...
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 The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What? [/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Immaterial; the burden is on you to produce the scale by which it is said that the Sandawe could not possibly be "dark complexed". [QUOTE] [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]Read below I quote the names of the acts involved.[/QUOTE]"Acts" involved is not the same thing as "Official" apartheid state and current South African government census of south African "racial" demography that supports anything you've said; that "Africans" had two camps -- colored and black, which included Khoisans as "colored", and that there was a *separate* colored camp -- which too had Khoisans under the name Griquas. Essentially, you have to back up your claim accordingly, about there being some kind of 5 "racial" categories, as opposed to the often mentioned "4 category". [QUOTE]It is quite obvious though that the Nama, the Khoe, the San, etc were seen as aboriginal, or mixed, but never as Black.[/QUOTE]Of course, they were seen as aboriginal, and were only included in the "colored" camp, along with any other person of supposed "mixed" backgrounds, if they 'mixed" with non-African groups, primarily Europeans. Otherwise, the often mentioned "racial" construct was a "4 category" one, wherein thoroughly "aboriginal" Khoisans were included with thoroughly "aboriginal" African groups like the Bantu speakers. You have produced no official document as requested, that suggests otherwise. [QUOTE]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[/QUOTE]This is based on the notion that the thoroughly aboriginal Khoisans were nearly wiped out, and the few remaining had since heavily "mixed" with non-Khoisan groups, both foreign and African. But of course, those perceived as thoroughly aboriginal were said to have been placed in the same camp as other aboriginal Africans, namely Bantu speakers. [QUOTE]http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001464/146436e.pdf Now please don't tell me the UNESCO doesn't know what it's talking about.[/QUOTE]If you have so much faith in this UNESCO excerpt, then why don't you do the simple task asked of you; to back it up with official South African government census documents about supposed "racial" groups, and their specific ethnic constituents? Can't be that hard, can it? And even if the government documents didn't place Khoisans in the black group, as you seem to welcome, what bearing does that have on the fact that Khoisans still fall into "dark complexed" continuum, as scales like the Von Luschan suggest? [QUOTE] [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]Uh Yeah!?!?[/QUOTE]And I'm sure you heard, when it was stated that the same source suggests South African Bantus speakers were even lighter than the Sandawe, right? [QUOTE] [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]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]Indeed I'll try again; if the author's are referencing Jablonski and Chaplin - 2000 on the "derived allele", then please tell us what DNA analysis Jablonski and Chaplin did themselves, and came to the said conclusion... [i]The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to [b]geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations[/b] (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)[/i] - Norton et al. Norton et al. also say this: [i]In contrast, the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a shared high frequency in sub-Sharan African and Island Melanesians. A notable exception is the relatively [b]lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa[/b] where the [b]derived allele[/b] predominates (93%), [b]although this may be simply due to small sample size (n=14).[/b][/i] 1)Tell me; are they referring to Jablonski's and Chaplin's samples? 2)And even if they were referencing Jablonski and Chaplin 2000, the burden is on you to prove their work wrong; not me. If so, then cite them and tell us what is wrong about their methodologies in sequencing pigmentation alleles, if they ever performed one in the first place. [QUOTE] [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]There is a difference between auto classification, and official classification by law.[/QUOTE]Why would people of Khoisan descent be placed under discrete monikers in the "colored"; if they are all viewed "colored" anyway, as you profess, does it not make sense to simply say here, "khoisans are colored". Period. Why all the unnecessary discrete names, like say Khoisan here and Griquas here -- all of Khoisan descent? [QUOTE] [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]And you don't think the Black majority today aren't imposing their own racial dichotomies today? LMAO.[/QUOTE]Wherever did you get the idea about when this structure was set up; according to what official data? It says right up there, in what I cited, [i]"until 1991"[/i], and that [i]"Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories"[/i]; what does that mean to you? [QUOTE] You sure are Naive.[/QUOTE]You sure are dense, as seen from your supposed interest in legitimizing the apartheid South African state's racial constructs, as opposed to what you believe -- without producing the source of where you came up with the idea -- that of the current "black" South African government. Going by your rationale, why would apartheid South African state's racial constructs be any better than some supposed one today, under a "black" South African government? [QUOTE] Go read him again. [/QUOTE]Read whom; the post I presented? If so, where does it state what you are saying? [QUOTE] [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]Look at Cavalli-Sforza's work I posted.[/QUOTE]What [b]uniparental markers - paternal & maternal[/b] - does Sforza's work suggest that South African-based Khoisans are less "mixed" than those in Botswana. The burden is on you to present the evidence, not for me to look it up. If you do that in a court of law, you'd loose a case so fast that your head would spin. [/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