...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Challenge to Chimu
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chimu: [QB] [b]Follow along nincompoop[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindlessMatter78: [QUOTE]By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* [b]that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein[/b]- - (Rogers 2004:107). [/QUOTE]Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation[b](speaking about the mutation specifically mentioned by Rogers0[b], weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter. [/QUOTE]Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do.[b](But you obviously are too clueless to read a post in context[/b] It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin[b](More stupidity. they are not talking about babies being with born with pink skin from ancestral times with fur, they are speaking of new mutations that arise that would lead to change of skin color. In other words mutations like that of Europe may have occurred, but they never survived in the population)[/b], Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African. [/QUOTE]I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene. And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine. [/QUOTE]They do possess the ancestral allele. What do you mean by a mutation from the original gene? [/quote] [b]Read above[/b] [QUOTE]You commented on Rogers saying any progeny with any whiter skin would've been killed off, by you saying "Sandawe were not killed off". Therefore I replied "Sandawe are not white". They are pigmented Africans, retaining melanin levels to protect from harmful UV rays. The original humans who left Africa to become non Africans from the horn of East Africa were darkskinned Africans. These humans are represented by the Oceanic populations, these Oceanic populations possess the ancestral allele that all Africans possess, and these people are black, these are what the ancestors of non Africans looked like and the color they were.[/QUOTE][b]A few factors you blatantly ignore: I clearly state that while Bisa Sandawe are lighter, they survived in Tanzania, and they do not have any genetic mutation in their skin color that would make them a new skin color. They are within the range of variation of MCR1. Meaning they are lighter but not light enough not to be able to survive in Equatorial Africa. We have no idea how dark or light Horn of Africans were when they migrated out of Africa. Sorry bub, if lighter populations can survive to this day smack on the equator, then they could have survived there, and there are lighter skinned Ethiopians.[/b] [QUOTE]In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. [b]Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.[/b] [/QUOTE][b]You have yet to prove that all Horn of Africans are Dark, Or even that modern Horn of Africans represent the color of Ancient Horners[/b] [IMG]http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/greekgirlcop/halleselassie.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben: If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing [i]Africans[/i] as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other. [/QUOTE][b]Less African, of course not. But they never identified as Black. And the San saw the Bantu as foreigners to their land as well[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?[/QUOTE][b]Just do a search through old literature. The Physical Characters of the Sandawe, J. C. Trevor, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1947), pp. 61-78[/b] [QUOTE]The original Sandawe were lighter in skin colour than are those of today[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [QUOTE] In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.[/QUOTE] http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp [/QUOTE]What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this. [QUOTE] [b]Read below I quote the names of the acts involved. We do know the belief in the area was that the San and Khoi were "Already mixed with Hamitic Whites". In other words their look marked them as not Black and not White, so the Boers rationalized that they were already mixed.[/b] [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/30vnn2h.jpg[/IMG] [b]It may have been political as well:[/b] [QUOTE] Nama and San people know that the suppression of their identities and languages was required to assert the ideology of apartheid and justify the seizure of lands. According to one Nama speaker, Sacharias Christiaan, [b]the apartheid government forced Nama people to register as coloured so as to invalidate their status as aboriginal people.[/b] If the Khoe and San people ceased to exist, no claims could be made to original occupation of land. This was in sharp contrast to the Bantustan policy which had brought to the fore the legal concept of separate territoriality for different linguistic groups. [b]By declaring Nama people to be of mixed race and Afrikaans-speaking[/b], the government was able to suppress any argument for a Nama state, or Nama cultural and linguistic rights. Language is not the only apartheid rubric that has survived the transition to democracy. The Central Statistics Service (CSS) continues to use the terms African, white, coloured and Asian to describe the racial-ethnic variation in the country. There are two problems with this. [b]Firstly, the majority of three million so-called coloured South Africans are of direct Khoe and San descent, with over one hundred thousand still referring to themselves as Griqua, Nama, Bushman or Koranna[/b]. Though some South Africans may comfortably identify themselves as "coloured," the term has been rejected by others. [b]For it is a myth that still holds some force that "coloured" people are of "mixed race," with settler origins. In fact, the majority of so-called "coloured" South Africans are at least as indigenous as so called "Africans."[/b] The flip side of this mythology is that Bantu-language speaking South Africans may claim a special authenticity and indigenous status and assert that they are not of "mixed race." These assumptions are rooted firmly in colonial and apartheid policies. In the building of colonial and then apartheid hegemony, the settler regime promoted distinctions between South Africans whose languages, cultures and genetic material were in fact interwoven. The racial terminology, "Native", "Bantu" and later the nine ethno-linguistic African groups, carried forth the fiction that most South Africans are not of mixed race, [b]whereas historical research clearly shows much intermarriage between Khoe, San, Nguni and Sotho speaking peoples.[/b] Arguably, in the new era this racial mythology has been recycled and conveniently creates a mythological original and authentic status for the dominant "Black" "African" "Nguni-Sotho" elite which is contrasted with other less authentic identities: white, coloured and Asian. [/QUOTE] http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3803 [b]It is quite obvious though that the Nama, the Khoe, the San, etc were seen as aboriginal, or mixed, but never as Black. And even when seen as aboriginal, they were forced in the same status as the Griqua, Coloured. In fact, if you ooked like a stereotypical Black (Read Bantu) you were just classified as Black. But if you were mixed or one of the lighter skinned KhoiSan you were classified as Colored regardless[/b] [IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/2vrzafc.jpg[/IMG] [b]In fact, Colored basically came to mean anyone not seen as White or Bantu (Black), whether they were mixed or not.[b] [IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/2cfxesp.jpg[/IMG] [b]What is even worse, the Colored people where removed fo their rightful as First Peoples of the region[/b] [QUOTE]In South Africa the social construction of the mixed person passed through various phases, at times containing some of the elements of the Brazilian racial continuum and at times approaching the dichotomous American version of racial purity. One experiences considerable cognitive dissonance as one moves (as I have) among the three systems. [b]The South African classification of "coloured" is somewhat analogous to the US notion of "black," while the South African classification of "black" is closer to the North American concept of the "Indian" or "Native American."[/b][/QUOTE][b]The irony is that although the Bantus are immigrants just as the Boers, they have been given indigenous status, while the KhoiSan/Colored populations have been given an ambiguous status as not belonging to the land. Effectively a displaced people, much like the African American people.[/b] [QUOTE] The existence of ambiguously "raced" people ( i.e.,"coloureds" ) was a "wild card" (the Joker) in the system and ideology of strict race segregation on which modern South African apartheid was built. The origins of the popular view of "coloureds" as a residual or "left over" category is inscribed in the apartheid laws which defined South African citizenship in terms of a system of racist population classifications (see Ridd 1981 and West 1988 from which the following is summarized). [b]Apartheid was implemented through the hated Population Registration Act of 1950 (which was amended no less than 15 times between 1956 and 1986).[/b] [b]The Population and Registration Act (in Section 1) identified three basic classifications of South Africans: black, coloured, and white. A black (previously a Native or a Bantu) was defined as "a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa." A white person was defined (in extremely hedged language) as: "a person who (a) in appearance obviously is a White person, and who is not generally accepted as a Colored person; or (b) is generally accepted as a White person and is not in appearance obviously not a White person. Finally, "white person" excludes those who voluntarily confess that they are "by descent a Black or a Colored person, unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact." The definition of a "coloured" is what remains: "a Colored is a person who is not a White person or a Black." [/b][/QUOTE][b]Note that the Khoi, San, Nama, and othe rKhoiSanid populations weren't allowed the identity of being an aboriginal tribe, so they were seen as mixed race, Colored, not Black[/b] [QUOTE][b]Because they stand in-between what was arguably an essentially a bi-polar race model (black/ white), South African "coloureds" are social "liminals," the half-way mark between "whites" and "blacks."[/b][/QUOTE] http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/publications/hongkong/scheper.htm [b]The KhoiSanid populations, wether mixed or not, where never seen as Black. and in a bi-polar racial model, they could only be mixed or Colored[/b] [IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/zxl15c.jpg[/IMG] [b]If you think that the various KhoiSan peoples were seen as Black, think again. Read this blog by a Nama: http://bikerpat.blogspot.com/2008/07/going-back-to-my-nama-roots.html [QUOTE]Under the oppressive laws of apartheid, Khoe and South African people were forced to register and adopt and identity as coloured people.[/QUOTE][b]Nope, Not Black[/b] [QUOTE][b]The apartheid system in South Africa required that every individual within the society be classified and segregated according to four major racial categories, i.e., White, Black, Coloured, and Indian. The category “Coloured” became the most arbitrary racial category in that it functioned as a way of disguising the cultural heterogeneity of people who possessed African, European, Khoe, San, Indian, and Malay backgrounds. Indigenous groups were especially likely to accept this categorization due to the severely derogatory connotations associated with “Bushmen” during the apartheid years.[/b] It is not until recently that the gains made by emerging indigenous rights movements have encouraged people to reclaim and take pride in African, San, and Khoe ancestry.[/QUOTE] http://www.conquest.org.za/documents/!Xu%20and%20Khwe%20profile%202.pdf [QUOTE][b]Under the racial administrative system of Apartheid(1949 – 1993), all indigenous peoples were forced to be registered as other racial groups, with most being classified as “Coloured” or mixed race.[/b][/QUOTE] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001464/146436e.pdf [b]Now please don't tell me the UNESCO doesn't know what it's talking about.[/b] [QUOTE]This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?[/QUOTE][b]Uh Yeah!?!?[/b] http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf [QUOTE]You realize that you evaded what you cited above, don't you? QUOTE]You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.[/QUOTE][b]No, you can't read. Kittles was not the primary source If you knew how to read, you would know Kittles paper is making that claim citing Jablonski's paper. Try again. [QUOTE]If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?[/QUOTE][b]There is a difference between auto classification, and official classification by law.[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Furthermore... [QUOTE]Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories. The [b]black population[/b] consists of several groups: [b]Khoi-San[/b], Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged. The [b]apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences[/b] among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but [b]also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus)[/b], and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.[/QUOTE]Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml [/QUOTE][b]And you don't think the Black majority today aren't imposing their own racial dichotomies today? LMAO. You sure are Naive. In Today's South Africa, to be Colored is to be homeless. The unoficial state policy is for KhoiSan to identify as Black or else not participate in all indigenous rights programs, which are geared toward the Black majority. Many KhoiSan have been fighting against this, as I quoted one already. Go read him again. [/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker? Sandawe seem like one of the darker observed populations.[/QUOTE][b]Boy are you dense. South African Bantus have also been mixing with San. And Sandawe were never as light as San. Compare South African Bantus to other Bantus: South African (S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5 Namibia (Okavango Bantu, M’bukushu at Bagani, Kuangali) 22.92[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun: LOL, Those pictures of Kio-San look like faded airline clips from the Early 90's. The San Bushmen do not represent the Africans that evolved in East Africa...they represent a people adapted to the envioment where they migrated to.(South Africa) Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..[/QUOTE][b]Oh the stupidity. Those pictures are not faded. Deal with it. And they are not dark skinned, and obviously Afrikaners did not see them as Black.[/b] [IMG]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/photogalleries/journey_of_man/images/primary/jm1n.jpg[/IMG] [b]LOL. Those are Namibians or Botswanan, no from South Africa, but from the Kalahari desert and they have a bright background. You obviously know nothing of photography. Go look up Backlight. [IMG]http://notanmba.com/blog/files/2008/04/bushmen_kalahari_safari_botswana_reis-1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1227/651287872_3596819fbe.jpg[/IMG] The Bushmen up there have a lot more admixture with Bantu than the San of South Africa[b] [QUOTE]compared to white people the San are clearly Black Africans...The people in your selected faded pics are not a representation of the San people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c246fZ-7z1w [/QUOTE][b]Obviously not, as the Boers considered them mixed from the get go. And these are Namibian Bushmen, again not the San of South Africa.[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?[/QUOTE][b]Look at Cavalli-Sforza's work I posted.[/b] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3