...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Worlds Largest Pyramid Discovered
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Siptah: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Siptah: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Siptah: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: Black Caucasoids are simply Black people that have facial features that we normally think of as Caucasian. [b]Common[/b] in the [b]Sahel[/b] and [b]East Africa[/b][/QUOTE]You conclude that these facial features you deem as Caucasian are common in those regions based on what? [/qb][/QUOTE]Empirical evidence - I have been to these places as the son of a missionary. I have seen most of Africa. I believe many people would refer to these people as Hamitic but that is quite false. In terms of Hebrew definition of race, these people would be considered Amazigh. Hamitic people are all the African people plus Southern Indians, Polynesian, Melanesians, Australians, and some South East Asians. According to Hebrew legends, the Amazigh are a mixture of a Hamitic lineage with a Semitic one since the time of the Tower of Bable. There are many different Hamites with Canaanites representing the more Bantu like which is supported by Natufian finds which clearly indicate a Bantu phenotype present in SW Asia but more specifically at the site of Jericho itself. [/qb][/QUOTE]I could also say i've had my share of considerable empirical evidence as well. Which begs the question of what you mean by Caucasian features? I'm aware of the Negroid attribution given to describe pre-existing Levantine populations and their clear link to Sub Sahara Africa as noted by Brace et al. Wouldn't East Africans be Cushitic as opposed to Amazigh being descendants of Phut according to the Hebrew definition? [/qb][/QUOTE]Genetics seems to argue differently; but that is the mainstream position - East Africans are Cushitic. But I tend to think that there was significant migration from Southern Egypt into the Horn and thus these people are significantly more Amazigh than Cushitic. Caucasian features are normally just narrow nasal features, thin lips, high nasal root, non-prognathism. Just a misnomer but it is a socially accepted description. You will find many Masai, Fulani, Igbo, etc, that have such features yet they are considered Black socially in our society. [/qb][/QUOTE][QUOTE]There are many different Hamites with Canaanites representing the more Bantu like which is supported by Natufian finds which clearly indicate a Bantu phenotype present in SW Asia but more specifically at the site of Jericho itself.[/QUOTE]Where did these Bantu like people being represented in Pre-South West Asia come from, if East Africa comprise of indigenous populations with features you commonly acquaint with Caucasians? [QUOTE]Genetics seems to argue differently;[/QUOTE]Specifically, how so? [QUOTE]Would you mind but that is the mainstream position - East Africans are Cushitic. But I tend to think that there was significant migration from Southern Egypt into the Horn and thus these people are significantly more Amazigh than Cushitic.[/QUOTE]How does such a significant migration from Southern Egypt make them significantly more Amazigh than Cushitic? Can you explain to me why within the Afrasan phylum they speak a Cushitic dialect and not a Amazigh one? [QUOTE]Caucasian features are normally just narrow nasal features, thin lips, high nasal root, non-prognathism. Just a misnomer but it is a socially accepted description. You will find many Masai, Fulani, Igbo, etc, that have such features yet they are considered Black socially in our society.[/QUOTE][b]Narrow nasal features, thin lips, high nasal root, non-prognathism.[/b] Let's accept this as your description and requirement to be considered Caucasian. How do explain the many who do not fall within the range of your objective perspective of said Caucasian features, why do you suppose the latter in comparison to the former of your description is not as common among the said peoples of the Sahel and East Africa? Why do you suppose according to you and your empirical evidence we should position these groups in their rightful context as Black people with Caucasian features despite many others within the said groups exhibiting features not conforming to the Caucasian description? [/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