...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
O.T. What Mistakes did Diop Make
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lamin: [QB] I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over". I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians. In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60: "Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate". Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes(see his the History and Geography of Human Genes). But here's Diop again on race: [b]But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations. It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology. But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the norion of race reappears: sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only balck people, says the same science that denies race....Race does not exist! Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede, and that, a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins, even if accidentally their phenotypes, meaning their physical appeareances, are different"(C&B,p. 17). Apparently what Diop seems to be saying is that European scholars rather than admit the anteriority of the African "race" prefer to debunk the notion of race altogether. I don't think the European scholars really debunked the notion of "race" at all. They just changed their terminologies --old wine in new bottles style--with their talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa, etc. But Diop does raise an interesting question derived from the fact that phenotype does not track genotype in antropological analysis. The point is that phenotype is not a function of genetic distance. Consider the cases of Melanesians and the populations of Africa--all belonging to the same population set if membership criteria are the phenotypical traits generally characteristic of Africa. Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations. Take your pick! [/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