...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
1- Basic database of Nile Valley studies
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] [b]I am trying to understand his position better. [/b] He acknowledges the Badarians were ancestrally representative, but he has been known to push a "Eurasian" style replacement scenario, that is contradicted by the weight of other evidence in the field- such as limb proportions and crania. Perhaps in his lecture he stressed continuity and downplayed his "incoming Caucasoids" notions, which are contradicted by other scholars. A pattern with some of these academics is to play a double game- they say one thing for public consumption, but in the fine detail of their writings they are manipulating models, sampling, reporting and labels to say something else. Keita criticizes Cavalli Sforza et al for the same type of double game- Sforza publicly disavows race, but in his writings, introduces race in new guises. With many of these academics they have to be closely scrutinized. Some of their work may contain more balanced info, but they may bury this in pursuit of some agenda. Some of these people may have no malicious intent but their training makes them automatically reach for Eurocentric approaches. Keita on Sforza and others double game: [i]This gene-language study is further compro- mised by poor representation of the members of some language families and the use of the race constructs, which force boundaries onto a seamless biocultural and historical matrix with extensive geographical parame- ters. [b]Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (1988) do not ac- curately represent the Afro-Asiatic family because they exclude Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers, thereby giving the illusion that Ethiopians are an anomaly, being genetically Africans (but mixed) who also speak the lan- guages of Caucasians [/b](Afro-Asiatic!?) (Armstrong 1990). An evolutionary model explains the geographical range of Afro-Asiatic speakers as one overlaying gradients of genetic differentiation, which a racial model breaks into discrete units that cannot be shown to have ever existed. Another example of ambiguous branching patterns and clusters within inferred phylogenies is seen in the work of Masatoshi Nei and K. Roychoudhury (1993). Their study, which utilized gene-frequency data from samples derived from the traditional racial constructs, revealed poor support from bootstrap tests for a cluster designated Caucasian and consisting of European and Middle Eastern populations. Although this poor support is more reflective of the inadequacy of typological con- structs and racial thinking, [b]the investigators excluded the non-European samples and subsequently obtained results more satisfying to them. The data in effect were tailored to fit into the traditional racial schema.[/b] Other examples of the persistence of racial think- ing may easily be identified. The examples cited above illustrate this problem in otherwise interesting work. The issue is not simply one of terminology. The racial approach clearly does not contribute to an under- standing of biohistorical processes, especially in Africa, which cannot be defined by one trait or cluster of traits, on any level: serogenetic, mtDNA, Y chromosome, nu- clear DNA, odontometric, odontomorphological, cra- niometrie, craniomorphological, hair form, or skin color. [/i] --The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544 [/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