Mother of Mutara III Rudahigwa, the queen mother of Rwanda
The Tutsi of Rwanda first came into contact with the West at the end of the 19th century. Rwandan society was highly stratified. It was divided into the Tutsi, the ruling class who raised cattle, the Hutu who were farmers and the Twa who were hunters. Western discourses about the Tutsi emphasized race and social hierarchy. Based on their physical characteristics--they are among the tallest people in Africa--and their aristocratic demeanor, the Tutsi were assumed by early 20th-century Westerners to be the most "advanced" African peoples in the now-denounced evolutionary scheme promulgated at the time. http://www.nmafa.si.edu/exhibits/focus/tutsi.html click-link-for-slideshow
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Civilizations fell, civilizations rose, all because of the shape of their nose! LOL Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
ROFL
BTW Djehuti, nice picture.
I have a question, what symbolize the pil across the faces?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Don't ask me; ask Marc. It's his picture.
I just use it as an example of the ridiculous pseudo-science that was first spawned by Eurocentric whites and is now used by Afrocentric blacks.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As Rasol points out, Europeans thought Tutsis were genetically advanced because of their kacazoid heritage whom they attribute to certain facial features like narrow faces and noses.
Of course the Tutsis were not the only ones, but various other populations in Africa who had similar features were deemed as being "Hamites" (black kacazoids)!!
As one British official reported about the Somali people, "We are dealing with the smartest brains on the East African coast" all on account because their features were closer to their own.
Now we have so-called Afrocentrics like Clyde and Marc who have adopted the inverse of that pseudo-garbage and are claiming whole populations around the globe as "negroid" because they share similar freatures like broad faces and broad noses. *sigh* Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Mr. Marc Washington,
Can you tell us what these pils across the faces symbolize or what they stand for?
Thanks (-:
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
He does it to marr the pictures, which he thinks somehow releases him from copyright obligations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
While I dont agree with claiming that all dark brown skinned people around the world are Africans, I DO agree with pointing out the advanced civilizations and cultures created by dark skinned populations in the world, many of whom were oppressed and exploited upon contact with Europeans. True, calling them all Africans may be a distortion, however, that does not change the point that European racists felt that ANY dark brown skinned person was INNATELY inferior in the European scheme of anthropology which puts WHITE skin on a pedestal as some "KEY" ingredient to intelligence, culture and civilization. So, while it is true they aren't Africans, Africans and others who have been OPRESSED because of their dark skin would STILL feel kinship with them as part of the DIASPORA of brown skinned populations on the planet that Europeans have felt the need to "eradicate" in order to bring progress.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Anyway, this photo jumped out at me because of the features which struck me as something right off the walls of ancient KMT. It is unfortunate, but in order to REALLY see the connections of Egypt to the rest of African culture, one would have to see Africa in a state prior to enslavement and captivity by Arabs and Europeans.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Doug you are absolutely correct that there is practical political utility in solidarity amongst the worlds Black peoples - where African, Asian, Australian, Polynesian, etc..
The best way to facility a meaningful solidarity is through truth.
Lies and distortion ultimately backfire when the people who have been fooled realise this, and then become demoralised and cynical.
There is no excuse for those who pimp ignorance to Black people.
They are the enemy as much as any anti-Black racists.
Don't apologise for them.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The page I got the photo above from says it all:
quote: Many late 19th- and early 20th-century images depicted Africans in rigid frontal and profile poses. These were called "type" photographs and were used as scientific evidence for the race theories of the time period. Scholars linked physical--in particular facial--features and the shape of the skull to a person's intellect and personality. According to influential British scientist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), human physical characteristics and cultural forms were the end products of a long chain of evolution. In this scheme, which has since been proven spurious, many Africans occupied a lower level on the evolutionary ladder, while Caucasians were placed at the top.
Image makers also engaged in ethnographic documentation. They depicted African village settings, masquerades and various aspects of material culture. In the late 19th century, frozen poses of photographic subjects and meticulous staging of scenes were common due in part to the long exposure time required to take a photograph. Even after cameras and film were capable of capturing movement, some of the pictorial conventions that characterized early "type" and ethnographic photography continued to be employed, which accounts for the constructed nature of many of the photographs.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Doug you are absolutely correct that there is practical political utility in solidarity amongst the worlds Black peoples - where African, Asian, Australian, Polynesian, etc..
The best way to facility a meaningful solidarity is through truth.
Lies and distortion ultimately backfire when the people who have been fooled realise this, and then become demoralised and cynical.
There is no excuse for those who pimp ignorance to Black people.
They are the enemy as much as any anti-Black racists.
Don't apologise for them.
Posted by Player 13 (Member # 7037) on :
Today there is considerable debate about the racial validity of the term Tutsi as distinct from Hutu. Some researchers believe there is no genetic difference between the two supposed groups, and that what difference did exist can be explained by social and procreative patterns within the Great Lakes region. At one time, there may have been economic and cultural differences in the Rwandan population, although this is also disputed. One such difference was occupational. Some people were farmers and ate a varied diet. Others were cattle keepers and had a diet that consisted of mainly dairy and meat products.
The Hamitic myth has also been debunked by Ausar, American Black Man, Charlie Bass, S.Mohammad and Jazelle. Here's a good old thread about the Tutsi:
Doug M; Quote: While I don't agree with claiming that all dark brown skinned people around the world are Africans.
Just curious as to what you think they are?
Posted by Nefar (Member # 13890) on :
^ Ex: Indians and aborigines aren't black. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You've missed the point. The point is that black and African, despite the current trend to relegate black to mean inner African, are not synonymous terms.
For sure, most Indians and all native Australians (BlackFellows) are blacks.
They are blacks. But they are not (recent i.e., post OoA) Africans.
Posted by Nefar (Member # 13890) on :
^ true!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The root of the fallacy these folks are trapped in, is to contrive of skin color as race.
It is impossible to do so, while making sense, because *race* [as a western ideological dogma] does not make sense.
So you have the foolish claim that Australian Aborigines are African - because they are Black, juxtaposed with the equally foolish claim that they are not Black, because they are not African.
The basic concept that Black refers to skin color, and Africa refers to geography, and that that they are two distinct concepts, neither of which is consistent with race simply goes over their heads.
They don't get it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Perhaps because of African-black prejudice against non-African blacks(?)
I know for a fact that there are whites who even though they know that there exist non-African blacks, are uncomfortable with the idea simply because they are uncomfortable with the fact that globally there are alot more blacks than they wish they were.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - there may be hope for you yet.
Rasol - you seem to be very much like a sponge; you soaked everything up. But unfortunately you failed to filter that which you soaked up.
What you say is consistent with the White psychobabble of those wishing to distance themselves from their past source of position and privilege.
Still; one would expect someone from the other side to exercise some critical analysis of the babble. Seeing as it's chief purpose is to maintain a safe, guilt-free status quo.
i.e. Race used to count when we could have advantage from it. But now that there is no longer an advantage, let's no longer do that.
Does the word Chump mean anything to you?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Does the word Chump mean anything to you?
^ Yes, it's your self description.
It means you're a loser who engages in personal attacks to try to make up for his intellectual shortcomings. Isn't that so?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:^ Doug you are absolutely correct that there is practical political utility in solidarity amongst the worlds Black peoples - where African, Asian, Australian, Polynesian, etc..
Out of bound comment, let's keep the scientific tone of the discussion...I'm a Black African and not from Southern Africa or America, and I'm aware of the fact that there are many Black people who are not African, but I personally don't feel a need to connect with non African people because of their skin color...it's just another form of racism. However I understand where Rasol and Doug M come from...their personal history is much more painful than the rest of Black people with respect to Europeans...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:However I understand where Rasol and Doug M come from...their personal history is much more painful than the rest of Black people with respect to Europeans...
lol. If I were like, 11 years old, I might take that bait....
I suggest you take your own advice rather than make -personal- remarks....
let's keep the scientific tone of the discussion :
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Absolutely.
And, talking of the science and the real reason for this unity between black africans and blacks elsewhere you have this:
Many of the pacific Islands suffered MASSIVE population lost after contact with Europeans. In many cases the modern inhabitants are the result of various populations who came along since the original populations were decimated.
Many of the original inhabitants of the pacific Islands were in appearance somewhere between the people of Papua New Guinea and Australia. As a result of the depopulation many of these islands were repopulated by people from other areas of the pacific and asia, to work on the plantations for whites, to produce the population you see today. For example, many modern "native" Hawaiians have much more Chinese, Japanese and European blood than Hawaiian.
A good example of such forces can be seen in modern Fiji where there have been multiple coups as Fijians are split by religion and ethnicity, between those who are more indigenous and those who are partly Indian.
^ Good post.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Politics and Science don't mix, just ask the Nazis and European Eurocentrists...ultimately the failed...this thread is becoming unscientific... But I understand where Doug M and Rasol come from and will sit back and enjoy their 'scientifik' exchange.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:this thread is becoming unscientific
^ Do you have anything scientific to contribute? If so, please add it. I look forward to reading it.
What you are doing *now* is only sniping, which is both petty, and non scientific.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Any study of the pacific Islands at the time of European contact that does NOT discuss the depopulation and then re-population of those islands is unscientific. It is no different than the depopulation and re-population of the Caribbean, except instead of Africans being the replacements, it was East Asians and Indians.
Here is the book from which those pages were taken:
quote: The island was originally used as a quarantine station for indentured Indian labourers brought to the Pacific in their thousands by British colonial rulers during the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Just as in Fiji, the British were apt to use ethnic groups against each other in order to maintain their power, ethnic tensions and divisions were a major factor under British colonial rule. By emphasizing one group over the other, bringing in foreigners and giving them jobs normally done by the natives and lavishing perks on one group over the other, the British promoted hate and used these groups against each other. The same happened in Africa and part of the reason for the whole Tutsi Hamitic myth was to engender such a ethnic division and ideology among certain African groups.
Here are more images of people from the pacific region:
COOK ISLANDERS are Polynesians. The northern islands were most probably settled around 800 AD by migrants from the west – Samoa and Tonga. The southern group inhabitants are largely descended from voyagers from the Society Islands and the Marquesas. Woman with hat When European contact was first made in the late 18th century the southern islands had thriving populations. Rarotonga supported about 8000. However, European diseases virtually wiped out the pure Rarotongans in the mid-19th century and reduced their number to fewer than 2000. Since then, periodic additions of outer islanders have built Rarotonga's population back to about 9000. The total population of all the islands is about 18,000. There are believed to be a further 37,000 Cook Islanders living in New Zealand and Australia. The islanders are of the Maori race, very closely linked in culture and language to the Maori of New Zealand, the Maohi of French Polynesia, the Maori of Easter Island (known as Rapanui) and the Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii. Migration map
Current thinking posits that the islands of the South Seas were first reached by a series of waves of brown-skinned migrants from South-East Asia between 5000 and 1500 BC. Recent work by DNA researchers indicates that the forebears of the Polynesians reached Papua New Guinea possibly 7000 years ago. This became the jumping-off point for their first advances into the South Pacific Ocean. The genetic evidence is that these people co-existed with the Melanesians before moving on eastwards to what is now Polynesia without taking any Melanesian genetic elements with them. In their sophisticated ocean-going canoes they arrived in Micronesia, then Fiji and later, Tonga. From there they headed north to Samoa, the Tokelaus and then made the huge leap east to the Marquesas. Following a period of consolidation, the Marquesans ventured south and west around 500 AD to Tahiti and Easter Island and north to Hawaii, west to the Cook Islands and then across the vast, empty expanse to New Zealand. About 800 to 1000 AD, Raiatea in the Society Islands, established itself as a centre of culture and religion and sent voyagers to Hawaii, the Cooks and east to the Tuamotu archipelago to rule over those islands. They took with them their religion, cultural traditions, medicine and language which was, of course, Maori. Giant vaka
The giant vaka 'Te Au O Te Tonga' from Rarotonga which successfully made the journey to Tahiti and then Hawai'i in early 1995. Big pic 93K.
Today the Cook Islands use three languages: Maori, English and Pukapukan. The latter originated in western Polynesia and has links with the tongues of Samoa, Tokelau and Niue. Pukapukan is claimed to be the oldest language in the Cook Islands according to a New Zealand scholar and researcher, Dr Mary Salisbury, who has worked hard with Pukapukans to translate the Bible into their language. The Maori used by the people of the Cooks has six dialects. They are: Rakahanga/Manihiki, Penrhyn, Mangaia, Rarotonga, Aitutaki and Atiu/Mauke/Mitiaro. Pukapukan is spoken in Pukapuka and Nassau. The people of Palmerston speak English in the accents of Victorian Gloucestershire. This is because Palmerston was uninhabited until 1862 when a Gloucester man, William Masters, settled there with his three Polynesian wives and stayed till he died in 1899. His hegemony was taken over by one of his sons until 1956 when it was passed on to a grandson. Nearly all the islanders are named Marsters – someone having added an 'r' to the original name. Most southern group Cook Islanders are able to communicate with those from the far-flung northern atolls. There has also been a considerable influx of people from the outer islands into Rarotonga in search of opportunities and this has resulted in greater homogeneity of language. Although fun-loving and friendly, Cook Islanders, like Tahitians and other Polynesians, are a conservative and generally religious people who cleave to their customary way of life and culture. They do not fit the ill-founded Western myth that they are loose-living hedonists of easy morals. The early missionaries stamped their indelible print on these islands in the 19th century.
Also note that the ethnic distinctions and the history of the depopulation and mixed nature of the resulting peoples is seen in the names given to the regions of the pacific islands: Melanesia (blacks), Polynesia (many/mixed) and Micronesia.
quote: Melanesia (from Greek: μέλας black, νῆσος island) is a subregion of Oceania extending from the western side of the West Pacific to the Arafura Sea, north and north-east of Australia. The term was first used by Jules Dumont d'Urville in 1832 CE to denote an ethnic and geographical grouping of islands distinct from Polynesia and Micronesia.
Today d'Urville's racial classification is known to be inaccurate because it obscures the very great cultural, linguistic, and genetic diversity in the area and combines two quite distinct groups, the Austronesians (who have a much wider distribution than just Melanesia) and the Papuans (who themselves comprise a number of separate groups). A further complication is that the term Melanesian is sometimes used to refer solely to the Austronesian peoples of that region, especially when contrasting them with the Polynesians and Micronesians (both of which groups are also Austronesian).
In contrast, the geopolitical conception of Melanesia is widely used. For example, the Melanesian Spearhead Group Preferential Trade Agreement is a regional trade treaty governing the states of Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. 'Melanesia' is also current as a geographic term, to refer to the area when national, ethnic and linguistic distinctions are not relevant.[1]
quote: Micronesia, from the Greek mikros (μικρός) (meaning small) and nesos (νῆσος) (meaning island), is a subregion of Oceania, comprising hundreds of small islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Philippines lie to the northwest, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Melanesia to the west and southwest, and Polynesia to the east.
quote: Polynesia is generally defined as the islands within the Polynesian triangle. The term "Polynesia", meaning many islands, was first used by Charles de Brosses in 1756, and originally applied to all the islands of the Pacific. Jules Dumont d'Urville in an 1831 lecture to the Geographical Society of Paris proposed a restriction on its use. Carving from the ridgepole of a Māori house, ca 1840 Carving from the ridgepole of a Māori house, ca 1840
Geographically, and oversimply, Polynesia may be described as a triangle with its corners at Hawaii, Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The other main island groups located within the Polynesian triangle are Samoa, Tonga, the various island chains that form the Cook Islands and French Polynesia. Niue is a rare solitary island state near the centre of Polynesia.
Polynesian island groups outside of this great triangle include Tuvalu and the French territory of Wallis and Futuna. Rotuma in the northern Fijian islands and some of the Lau group to Fiji's southeast have strong polynesian character too. There are also small outlier Polynesian enclaves in Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and in Vanuatu. However, in essence, it is an anthropological term referring to one of the three parts of Oceania (the others being Micronesia and Melanesia) whose pre-colonial population generally belongs to one ethno-cultural family as a result of centuries of maritime migrations.
The funny thing is that many of the aboriginal women of these islands had curly hair and darker skin, but good luck seeing anyone looking like that in any of the modern beauty pageants and "indigenous" women seen on the net.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - there may be hope for you yet.
I don't need 'hope' when I already have the sense and knowledge to know what I am talking about. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for you.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Politics and Science don't mix, just ask the Nazis and European Eurocentrists...ultimately the failed...this thread is becoming unscientific... But I understand where Doug M and Rasol come from and will sit back and enjoy their 'scientifik' exchange.
Again, you also do not know what you speak of. Politics is sometimes based on science, and is iself actually a type of social science hence the subject 'politica science'.
Also there is nothing "unscientific" about what Rasol and Doug have posted. All of their posts are based on facts and studies. What have you presented, other than silly generalizations or more fanfare about 'features'? LOL Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Africa sometimes gets angry and then vents.
I don't retaliate because in this case, he is angry at other people, even though he chose to vent [for no reason] at me.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
And to reinforce how Europe practiced Eugenics, ethnic cleansing and genocide in the pacific one needs only look at the Maoris and their history. Relative newcomers to the Islands of the Pacific, from the 1500s, they spread especially in conjunction with Europeans and helped form the basis of the "Polynesian" identity, over that of the Austronesian or Melanesian populations of the Islands, like Hawaii and elsewhere. The Moriori are an example of this, while some say they were the original New Zealanders, others deny it, but no one doubts their so-called Melanesian (black) ancestry.
quote: Origin
The Moriori are culturally Polynesian. They developed a distinct Moriori culture in the Chatham Islands as they adapted to local conditions. Although speculation once suggested that they settled the Chatham Islands directly from the tropical Polynesian islands, or even that they were Melanesian in origin, current research indicates that ancestral Moriori were Māori who came to the Chatham Islands from New Zealand about 1500 (Clark 1994, Davis and Solomon 2006, Howe 2006, King 2000). As Kerry Howe puts it, 'Scholarship over the past 40 years has radically revised the model offered a century earlier by Smith: the Moriori as a pre-Polynesian people have gone (the term Moriori is now a technical term referring to those ancestral Maori who settled the Chatham Islands)' (Howe 2003:182).
Evidence supporting this theory comes from the innovations that the Moriori language has in common with the Māori dialect spoken by the Ngāi Tahu tribe of the South Island, comparisons of the genealogies of Moriori ("hokopapa") and Māori ("whakapapa"), and prevailing wind patterns in the southern Pacific. The Chatham Islands thus became the last outpost in the Pacific to be settled during the period of Polynesian discovery and colonization [1]. The origin of the name Moriori is uncertain; it may have developed as a linguistic reduplication of the old Polynesian word Māori; if so, it would have the meaning "(ordinary) people".
[edit] Adapting to local conditions
The Chatham Islands are colder and less hospitable than the land the original settlers had left behind, and are also poor in resources. Because of these environmental factors, the islands are barely capable of supporting a human population. The Chathams proved unsuitable for the cultivation of most crops known to Polynesians, and the Moriori adopted a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Food was almost entirely marine-sourced - protein and fat from fish, fur seals and the fatty young of sea birds. The islands supported a population numbering about 2000. Moriori tree carving or dendroglyph Moriori tree carving or dendroglyph
Lacking resources of cultural significance such as greenstone and plentiful timber, they found outlets for their ritual needs in the carving of dendroglyphs (incisions into tree trunks, called rakau momori). Some of these carvings are protected by the JM Barker (Hapupu) National Historic Reserve.
As a small and precarious population, Moriori embraced a pacifist culture which rigidly avoided warfare, substituting it with dispute resolution in the form of ritual fighting and conciliation. The ban on warfare and cannibalism is attributed to their ancestor Nunuku-whenua.
[edit] 1835 invasion from Taranaki
William R. Broughton landed on November 29, 1791, and claimed possession of the islands for Great Britain, naming them after his ship, HMS Chatham. Sealers and whalers soon made the islands a centre of their activities, competing for resources with the native population. 10 to 20 percent of the Moriori soon died from imported diseases.
In 1835 some Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama people, Māori from the Taranaki region of the North Island of New Zealand settled in the Chathams. On November 19, 1835, a chartered European ship, the Rodney, carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs and axes arrived, followed by another ship with 400 more Maori arriving on December 5, 1835. They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [2].
The invading Māori from New Zealand – as well as European whalers and German missionaries– inter-married with the local indigenous population. Only 101 Morioris out of a population of about 2,000 were left alive by 1862 (Kopel et al., 2003). Although it is commonly believed that the Māori invaders completely wiped out the Moriori, several thousand mixed ancestry Moriori descendants remain alive today. Tommy Solomon, the last Moriori of unmixed ancestry, died in 1933.
It was during the musket wars when many Northern New Zealand tribes decimated other unarmed tribes, including the Moriori. Of course there is great debate concerning who was first to populate New Zealand, but the fact that black peoples have been in surrounding islands and Papua New Guinea, as well as Australia for upwards of 30,000 years or more makes any question of who came first absurdly ridiculous. Yet with the help of Europeans, or forced by them, many of these populations expanded and became the basis of the "polynesian" ethnic group.
quote: The Musket Wars were a series of battles fought between various tribal groups of Māori in the early 1800s, primarily on the North Island in New Zealand. The conflicts were directly influenced by the acquisition of muskets by Māori. Northern tribes, such as the rival Ngapuhi and Ngāti Whātua, were the first to obtain firearms and inflicted heavy casualties upon each other and on neighbouring tribes, some of whom had never seen muskets.
"The first occasion appears to have been the defeat of a Ngapuhi war party by Ngāti Whātua at Moremonui near Maunganui, between Hokianga and Kaipara harbours in 1807. In this instance, it was the Ngapuhi who were equipped with muskets. But the Ngāti Whātua ambushed them with traditional weapons before Ngapuhi had sufficient opportunity to load or reload." (Michael King). Hongi Hika, who was later to lead Ngapuhi raids across most of the northern North Island, saw two of his brothers killed in this debacle.
In time, all the tribes traded to obtain muskets and the conflict ultimately reached an uneasy stalemate after decimating the population of some tribes and drastically shifting the boundaries between areas controlled by various tribes. The new boundaries would largely become fixed after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. At least 20,000 people died in these conflicts.
The wars gave Māori experience in fighting with and defending against firearms. One important innovation was the 'gunfighter's pā', which was designed to be defended with ranged weapons and to offer defenders protection against the firearms of the enemy. This type of pā was later widely used in the New Zealand Land Wars. The experience in combat with modern weaponry given by the Musket Wars may help explain why Māori fared far better in their wars against the British than did most tribal peoples.
Note that the Maoris were among the first to use a system of trenches to protect themselves in combat with powder weapons, called the Pa System:
quote: The Maori majority who stayed in New Zealand fought a long and often successful series of campaigns against the white invaders. Outnumbered by the whites, the New Zealand Maori invented a form of trench warfare, using timber and earthwork structures called pa. They Maori rapidly became expert in firearms and fought longer and more successfully than any other outnumbered indigenous group in the 19th century. It was only because of overwhelming white numerical superiority that the New Zealand Maori were finally defeated in the 1860s-and even then they won citizenship rights and designated seats in the parliament. In New Zealand, the readiness of the whites and the Maori to fight had resulted, after much bloodshed, in a political settlement whereby the majority was victorious, but some minority rights were established. While the gentle stone age Aborigines of Australia had been very quickly crushed and viciously subjugated, the fighting natives of New Zealand preserved a not-insubstantial degree of their rights.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Rasol:^ Doug you are absolutely correct that there is practical political utility in solidarity amongst the worlds Black peoples - where African, Asian, Australian, Polynesian, etc..
That's a very laughable quote that prompted me to intervene in this thread...as I said some have a victim mentality due to their personal history...I will sit back and try to understand Rasol and Doug M psyche...By the way I would like to sincerely thank the amateur scientist turned politician(Rasol) and his cheerleader who parrot every poster at every turn(Djehuti), their posts are really inspiring me in this thread...thanks again.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:That's a very laughable quote that prompted me to intervene in this thread...as I said some have a victim mentality due to their personal history...I will sit back and try to understand Rasol and Doug M psyche...By the way I would like to sincerely thank the amateur scientist turned politician(Rasol) and his cheerleader who parrot every poster at every turn(Djehuti), their posts are really inspiring me in this thread...thanks again.
^
Inspiring you to vent, evidently.
You're cute when you're angry, and try as angry people do, to get other people just as upset as you obviously are.
But, where's that science (?) you supposedly prefer to discuss?
You're so busy venting, that you apparently have forgotten your own message.
Anyway, your effort to taunt other posters isn't working, and obviously isn't making you feel any better. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL
quote:rasol said: ..You're cute when you're angry, and try as angry people do, to get other people just as upset as you obviously are...
Be careful Rasol, he might think you're hitting on him (as his twisted mind apparently thought the same of me) and will then remark on you sexuallity!
Don't give him the gratification, I mean satisfaction, I mean.. you know what I mean! LOL Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
The "Hamitic" myth is ridiculous. One delusional buffoon posted Coon's race drivel as evidence, that Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and others are not really "African".
CAUCASOID SUBRACES
The Caucasian race is native to Europe, West Asia and North Africa, but there exists a good deal of often regional variation among its members, resulting from both environmental adaptation and genetic admixture. Below is the system of subracial classification developed by Carleton S. Coon in his seminal work, The Races of Europe. It includes descriptions of distinctive types and examples of each from the book's accompanying Photographic Plates. Also included are periphery types reflecting Negroid and Mongoloid accretions.
(Somalia)
Irano-Afghan: The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Mediterranean Proper: Short-statured, dolicho- and mesocephalic form found in Spain, Portugal, the western Mediterranean islands, and to some extent in North Africa, southern Italy, and other Mediterranean borderlands. Its purest present-day racial nucleus is without doubt Arabia. Most of the Cappadocian, isolated in the skeletal material, seems to have been absorbed into the western Mediterranean variety after its early Metal Age migration, while that which remained in Asia Minor became assimilated into the Dinaric and Armenoid. It still appears, however, among individuals in its original form, and is particularly common among Oriental Jews.
(Yemen)
Atlanto-Mediterranean: The tall, straight-nosed Mediterranean, not mesocephalic, as Deniker erroneously stated, but strongly dolichocephalic. Today this race forms the principal element in the population of North Africa, and is strong in Iraq, Palestine, parts of Arabia, and the eastern Balkans; in solution with varying degrees of negroid it is also the principal race in the whole of East Africa. In Europe it is a minority element in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and the British Isles.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
How would you refute the above excerpts from Coon's ridiculous race theories?
I would like to see what rasol, supercar and explorer have to say on this.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
"East African: In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a concentration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with negroes. To the west these partial whites border on Sudanese negroes; to the southwest the partially Hamitic tribes of Kenya and Uganda form art extension of the peripheral Mediterranean racial area. To the north, the Beja-Bisharin group of Hamitic-speaking nomads connect the East African Hamitic-speaking peoples with their wholly white Egyptian and Berber relatives of North Africa."
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
sudaniya wrote: ------------------------ How would you refute the above excerpts from Coon's ridiculous race theories? ------------------------
Why waste time with non-factual race mythology?
What's the point? Is it that hard to understand?
Its fantasy concocted to claim that anything created by Africans is actually of European origin.
Why do you keep giving it credence by requesting that we debunk the braindead nonsense?
From Zulus to so called "Nubians" to Ethiopians to so called "Bantus" to Fulani to Dogon to Iraqw to Tutsi to Massai to Dinka to Nuer to Somalis to Beja to Cameroonians to Lemba its the same "they be caucasians" or "they be partial caucasians" lunacy from white clowns that any normal sane person would be embarressed to even dream up.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Because as Sudaniya says, some braindead people keep rehashing it! The only solution of course is to keep rebashing it!
Sudaniya, old outdated anthropology is quite easy to dismiss. All you have to do is ask them valid questions such as why is there a double standard where the so-called "caucasoid" race is so large and diverse as to include not only Europeans and Southwest Asians but even many Africans where as the "negroid" race is not diverse at all includes limited regions of Sub-Saharan Africa?? This would lead back to the very basic question of exactly what constitutes "caucasoid" and "negroid" in the first place?? Then sit back and be entertained at the illogical answers if any are provided.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)