flaws in this PC map alone, I am not sorry to
say that the report had an obvious political agenda behind it.
[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Let's get this one in COLOR
Re: the Afrocentric (mis)use of that image:
"The above picture of particularly dark-skinned Muslims is shown on various 'Afrocentric' web pages attempting to prove that Black Africans dominated Spanish society during the Muslim occupation. But further examination of more pictures from the same Book of Games reveals the same pattern as in the Cantigas: the component of the Muslim population that approached 'black African' in appearance seems to have been a small minority. If the pictures are any indication, then the bedrock of Islamic society in Spain consisted of people who resembled European or Middle Eastern types."
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html
quote:
Here's a bonus
Um, Ivan Van Sertima is not a reliable source. That's like citing Hitler to make a point about the race of the Jews.
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Look at this 6 year old map by Hammer et al. Do you notice some
weird stuff? Look at the European cluster. Germans are closer to
Spaniards and Italians than they are to Brits or Austrians?Look at the group having black squares or triangles. Saudi Arabians
are closer to Greeks than they are to Syrians or Palestinians?And the craziest thing is that Sub Saharan African cluster that
stretches nearly the entire length of the Y range!Yet when this report, based on genes that arose 1000s of
years before there were either Hebrews or Arabs, was issued
it was lauded because it showed Roman, Yemenite, Kurdish and
North African Jews to be close to the Palestinians.
What the hell are you babbling about? On one side of the plot, paternally Caucasoid Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans cluster together. Sub-Saharan Negroids all cluster on the opposite side of the plot because they're unrelated to the other groups. It's really not that complicated.
quote:
Considering the flaws in this PC map alone, I am not sorry to
say that the report had an obvious political agenda behind it.
The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 25 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 25 January 2005).]
Moron, you cannot properly read that map and the only one with an agenda is your ass. The North Africans and Middle Easterners do NOT at all cluster together with Europeans. The North Africans are distant from Europeans, the Europeans are a cluster to themselves and you have NOT read that study. The position of Ethiopians in that study is for the simple the reason that they have uneven male-female geneflow from Middle Easterners, the study even said that moron, can't you read? The Ethiopian and Lemba position of the map is due to both having paternal Middle Eastern ancestry, but I don't hear your ass calling Lemba people paternal Caucasoids for the simple reason they come from central Africa and look very sub-Saharan. East Africans look very sub-Saharan because they are Elongated East Africans and NOT mixes "true Negroids"(bullshit term) and Midlle Easterners. Lemba are central Africans with paternal Middle Eastern ancestry, but you don't see the same features in them as you see in most Ethiopians(Amharas to be correct) and do you know why? They're of central African stock and Ethiopians are Elongated East Africans who were narrow noses, thin lipped, and narrow headed BEFORE mixture with Middle Easterners(Hiernaux,1975) . Now stay the hell out of Africa trying to claim people that don't belong to you as part of your shitty Mediterranean race, moron!
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 25 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, Ivan Van Sertima is not a reliable source. That's like citing Hitler to make a point about the race of the Jews.
What the hell do you know about Van Sertima moron? Hitler and Van Sertima have nothing even close in common, but shitty Carleton Coon, the moron you keep posting comes a helluva alot closer so who are you to say anything? Read this about your idol Coon.
http://comm.colorado.edu/jjackson/research/coon.pdf#search='Congoid'
Now who the hell is closer to Hitler you fool?
quote:
Thought Writes:It is of interest that many of the most Liberal areas of the USA (New York, California, etc.) have the highest concentrations of Mediterranean derived Europeans. In that regard it is interesting to note the disassociation of Mediterranean lands and people (Jews, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish, etc) from Africa. Perhaps there is a fear in some Liberal circles that the recent revelations from linguistics (Afro-Asiatic) and genetics (PN2 Clade) will hinder their long sought inclusion into Anglo-Saxon society. Recall that Hitler implied that Jews were essentially “Mulattos” and anyone watching the Godfather carefully understands that it is really about the Anglo-Saxonization of Italians.
What low self esteem 'caucasoids' like EuroDisney can learn from their role-model Adolph Hitler is from his 'ultimate fate'. After all the grandstanding about his racial supremacy - he concluded the debate by blowing his own brains out. Final solution indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
Don't want to hijack your thread but there is no such thing as "African" genes and "European" genes. There are no genes in the human genome that could be called "African" or "European".
By that, I take it you mean "negroid, "caucasiod", or "mongloid". Orionix, this has been said time and again here. However, there is such a thing as "origins" of genes. That is the important aspect of genetics.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:By that, I take it you mean "negroid, "caucasiod", or "mongloid". Orionix, this has been said time and again here. However, there is such a thing as "origins" of genes. That is the important aspect of genetics.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 January 2005).]
All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar.
There are very few genes found in Africans or people of African descent that're not found elsewhere - and all of those that I can think of are not discernable to the human eye, these are allelic variations. The point was, there are no "negroid" or "caucasoid" genes: there are only HUMAN genes. "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are culturally and politically constructed racial classifications, not objective or physically varifiable realities.
[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 25 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Orionix:
All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar.There are very few genes found in Africans or people of African descent that're not found elsewhere - and all of those that I can think of are not discernable to the human eye, these are allelic variations. The point was, there are no "negroid" or "caucasoid" genes: there are only HUMAN genes. "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are culturally and politically constructed racial classifications, not objective or physically varifiable realities.
This reply is pointless. You are not informing me of anything, precisely as my statement you are purportedly replying to, makes perfectly clear. The people you should be addressing are the ones, who talk of racial purity in Europe.
quote:
All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar. there is no such thing as "African" genes and "European" genes
Haplotypes, defined as closely linked alleles can be used to trace biological lineage back to distinct points of origin known as the mrca - most recent common ancester, the point at which haplotypes diverge.
Thus E3b2 diverges from E3b1 based on Common E3b ancester population at the an mrca date.
Cruciani et al give an estimate of 24-27 thousand years ago for the date of the most recent common ancestor of all E3b's and named eastern Africa as the probable place of origin
Points of origin and in cases, even prospective populations can sometimes be located. E3 happens to originate in Africa.
Pn2 (E3a and E3b) clade show direct line of descent.
This should not be taken as an synomym for 'race' however, which is a trickier, messier, notion, based upon certain presumptions [such as the myth of the Meditteranian race] that are easily shattered by genetics for instance.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 25 January 2005).]
Dienekes
The immaturity of your response and the hatred explicit in your
aptly chosen username preclude me from ever replying to you except
this one time. I have time to consider opposing discussion of the
topic from anyone who understands civil academic behavior. Others may address your sophmoric pablum but
not I.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:This is incorrect, and the logical fallacy is equivelant to beginning with the correct statement that 'all langauge begins in Africa', and deriving from this the [b]incorrect conclusion, that there is 'no such thing' as an African language.
Basically the first cultures began in Africa.
quote:
Haplotypes, defined as closely linked alleles can be used to trace biological lineage back to distinct points of origin known as the mrca - most recent common ancester, the point at which haplotypes diverge.
First of all, lineage is much more complex than racial theory can ever deal with. Also all haplotypes originated in Africa.
quote:
Thus E3b2 diverges from E3b1 based on Common E3b ancester population at the an mrca date.
The mrca for super-haplotype E3b is super-haplogroup E* which is largely located in Africa, where it originated in the first place.
Cruciani et al give an estimate of 24-27 thousand years ago for the date of the most recent common ancestor of all E3b's and named eastern Africa as the probable place of origin
No doubt. Haplogroup E* is entirely African.
quote:
This should not be taken as an synomym for 'race' however, which is a trickier, messier, notion, based upon certain presumptions [such as the myth of the Meditteranian race] that are easily shattered by genetics for instance.
Race is not supported by genetics or the treeness theory whatsoever.
quote:Shocking, but, we actually agree on this point.
Originally posted by Orionix:
Race is not supported by genetics or the treeness theory whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Re: the Afrocentric (mis)use of that image:"The above picture of particularly dark-skinned Muslims is shown on various 'Afrocentric' web pages attempting to prove that Black Africans dominated Spanish society during the Muslim occupation. But further examination of more pictures from the same Book of Games reveals the same pattern as in the Cantigas: the component of the Muslim population that approached 'black African' in appearance seems to have been a small minority. If the pictures are any indication, then the bedrock of Islamic society in Spain consisted of people who resembled European or Middle Eastern types."
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html
Um, Ivan Van Sertima is not a reliable source. That's like citing Hitler to make a point about the race of the Jews.
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."
It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.
It was not untill the invasions of the Almoravid and Almohad that black Moors began to move more into Spain. Almoravids were mostly Tuareg people. Some also came from the Anti-Atlas and Atlas mountains.
Most of the Greco-Roman literatture that Muslims in Spain reintroduced was already preserved by the Syriac Christians in monestaries. Moors just took technology already avaiable in China,India and Persia and introduced it back to Al-Andalusian Spain.
There were of course black Sultans in Al-Andulas,black scholars,and black people. It should be noted that one of the most prominent musical genius in Al-Andalas was named Zaryab. He revolutionized Arabic classical music and most Magrebian music and Arabian classical music continues to use his scales. Zaryab was originally an African slave probably from Zanj[the Arabic name from modern day Tanzania and Eastern Africa]
The quotes during Alfonso's time would have been relative to the Almoravid and Almohad people.
One thing that Mediterranean people might not like is the fact that African slaves were imported into the Iberian peninsula and in Reinassance Italy. In fact, most slaves were imported to these areas in the 1400's well before the advent of the trans-atlantic slave trade.
quote:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):
...and also for being under the implication that black Moors never made it to southern Europe, during these Islamic invasions.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Actually Evil Euro is right about the Moors in Spain. Most were Yemani and Syrian Arabs.
I've read this [and it registered] but Evil Euro is suggesting there were no true [black] Moors in medieval Spain and surrounding areas. The Almoravids [I know they neighbored Wagadu] and the Almohades immediately came to mind.
I've also read that even in these times the Arabs weren't fond of [black] Africans. I don't know if this was an issue but I'm sure the slaves coming in from the Sahel [I think] had something to do with these sentiments.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Actually Evil Euro is right about the Moors in Spain. Most were Yemani and Syrian Arabs.
Thought Writes:
During what period? What are your sources? Were many of these Yemeni of East African (Aksumite) background?
quote:
Thought Writes:During what period? What are your sources? Were many of these Yemeni of East African (Aksumite) background?
My main source comes from the fact that most of the elite rulers in Cordova Spain were attached to the Umayyad Caliphate based mainly in Damascus Syria. In later times there were the Abbasid Caliphate that ruled from Bagdad.
Only the foot soliders were Northern Africans and Sahelian Africans.
Almoravids and Almohades did not rule untill the 1200's.
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Dienekes
The immaturity of your response and the hatred explicit in your
aptly chosen username preclude me from ever replying to you except
this one time. I have time to consider opposing discussion of the
topic from anyone who understands civil academic behavior. Others may address your sophmoric pablum but
not I.
I'm not Dienekes, and sorry for getting snippy. But claiming that a recent genetic study is scientifically flawed and politically motivated without offering any supporting evidence is quite absurd and reeks of desperation.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.
"Black" didn't always have the meaning it does today. Irish people with dark hair and complexions were once called "black Irish". Obviously, they weren't Negroid. Arabs (especially tanned soldiers) would have been even darker in complexion, and therefore considered "black" by lighter Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.
quote:
"Black" didn't always have the meaning it does today. [Irish people with dark hair and complexions were once called "black Irish".
Black Irish are a red-herring.
The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".
Moor is simply a European reference to Black Africans expanded to include Islamic(s) in Europe in general.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
One thing that Mediterranean people might not like is the fact that African slaves were imported into the Iberian peninsula and in Reinassance Italy. In fact, most slaves were imported to these areas in the 1400's well before the advent of the trans-atlantic slave trade.[/B]
Black slaves were imported into all Western European countries, including England, France, Holland and Germany. According to genetics, they've left an average contribution of ~1% to the European gene pool. You really need to stop treating that like it's racially significant.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Black Irish are a red-herring.The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".
Moor is simply a European reference to Black Africans expanded to include Islamic(s) in Europe in general.
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. "Mauros" simply means "dark". It can refer to hair, eyes or skin, and it's usually relative to the pigmentation of the people using it. English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris" are derived from that word, and were originally applied to swarthy Englishmen.
quote:Ad hominem fallacies indicate intellectual bankruptcy.
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot.
quote:
"Mauros" simply means "dark".
North African, Berber," 1390, from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India - www.etymonline.com
quote:Red herring. With the Moors the reference is to skin color as you very well know - as in Black as melted pitch - Song of Roland, 11th century France.
it can refer to hair, eyes or skin
quote:...are completely irrelevant, and yet another red-herring. The English also use the surname "black" while you're at it, which is also not relevant. Your two insubstantive replies deal with everything except - THE MOORS. Hard to believe you dedicate an entire website to arguments consisting of little more than penny cheap logical fallacy and atrocious semantics.
English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris"
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. "Mauros" simply means "dark". It can refer to hair, eyes or skin, and it's usually relative to the pigmentation of the people using it. English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris" are derived from that word, and were originally applied to swarthy Englishmen.
You were proven an idiot in several discussions yet you decide to call others idiots. What a hypocrite.
Take a look at Dictionary.com:
"[Middle English More, from Old French, from Medieval Latin Mrus, from Latin Maurus, Mauritanian, from Greek Mauros.]"
Idiot, Mauros was originally a Greek worder designated to dark individuals. I doubt they will call the 'Caucasoid' North Africans Moorish since they have similar complexion.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Ad hominem fallacies indicate intellectual bankruptcy.
Quotes from Afrocentric pseudo-scholars indicate intellectual bankruptcy.
quote:
Nope.
Yep. Look it up. "Mauros" = "dark" and it was applied to all sorts of people of varying complexions, as your own source indicates. What the hell are you trying to prove anyway? That everyone referred to as "Moor" was Negroid? That's just plain stupid.
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 26 January 2005).]
quote:
Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later used indiscriminately for Muslims.
EuroDisney whines:
quote:
What the hell are you trying to prove anyway?
quote:Proving: That you are obtuse.
That everyone referred to as "Moor" was Negroid?
EuroDisney: Since you want to play dumb, why don't you write etymology online and ask them to use smaller words since you claim to not understand what they are saying?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 January 2005).]
BTW, it would truly be refreshing to see the opposing side of these discussions use up-to-date undebunked sources for once!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 26 January 2005).]
-More from "Golden Age of the Moor"
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. .
Rephrase:
Stop using Carleton Coon as a source, you idiot.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. "Mauros" simply means "dark". It can refer to hair, eyes or skin, and it's usually relative to the pigmentation of the people using it. English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris" are derived from that word, and were originally applied to swarthy Englishmen.
quote:
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
You were proven an idiot in several discussions yet you decide to call others idiots. What a hypocrite.Take a look at Dictionary.com:
"[Middle English More, from Old French, from Medieval Latin Mrus, from Latin Maurus, Mauritanian, from Greek Mauros.]"
Idiot, Mauros was originally a Greek worder designated to dark individuals. I doubt they will call the 'Caucasoid' North Africans Moorish since they have similar complexion.
A perusal of MacRitchie's Ancient and Modern Britons will show
that surnames with a variant of Moor are indicative of an
ancestor who in fact was a Moor.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.
quote:
"Black" didn't always have the meaning it does today. [Irish people with dark hair and complexions were once called "black Irish".
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Black Irish are a red-herring.The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. [b]The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".
Moor is simply a European reference to Black Africans expanded to include Islamic(s) in Europe in general. [/B]
The Black Irish and Black Dutch, supposed Iberian immigrants to
those countries, are irrelevent to the quote which says nothing
about dark hair or dark complexion but does say pitch black faces
like a frying pan. That aint off white, thats as black as you can get baby!
Hint: He came from Spain and is Santa's helper.
You will find something interesting about him.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 26 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Quiz: Has anyone heard of Zwarte Pieten?Hint: He came from Spain and is Santa's helper.
You will find something interesting about him.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 26 January 2005).]
Yeah, good ole Black Pete. Werent some of the black people
of the Netherlands up in arms because they felt Black Pete was
a negative stereotype?
It seems that blacks who are minorities are ashamed of black
images that arent just black overed copies of their white hosts.
Take the original Aunt Jemima icon that Black Americans
protested out of existence, while Black Caribbeans who are
the majority population in their island countries admire
the self same icon of the black woman in calico dress and
headwrap which is a prominent feature in their plastic and
textile arts like cookie jars and dolls for instance.
What I see as very important is that Black Pete is a Moor from Spain. He not only has jet black skin, but full lips and wooly hair. Black Pete is seen as a Negroid in the Netherlands, long before Western Europe imported African slaves or knew of Africa.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 26 January 2005).]
quote:
A perusal of MacRitchie's Ancient and Modern Britons will show
that surnames with a variant of Moor are indicative of an
ancestor who in fact was a Moor.
Or, will he be a fool, and continue to beat head agains the wall with the Moors as fully caucasoid, howler?
Stay tuned...
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yeah, good ole Black Pete. Werent some of the black people
of the Netherlands up in arms because they felt Black Pete was
a negative stereotype?It seems that blacks who are minorities are ashamed of black
images that arent just black overed copies of their white hosts.Take the original Aunt Jemima icon that Black Americans
protested out of existence, while Black Caribbeans who are
the majority population in their island countries admire
the self same icon of the black woman in calico dress and
headwrap which is a prominent feature in their plastic and
textile arts like cookie jars and dolls for instance.
Not sure what you mean here? The origianal Aunt Jemima, Uncle ben, etc were nothing to be proud of, nor are the modern ones. They were simply representations of the mammy and the coon, like Florida Evans from Good Times or just about anyone from What's Happening. Their facial features were extremely racist, though they look more like real people today.
Are you saying that blacks who are minorities want to see blacks that are just copies of their white hosts? Please clarify.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Proving: That all that it takes to destroy your ridiculous rantings is a direct quote from a dictionary.
I said "Moor" was used in reference to many different people. Your source says "Moor" was used in reference to many different people. All you did was prove me right. As to the actual Islamic Moors of Spain, I'll trust the professional opinion of a credentialed physical anthropologist:
"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."
[John R. Baker. Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Proving: That all that it takes to destroy your ridiculous rantings is a direct quote from a dictionary.
I said "Moor" was used in reference to many different people. Your source says "Moor" was used in reference to many different people. All you did was prove me right. As to the actual Islamic Moors of Spain, I'll trust the professional opinion of a credentialed physical anthropologist:
"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."
[John R. Baker. Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Rephrase:Stop using Carleton Coon as a source, you idiot.
Coon was a world-class physical anthropologist whose observational data is still valid today. Van Sertima is a propagandist and ideologue.
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
A perusal of MacRitchie's Ancient and Modern Britons will show
that surnames with a variant of Moor are indicative of an
ancestor who in fact was a Moor.
Utter nonsense that could only come from an Afro-source like David MacRitchie.
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
A perusal of MacRitchie's Ancient and Modern Britons will show
that surnames with a variant of Moor are indicative of an
ancestor who in fact was a Moor.
Utter nonsense that could only come from an Afro-source like David MacRitchie.
quote:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
the quote which says nothing
about dark hair or dark complexion but does say pitch black faces
like a frying pan.
So what? . . .
"Using similar faulty methods, Afrocentrists might as well say Jews in the Middle Ages were 'black' because Joseph ben Nathan in the 13th century quoted his father as saying 'we Jews come from a pure, white source, and so our faces are black.' Of course to do this would be to ignore the fact that in medieval Europe as in ancient Greece, black often meant 'swarthy.' Likewise, Afrocentrists could insist that 12th-century Turks were 'black' on the basis of their being exaggerated as 'blacker than pitch or ink' in the epic Chanson d'Aspremont. But we know on the basis of physical remains and ample pictorial evidence that neither the Jews nor Turks were actually 'black' in medieval times."
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html
quote:
I said "Moor" was used in reference to many different people.
quote:No, it acknolwedges that the term was sometimes used synonymously with Negro. Giving the lie to your entire premise. You are running away from facts that you don't like. Your entire presentation is just a form of intellectual cowardice.
Your source says "Moor" was used in reference to many different people.
quote:Self stroking is self delusion. You are liar and a coward. You get no respect from others because you don't respect yourself.
All you did was prove me right.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Self stroking is self delusion. You are liar and a coward. You get no respect from others because you don't respect yourself.
Rasol, I must say you pack a hell of a punch! To think that "Negro" and "Moor" were synonyms in the Middle Ages; this during the era of Moorish Spain...Mr.Evil your comeback is not convincing. How on earth you manage to gather that Rasol "proved you right" is rather scary.
[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 27 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Coon was a world-class physical anthropologist whose observational data is still valid today. Van Sertima is a propagandist and ideologue.
Coon's data is NOT valid today as most if not all has been debunked. he was a polygenist who believed races evolved from varying mixtures with homo erectus, who the hell believes that **** today? Coon said so called 'caucasoids' were the most evolved race while Negroids to him were NOT, more debunked bullshit from your prized world class physical anthropologist. His work was used by segregationists and white racists whom he did NOT rebuke, yeah thats very world class when your work is used by white supremacists and racists and you do nothing to stop it. You can take Coon's work and shov it up your ass, from his bs that Fulanis, Masai, Tutsi and Bahima are all 'skeletally Mediterranean' with dark skin, yes that kind of **** is still world class and very valid today.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Utter nonsense that could only come from an Afro-source like David MacRitchie.
Race & Ethnicity
in the Old Norse World
by Rorik Radford
In the 1999 edition of Viator (vol. 30) the prominent Old Norse scholar Jenny Jochens published an insightful and carefully researched article on the subject of "Race and Ethnicity in the Old Norse World." In hopes of casting a little light on this traditionally heat-seeking topic, I will summarize Jochens' points here.
quote:
3. By the Saga Age, swarthy complexions and features were not unknown in the North, but they were considered aesthetic faults. "Geirmundar ßáttr heljarskins" tells of Geirmundr and Hámundr, twin sons of a minor 9th century Norwegian king who were born with skin so dark they were called heljarskin--Hel-Skin; Black as Hel. The infants' mother exchanged them for the fair-skinned child of a slave, but the boys' noble lineage was apparent in their bearing and actions and their father, King Hjörr, readily acknowledged his paternity. Although most sources say the twins were the sons of Hjörr's Norwegian queen, one passage in Landnámabók says the king had brought back a captive princess from a war in Bjarmaland (now Finland), and the dark-skinned boys were born to this woman.
quote:
4.The term "svartr" (black) is commonly ascribed in the sagas to people with dark coloring, contrasted with "hvítr" (white) for those of fair complexion and features. These terms do not refer to race in the modern sense--black Africans were never described as svartr, but as blámenn (blue men). Still, the svartr/hvítr distinction shows an early attunement to physical differences based on coloring.
quote:
5. Some Saga Age Norwegians were apparently born with dark features without outside genetic influence. A well-known example is Hálfdan svarti (the Black), the father of King Harald Finehair. Likewise, Gísli Súrsson is described in his saga as a "ma?r svartr," a dark man. More often, however, dark features were attributed to foreign or even trollish genetic intervention.
quote:
6. The most famous white/black dichotomy in the sagas involves the family of Egill Skallagrímsson. Egill's father is introduced as "a dark and ugly man like his forefathers," although his brother ?órólfr was "the most handsome of men." Skallagrím's descendants, the Myramenn, are said to include both the fairest and ugliest of men. The origin of the dark side of the family line is implied in the byname of Skallagrím's great uncle, Hallbjörn hálftroll. Even though dark features might be attributed to supernatural influence, people exhibiting this trait were still considered to be Norwegians, and their intermarriage with fair- skinned Norse presented no special issues.
[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 28 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You are obviously used to lieing to yourself but you stated that the Moors were fully caucasoid. . .
No, it acknolwedges that the term was sometimes used synonymously with Negro. Giving the lie to your entire premise.
You need a lesson in logic. The premise that "Islamic Moors were fully Caucasoid" and the fact that "the term was sometimes used synonymously with Negro" are not mutually exclusive. What I said was that 'Moor' means 'dark', and can be used to refer to people of many different complexions. Your source confirmed that. It so happens that the Islamic Moors were named such because they came from the old Roman province of Mauretania in extreme NW Africa, not because they were Negroes:
quote:
You are liar and a coward.
"Ad hominem fallacies indicate intellectual bankruptcy."
quote:
"Ad hominem fallacies indicate intellectual bankruptcy."
Noting that fact is not ad hominem. It is merely ad rem ad referendum....TO THE POINT.
quote:You don't say?
. It so happens that the Islamic Moors were named such because they came from the old Roman province of Mauretania
Mauretania means Land of the Blacks.
EuroDisney: You actually run a website? And on this website you discuss history, ethnology, geography? People visit this site for other than grins? ? ?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Mauretania means Land of the Blacks.
'Mauretania' means 'Land of the Mauri', an indigenous coastal Berber tribe who were only black in your wildest fantasies.
quote:
EuroDisney: You actually run a website? And on this website you discuss history, ethnology, geography? People visit this site for other than grins? ? ?
Indeed. And the only negative feedback I get is from Afrocentrics, White Supremacists and people who write like dyslexic third-graders. So consider yourself in good company.
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 29 January 2005).]
quote:
'Mauretania' means 'Land of the Mauri', an indigenous coastal Berber tribe
North African, Berber," 1390, from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
As for your website, it is no wonder that you waste your time debating 12 year olds given your own juvenile semantics.
You traffic in self delusion for racially neurotic Southern European arrested adolescents.
Likely most of the children you....'debate' will grow out of their ethnnocentric insecurities. But you will still be there, citing false information (Carleton Coon), and distorting data. Twisting no-ones mind ultimately, except your own.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 29 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Indeed. And the only negative feedback I get is from Afrocentrics, White Supremacists and people who write like dyslexic third-graders. So consider yourself in good company.
Race & Ethnicity
in the Old Norse World
by Rorik Radford
In the 1999 edition of Viator (vol. 30) the prominent Old Norse scholar Jenny Jochens published an insightful and carefully researched article on the subject of "Race and Ethnicity in the Old Norse World." In hopes of casting a little light on this traditionally heat-seeking topic, I will summarize Jochens' points here.
quote:
3. By the Saga Age, swarthy complexions and features were not unknown in the North, but they were considered aesthetic faults. "Geirmundar ßáttr heljarskins" tells of Geirmundr and Hámundr, twin sons of a minor 9th century Norwegian king who were born with skin so dark they were called heljarskin--Hel-Skin; Black as Hel. The infants' mother exchanged them for the fair-skinned child of a slave, but the boys' noble lineage was apparent in their bearing and actions and their father, King Hjörr, readily acknowledged his paternity. Although most sources say the twins were the sons of Hjörr's Norwegian queen, one passage in Landnámabók says the king had brought back a captive princess from a war in Bjarmaland (now Finland), and the dark-skinned boys were born to this woman.
quote:
4.The term "svartr" (black) is commonly ascribed in the sagas to people with dark coloring, contrasted with "hvítr" (white) for those of fair complexion and features. These terms do not refer to race in the modern sense--black Africans were never described as svartr, but as blámenn (blue men). Still, the svartr/hvítr distinction shows an early attunement to physical differences based on coloring.
quote:
5. Some Saga Age Norwegians were apparently born with dark features without outside genetic influence. A well-known example is Hálfdan svarti (the Black), the father of King Harald Finehair. Likewise, Gísli Súrsson is described in his saga as a "ma?r svartr," a dark man. More often, however, dark features were attributed to foreign or even trollish genetic intervention.
quote:
6. The most famous white/black dichotomy in the sagas involves the family of Egill Skallagrímsson. Egill's father is introduced as "a dark and ugly man like his forefathers," although his brother ?órólfr was "the most handsome of men." Skallagrím's descendants, the Myramenn, are said to include both the fairest and ugliest of men. The origin of the dark side of the family line is implied in the byname of Skallagrím's great uncle, Hallbjörn hálftroll. Even though dark features might be attributed to supernatural influence, people exhibiting this trait were still considered to be Norwegians, and their intermarriage with fair- skinned Norse presented no special issues.
Evil Euro, you don't have much to say about this. Why is that?
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
North African, Berber," 1390, from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.
You keep repeating that same passage, which you've hilariously misunderstood. Allow me to break it down for you:
"Being a dark people [they're talking about the Berber Mauri] in relation to Europeans [not in absolute terms], their name [again, the Mauri] in the Middle Ages was ['used as'] a synonym for Negro [because Negroes are a dark people too]; later (16c.-17c.) ['it was also'] used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India [confirming that it simply means dark and not Negro]."
quote:
you waste your time debating 12 year olds
You're right. I should really stop replying to your posts. I generally ignore the morons who e-mail me, so I'm breaking my own rule by indulging you.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Evil Euro, you don't have much to say about this. Why is that?
Because like most of the "evidence" you idiots post, it refutes itself:
"4.The term 'svartr' (black) is commonly ascribed in the sagas to people with dark coloring, contrasted with 'hvítr' (white) for those of fair complexion and features. These terms do not refer to race in the modern sense--black Africans were never described as svartr, but as blámenn (blue men). Still, the svartr/hvítr distinction shows an early attunement to physical differences based on coloring."
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Because like most of the "evidence" you idiots post, it refutes itself:"4.The term 'svartr' (black) is commonly ascribed in the sagas to people with dark coloring, contrasted with 'hvítr' (white) for those of fair complexion and features. [b]These terms do not refer to race in the modern sense--black Africans were never described as svartr, but as blámenn (blue men). Still, the svartr/hvítr distinction shows an early attunement to physical differences based on coloring."[/B]
quote:
Even though dark features might be attributed to supernatural influence, people exhibiting this trait were still considered to be Norwegians, and their intermarriage with fair- skinned Norse presented no special issues.
Did you miss that part?
He asks if Tutsi vary from Hutu systematically in the direction of Europeans and concludes that they do not.
Do Southern Europeans vary from Nordics systematically in the direction of Black Africans?
Compared to Nordics, Southern Europeans would tend towards Black Africans in that they exhibit....
* darker skin.
* darker hair
* darker eyes
* curlier hair
* thicker hair
* thicker lips.
* everted lips.
* greater bone density.
From: The Story Behind the Amazing Success of Black Athletes, by Jon Entine
Many southern Europeans, who are disproportionately stand-outs in running, trace a significant percentage of their genes to Africa as a result of interbreeding.
From: Battling Osteoporosis - Genetics plays a role in the risk profile of men. Whites are at higher risk than Blacks. And Scandinavians tend to have a higher risk than Southern Europeans.
- Nursing Spectrum.
Of course we have the genetic evidence (E3 african haplotypes), Benin sickle cell, and historical evidence - Moorish conquest, Egypto-Nubian colonisation, is it even necessary to go thru the motions of continued denial of Southern European diversity?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 January 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Roy, the terms Black Dutch and Black Irish are vague with respect to their origins. We have thousands here in the US, including one part of my own family, who use the term but it has nothing to do with race. In Pennsylvania and parts of Oklahoma it is used to refer to Germans. It may well have started out as one thing but eveolved into another.
Umm, have you seen pics of Black/Zwarte Pete/Pieten? He is clearly a Black, or Negroid from Spain.
quote:
Originally posted by HERU:
Did you miss that part?
Smiling after you say something dumb only makes you appear dumber. Re-read my previous reply to understand why "dark features" doesn't mean what you think it does.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Do Southern Europeans vary from Nordics systematically in the direction of Black Africans?Compared to Nordics, Southern Europeans would tend towards Black Africans in that they exhibit....
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Nordics and Mediterraneans are so similar in skeletal form that anthropologists have trouble differentiating their physical remains. Hence, they've postulated that Nordics are simply Mediterraneans who have become depigmented through exposure to the cold northern climate. Black Africans, on the other hand, are easily distinguishable from Mediterraneans in every respect.
Of course, Southern Europeans are as Caucasoid as all other Europeans. This is the consensus of both physical anthropologists and population geneticists. Needless to say, your Afro-opinion is irrelevant to the matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Smiling after you say something dumb only makes you appear dumber. Re-read my previous reply to understand why "dark features" doesn't mean what you think it does.
quote:
"Geirmundar ßáttr heljarskins" tells of Geirmundr and Hámundr, twin sons of a minor 9th century Norwegian king who were born with skin so dark they were called heljarskin--Hel-Skin; Black as Hel.
quote:
Even though dark features might be attributed to supernatural influence, people exhibiting this trait were still considered to be Norwegians, and their intermarriage with fair- skinned Norse presented no special issues.
"Blacks" were in these areas in ancient times. Can you deal with this? There are coat-of-arms with black faces. Do you dismiss that too?
You can actually learn a lot from the people you call "Afro-sources".
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/David-MacRitchie
David MacRitchie (April 16, 1861 - January 14, 1925) was the younger son of William Dawson MacRitchie and Elizabeth Elder MacRitchie. He was born in Edinburgh and attended the Edinburgh Southern Academy, the Edinburgh Institute and Edinburgh University. He did not gain a degree but qualified as a Chartered Accountant. His father had been a surgeon in the East India Company.
David founded the Gypsy Lore Society in 1889, which he edited with Francis Hindes Groome. In 1907 he became president of the St Andrew Society, a position which he held until his death.
In 1914 he joined the Council of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,serving as vice-president from 1917 - 1920. He was noted for his interest in archaeology, being appointed as a trustee for Lord Abercromby's endowment for an Archeology department at the University of Edinburgh.
He was also a member of the Scottish Arts Club and Vice-president of the Philosophical Institution. he was active in such charities as the Edinburgh Dispensary for Skin Diseases and the Edinburgh Society for the Relief of Indigent Old Men.
Publications by MacRitchie include:
Ancient and Modern Britons, a Retrospect, 1884
Accounts of the Gypsies of India, 1886
The Testimony of Tradition, 1890
The Ainos, 1892
The Underground Life, 1892
Fians, Fairies and Picts, 1893
Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts 1894
Pygmies in Northern Scotland, 1892
Some Hebridean Antiquities, 1895
Diary of a Tour through Great Britain, (editor) 1897
The Northern Trolls, 1898
Memories of the Picts, 1900
Underground Dwellings, 1900
Fairy Mounds, 1900
Shelta, the Caird's Language, 1901
Hints of Evolution in Tradition, 1902
The Arctic Voyage of 1653, 1909
Celtic Civilisation, No date
Druids and Mound Dwellers, 1910
Les Pygmies chez les Anciens Egyptiens et les Hebreux (with S.T.H. Horowitz), 1912
Les kayaks dans le nord de l'Europe, 1912
Great and Little Britain, 1915
The Celtic Numerals of Strathclyde, 1915
The Duns of the North, 1917
The Savages of Gaelic Tradition, 1920
The Aborigines of Shetland and Orkney, 1924
[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 31 January 2005).]
quote:Oh really? Well, that would certainly explain the various Type B thru triple Z Mediterranian race-classifications which you so emotionally defend as if it meant anything, now wouldn't it?
Nordics and Mediterraneans are so similar in skeletal form that anthropologists have trouble differentiating their physical remains.
Funny too, how this 'nearly indistinguishable from nordic' skeletal type gets extended to to the point of also being 'nearly indistinguishable' from the Gabonese Bantu! It seems to extend and retract, to fit the need.
I'd ask you 'which is it?', but at this point no one really expects consistancy from such a blatantly contrived and discredited concept as 'Mediterranean race.'
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Nordics and Mediterraneans are so similar in skeletal form that anthropologists have trouble differentiating their physical remains.
Prove that:
- Meds don't have a greater bone diversity.
The differences in physique betweem Nordic and Med is usually brought along by Nordic supremists. If you want prove your assertion than it can be believed.
quote:
Hence, they've postulated that Nordics are simply Mediterraneans who have become depigmented through exposure to the cold northern climate.You need to get that into the Nordic supremist heads. Such notions are simply rediculous without any sources. It could be believable if you have the proper sources.
[QUOTE]
Black Africans, on the other hand, are easily distinguishable from Mediterraneans in every respect.
If you use the 'Forest Negro' as the standard then that would be the case. However, East Africans can look similar to Mediterraneans, especially the Dravidians or Arabs from the Peninsula, both that are included under this ficticious 'Mediterranean' type.
quote:
Of course, Southern Europeans are as Caucasoid as all other Europeans. This is the consensus of both physical anthropologists and population geneticists. Needless to say, your Afro-opinion is irrelevant to the matter.
This is why Nordic supremist groups are labelling you Meds as heterogenous? Hitler and the Nazi part thought the same? Are they all Afro-centrics?
If YOU hate the fact that Europeans are Heterogenous, then you need to find another solution rather than constantly using childish methods. You failed in proving that the Ethiopians are caucasoid, or were caucasoid. What we need are proper sources, without distortion.
Can you prove that:
i) Benin Sickle Cell is also Caucasoid in origin.
ii) E3b Haplotype is Caucasoid in origin.
iii) Prove that the 'Mediterranian' features of the East Africans are 'Caucasoid'?
* Prove = Sources Required
If not, then Southern Europe IS heterogenous racially, with significant Negroid influence. This is not a unique case because Blacks in the US are not homogenous either, yet they consider themselves as Negroid. You can do the exact same, but that doesn't over-ride this fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Roy, I have not seen the pictures you mention. I am telling you that the terms 'black Dutch' and 'black Irish' have nothing to do with negroid peoples anywhere.
You really didn't. Head to the Netherlands for a better view.
Zwarte Pieten: http://home.tiscali.nl/rodekruissmallacht/images/Het%20sinterklaas%20en%20zwarte%20pieten%20team%202-12-2003.jpg http://members.rott.chello.nl/ckardinaal/Zwarte%20pieten.jpg
This is how Black Pete is seen in the Netherlands.
If you want a more better example, then go look for St. Maurice @ Germany. It can be used to prove that Blacks were present in Europe before the Europeans seen Africa.
It's a debate between Hitler and Mussolini.
What they argue 'over'is merely where to draw the fictitous race purity line. For the Meds. especially, it's a bad idea, poorly argued, for all the wrong reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Can you prove that:iii) Prove that the 'Mediterranian' features of the East Africans are 'Caucasoid'?
For someone to do that, he/she would have to prove that East Africans originate in the "Mediterranian sea", which I seriously doubt.
Black Peter
is represented black in many European countries: representations of black Pete Schwarze Peter, Pierre le Noir, also named –le More-. are black, France, Switzerland, Ostrich, Netherlands, Pierre Fouettard, various names and meanings depending on the religion history culture and language . They are many hypotheses about why Black Peter became trendy
:- fear of the strangers bringing pest in the harbours
-mourning after deaths (all dressed in black)
–threats and blackmail to influence children into good behaviour, (for political and educational purposes)
-some say it is a Charles Quint personification,
-St NiKlaus needed a helper, in Turkey around the fourth century he found a black assistant, (is that why the church is more open to blacks then it is to women?)
-it’s a good opposition black/white with Christmas Father good/bad representation.
Maybe all of those reasons together, or others.
A popular game with a penitence card is still called Pierre le Noir, even though this last decade the decks with the black representation of Peter have been replaced with other symbols, same as "Negerkopfs", "têtes de nègres", the popular cream stuffed chocolates have been renamed.
There again, shoved in the black concept, all fears: of unknown, of evil, of diseases, seing this resistance to the idea of blacks bringing progress, one prefers to imagine anything sort of bad is black, blackmagic blackmarket blackmail and so on, no doubt in many langages black has this connotation.
I recall paintings seen in various museums, from 12 century onwards, with black-Maure-Moresque-maronesque-more-maron-marron type characters. Maures stayed around after the Spanish occupation, no doubt some became rich and powerful, settled and mixed.
People travel, those traveling whether black Not Maures only) or white, rich or poor, are hired for their skills to work, to teach, to study, to bring their knowledge abroad and these people, by sharing it in different fields of sciences, have brought our civilization to where it is now.
Most scenes with the three Kings leaving to Bethleem, or Nativity scenes show one or two of them as "blacks" marons, marrons whatever, and those European paintings date of many centuries.
On another note, we had many migrations in Europe, i wonder how many are 100% pure!
Mixed here,,,, European-ly obviously mixed with specks of Africa & doubt Evil here is from Europe.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 February 2005).]
quote:
On another note, we had many migrations in Europe, i wonder how many are 100% pure!
St. Maurice of Germany is a pure African, therefore I'm pretty sure Black Pete was a 100% Black too. The wooly hair, and the Black skin makes it quite obvious.
quote:
St. Maurice of Germany is a pure African, therefore I'm pretty sure Black Pete was a 100% Black too.
FWIW: It's a mistake to allow EuroDisney to bait you into his silly 'race purity' game.
He himself is a mere victim of false pride wounded by the Nordicists via: http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/genetic_studies/hla_genes.html
Remember misery loves company, and EuroDisney is clearly a miserable twisted loser looking to "share".
St. Maurice
quote:
Ausar wrote, the irony of this is St. Maurice actually came from Upper Egypt[Southern Egypt] around the Luxor area. He is also a Coptic saint held in high reguard. He was part of the Theban league of soliders who were stationed in parts of Europe by the Romans.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Yemeni Mediterranean and English Nordic:
Thought Writes:
Evil Euro believes that phenotype isolate represents true lineage. We live in the era of genetics and Evil Euro still focuses on Carleton Coon. Pure comedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Evil Euro believes that phenotype isolate represents true lineage. We live in the era of genetics and Evil Euro still focuses on Carleton Coon. Pure comedy.
The 3rd Reich film propaganda also popularised this form of argument in Germany.
They would show the images of the ideal Aryan, and contrast with the scowling Jew, pointing to the 'Semetic' features as sign of 'obvious' moral and intellectual degeneracy, that everyone 'knew' to be true anyway, or course.
Then they'd shock cut to images of rats running thru the sewers of Germany and people dieing, in case they had been too subtle, up until then!
It also looks like pure comedy today, so you have to remind yourself that base as it was, scared and angry often ignorant people, drunk on hate, ignored the complete lack of logic, the obvious contradictions, and bought into it anyway.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 February 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The 3rd Reich film propaganda also popularised this form of argument in Germany.They would show the images of the ideal Aryan, and contrast with the scowling Jew, pointing to the 'Semetic' features as sign of 'obvious' moral and intellectual degeneracy, that everyone 'knew' to be true anyway, or course.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 February 2005).]
Thought Writes:
The Nazi's went to great lengths purge Germany of "impure" elements. Some Nazi's felt that they had to even get rid of Christianity and return to Paganism because the Near Eastern roots of the religion.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
The 3rd Reich film propaganda also popularised this form of argument in Germany.They would show the images of the ideal Aryan, and contrast with the scowling Jew, pointing to the 'Semetic' features as sign of 'obvious' moral and intellectual degeneracy, that everyone 'knew' to be true anyway, or course.
Then they'd shock cut to images of rats running thru the sewers of Germany and people dieing, in case they had been too subtle, up until then!
It also looks like pure comedy today, so you have to remind yourself that base as it was, scared and angry often ignorant people, drunk on hate, ignored the complete lack of logic, the obvious contradictions, and bought into it anyway.
Stupid analogy. Germans and Jews come in many different phenotypes. Nordics and Mediterraneans represent single phenotypes. Therefore, comparing a metrically perfect Nordic to a metrically perfect Mediterranean can provide information regarding the similarities or differences between the two types. In this case, it shows them to be nearly identical in skeletal form, just as I stated.
That Nazi tactic sounds more like Afronut propaganda that shows one photo of a dark-skinned Moor and extrapolates from it that "the Moors were black", which everyone 'knows' to be true anyway, of course. Pure comedy, indeed.
quote:
Thought Writes:The Nazi's went to great lengths purge Germany of "impure" elements. Some Nazi's felt that they had to even get rid of Christianity and return to Paganism because the Near Eastern roots of the religion.
Indeed eliminating Judeo-Christianity was a next 'logical' step in the NAZI purification process.
quote:
the Nazi's never concidered a return to paganism. This is just more Afrocrentic mythology. They take a statement made by one person and try to expand it to the entire nazi organization.
ROTFL! The Professor is now speaking on behalf of the NAZI party. Tell us more!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
want more...we could say that you know even less about german history
Ah, you disappoint us Professor. We thought you were going to pretend to know something about the history of the NAZI's.
But evidently you are now afraid to even try.
lol. Don't blame you really.
quote:
Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Germans and Jews come in many different phenotypes.
Thought Writes:
Evil Euro seems to attribute greater diversity to Europeans than Africans. Science and COMMON SENSE indicate that the opposite is true. Humans have lived in Africa longer and Africa is larger than Europe, hence populations in Africa are more diverse in phenotype. This is why we see hot/dry adapted Africans like Oromo and hot/moist adapted Africans like the Yoruba. The genetic evidence from the PN2 transition proves that all of these Africans (including Berbers) share in closely related male lineages.
quote:
Notice Evil Euro's silence after that explanation of the intermediate position- its deafening.*Two possible explanations are offered: The first is recent gene flow from the Middle East, and the second is common ancestry shared with OOA migrants. The authors, citing previous research, favor the latter position*
The fact that the authors favor the latter position refutes you, because you said this
“On the Y-chromosome, judging by the language in the quote, we can assume that it's close to 50%. That's a whole lot of non-African DNA.”So it actually refutes your argument that Somalis are hybrid mixtures of Eurasians and sub-Saharans. At least you’ve gathered this much and truly understand that you did in fact misinterpret the language in that quote.
*What that says is that pre-historic East Africans were distinct from sub-Saharan Africans.*What that says is that northeast Africans genetically fissioned off from sub-Saharans, no more no less. That fissioning occured long before there was any E3b.
*So distinct in fact that their genetic legacy in East Africa causes modern populations to veer away from Africans and toward Eurasians.*
What are you talking about? Prehistoric-East Africans were completely African in origin, not non-African, so that makes non-Africans closer to pre-historic East Africans, not the other way around. Non-Africans are descended from a small group of East Africans who migrated out of Africa. That makes Eurasians more closely related to East Africans than to other world populations. You have everything backwards.
**This is terrible news for Afronuts who believe that OOA lineages like E3b make non-Africans more African. In reality, the opposite is true. They make the Africans who possess them less African and more Eurasian*Terrible job at interpreting data. Eurasians who possess E3b are in reality more African and less Eurasian for the fact that both E3b and prehistoric East Africans are both African in origin and Eurasians descend from a small population in East Africa, not the other way around. Learn how to properly interpret studies, for those same studies you misinterpret state the reverse of everything you say.
quote:
rasol writes:
We have a winner.EuroDisney exhibits:
* Inability and/or lack of interest in accurately comprehending his own select citations.
* Inability and/or unwillingness to answer the questions begged by the profound contradictions inherent in his irrational ethnocentric ideology.
* Inability and/or unwillingness to honestly engage the issue of Southern Europes' heterogeneous heritage which includes ancestry from Black Africa.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 February 2005).]
quote:I think somewhere in the foregoing pages that answer may be found.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Can you recap some of that nrY data with citations?
Just so readers can lock in a clear chain of evidence and put
HLA weaknesses in proper perspective. SO far in the chain of
GReek - African links we have:
--HLA (with the weaknesses noted)
--SKeletal (Macedonian and Aegean ancients per Angel 72)
--Benin Sickle Cell (per Ricaut and others)
--What else can be added?