posted
Anybody who is approaching a scientist and wants to know what skin color they were should ask:
What was the skin color of the Greeks?
not dumb loaded questions like
"Were the Greeks Black?"
or
"Were the Greeks White?"
__________________________________________
If you are asking about color ask about color with no bias or suggestion in the question
What was the skin color of the Greeks?
if they don't answer "white" and you feel that is wrong, fine, just ask a proper question.
If they answer "brown" and you feel the proper answer is "olive" or "pale brown", fine they answered the question and then you can follow up.
Just ask a proper unbiased question. If you can't do that you lack confidence. It shows the questioner is weak
If what you really want to know is "Did the Greeks look like West Europeans?" then ask it and be honest
"White" is an unscientific term. There's no problem calling ourselves (Lioness, Mathilda, Dienekes etc.) white But don't expect it to be scientific or that scientists need to use it.
If you think that the Greeks were not any pallor but only a specific range of paleness then to be scientific you need to produce a chart and define the color. If you start talking about "of the range in Europeans" that is circular logic it resolves nothing, you put ethnicity in the mix. The next question is going to be "what is the range of paleness in Europeans?" back to square one, you will need to produce a chart showing that color range. If you want to honestly deal with color deal with it. You think that could divide white people to use manila paper type tests? Well then, maybe asking about color was a wrong idea.
Here is another question that much smarter to ask a Grecologist, Classicist, anthropologist or geneticist:
Did the ancient Greeks have a European phenotype?
That is all we need to know.
If your issue is that European Americans are European and Africans are not then it makes more sense to cast European American actors in Hollywood films, then you need to approach Hollywood not the scientists. Pursuing endless semantics on "white" is a waste of time. And if you think it's all about color either measure the color or hang it up. Science is about measurement. People talk about measuring limb proportions. Color is a frequency that is measured as well. If you don't like the idea of you color being measured then don't bring up color in a scientific context. Leave it to apply to the politics of the modern world.
Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
I was thinking of the same only yesterday.
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
LOL! It sounds funny how folks are pretending not to know what white means. Man. This is ridiculous. As if scientists are totally are stupid children that need to be coddled.
Nodnarb Member # 3735
posted
Hate to say it, Dje, but I believe you've fed that particular troll to the point of diabetes already. Do you really need to give her another pack of Oreos?
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I was thinking of the same only yesterday.
.
. Don't become confused, you can ask if the Greeks were Black, but not if their skin color is black.To determine the ancient inhabitants of a local we look at skeletons. The skin of these skeletons is usually gone over time. But, we can take craniometric measurements and determine phenotype, i.e., Africans (Blacks), and Europeans (whites).
Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
The above is a false indicator. That's is why I posted it, before in this thread.
What are you talking about? Craniometric measurements and multivariate standard deviations can differiate between populations. Using this data archaeologists and physical anthropologists have been able to determine that the Paleoamericans were Negroes or Blacks.
quote:
The craniometric measurements of the Paleoamerican skeletons fall within the Black Variety of homosapien sapiens: African, Australian and the Melanesian phenotypic range (Neves et al.,1998, 1999a,1999b; Powell, 2005). The craniometric measurements of the PaleoIndians match the multivariate standard deviations of these three populations.The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena. Howells (1973, 1989, 1995) using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo -Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians (Coon, 1962; Dixon, 2001; Howell, 1989, 1995; Lahr, 1996). The African-Australo- Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America. For example skeletal remains belonging to the Black Variety have been found in Brazil (Neves, Powell, Prous and Ozolins,1998; Neves et al., 1998), Columbian Highlands (Neves et al., 1995; Powell, 2005), Mexico (Gonza’lez- Jose, 2012), Florida (Howells, 1995), and Southern Patazonia (Neves et al. 1999a, 1999b).In Figure 2, we have the reconstructions of Paleoamericans and the first European. The facial reconstruction of the Paleoamericans were startling (Neto and Santo, 2010). The bioanthropologist Walter Neves’s reconstruction evidenced Negroid features for the Paleoamerican we call Luzia.
Many researchers hate Craniometric measurements and multivariate standard deviations as a measure of racial origin, because using this method indicates that Blacks were the founders of civilization--not Western (white) Europeans. or Asians. .
Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
The African continent is much more complex in terms of cranial metric. People who haven been on the continent and don't know ethnographics think in "negroe" stereotypes. It's that simple.
The below is so called sub Saharan (African) specimen.
Clyde Winters Member # 10129
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The African continent is much more complex in terms of cranial metric. People who haven been on the continent and don't know ethnographics think in "negroe" stereotypes. It's that simple.
The below is so called sub Saharan (African) specimen.
What are these complex "cranial metric[s]", that differentiate sub-Saharan Africans? We do not want to see picture spam.What are the differing cranial metrics associated with sub-saharan populations. . .
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Hate to say it, Dje, but I believe you've fed that particular troll to the point of diabetes already. Do you really need to give her another pack of Oreos?
Actually this thread wasn't posed so much to our troll provocateur but to everyone else in general as an exposé of the blatant double-standards in regards to anthropology. You have ancient southeastern Europeans who are taken for granted as being "white", but then you have ancient northeast Africans whose color went from being "extremely dark Caucasians" to now ambiguous or not spoken of at all. The excuses used for such a disparity is absurd on the face it.
If one were to show the TONS of Egyptian art showing Egyptians in the typical complexions as shown below...
The argument then would be that artwork is not "reliable" as they are not realistic but rather symbolic.
But then we have actual HARD evidence concerning the skin coloring of the Egyptians such as this:
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed. To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining.
There is no denying these results.
Yet if one were to ask to what color were the Greeks, you have so-called Classicists who simply say look at the artwork such as this below...
One could easily argue that such artwork is symbolic and hard evidence such as melanin testing be done on ancient Greek remains which is next to impossible since the Greeks did not leave mummies. However hardly any question is raised considering the skin color of the Greeks!
mena7 Member # 20555
posted
I think in Prehistory the Ancient Greek were Black People. In the Classical era Ancient Greece was inhabited by Brown people (mulato), Black people and White people. It was the same for Ancient Italy and Rome. Racism didnt exist in classical Europe because Black people were powerful and part of the ruling class, the majority Brown people had Black people phenotype and knew they had Black Blood. White people were just emerging as a young power in the World.
Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The African continent is much more complex in terms of cranial metric. People who haven been on the continent and don't know ethnographics think in "negroe" stereotypes. It's that simple.
The below is so called sub Saharan (African) specimen.
What are these complex "cranial metric[s]", that differentiate sub-Saharan Africans? We do not want to see picture spam.What are the differing cranial metrics associated with sub-saharan populations. . .
It's not picture spam, picture spam is when we use arbitrariness as the foundation for facts, as johnhawks did. The cranial metric diversity of the "sub Sahara" shows the opposite. As what I posted.
Nodnarb Member # 3735
posted
Now that I think about it, I believe people here are too preoccupied with picking the right terminology to communicate with an anthropologically uninformed public. It's like arguing over whether "reptile" is a useful label for turtles and tyrannosaurs but not toucans. Nobody what language you use, millions of people are going to misunderstand you anyway because they'll be parsing your statements through their earlier preconceptions. We gotta find something else to talk about.
Djehuti, you got a deadline for those non-racial posts you plan to make?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
No[ matter] what language you use, millions of people are going to misunderstand you anyway because they'll be parsing your statements through their earlier preconceptions.
posted 
