...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb]Lol. Nowhere did I refer to Europeans or east-Mediterraneans as a biological grouping/cluster, I said populations in those regions: "populations from Europe and east Mediterranean" and my usage of European/east-Mediterranean/Sub-Saharan Africa is strictly geographical.[/qb] [/QUOTE]I'm going to try to refrain from sarcasm as much as I can in this post, but you don't have to explicitly refer to them as a cluster to participate in the act of clustering them. Being "geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too. The difference is often scale. ...Would've sounded more sincere if you had discussed a specific ethnic group and remained consistent about it though IJS... [QUOTE][qb] The retention of geographical labels is simply for convenience; there are over 5000 ethnic groups world-wide and obviously researchers don't use all population samples, e.g. its obviously a lot easier to just say "Chinese" than list all 56 ethnic groups native to China, and that explains the geographical labels in Brace, while he cautions they are not biological clusters (there is no "Chinese race"). [/qb][/QUOTE]Even if it's easier you're arguing it's wrong to lump Africans. But now it's fine to label/lump together 56 ethnic groups as "China" because "it's easier." Objectively there are probably no biological clusters and both regional and ethnic distinctions or language groups are arbitrarily defined or selected to create comparative biological populations. Han Chinese as an ethnic group stand about 800 million. But discuss "Han Chinese" as a biological population is still "clustering" people and rendering them with enough sameness/similarity to compare them with another population. But is everyone whose Han Chinese "the same?" No. And even among the Han you can divide them by language and regional groups further with labels like as Mandarin, Wu, Yue and Min? And even among language groups you have dialects,etc. At what point do people become "the same" enough to cluster with each other isn't objective. Even "family resemblance writ large." as a concept is making generalizations. Using geographic,ethnic (or language) labels to group people is still arbitrarily "clustering people." Establishing "populations" to compare is clustering. This is the same idea many other posters have put forward discussing Africa or Sub Saharan Africa as geographical labels. I don't have a very big problem with regional labels, I just have a problem with you thinking it's only something people are allowed to do when it benefits [b]your claims[/b]. [QUOTE]If you actually read my posts properly you will see I have been consistent on this, hence why I describe ancient Egyptians as plotting intermediate between the south-Levant and Sudan.[/QUOTE]Again! "Levant" or "South Levant" is an 'arbitrary' regional generalization that clusters people. You're not even discussing or summarizing consistently what specific ethnic groups or language groups within ethnic groups you think they're closer to. And again it's still "clustering" people, but at least it wouldn't be such a blatant regional generalization you refuse to allow people to do for Africa (when it doesn't bolster your views). Even if we agreed about the "Levant" not everyone is going to have equal biological closeness to AE in the Levant to just lump them together. That was the very point you just got through when people were discussing AE as part of Africa. Oh wait I forgot it's okay for YOU to discuss matters by regions, but not anybody else! When anybody else discusses AE as showing more of a biological and cultural connection to the Africa (especially SSA), [b]then[/b] you can't do that! :eek: [QUOTE] You keep mentioning political biases, but like most Afrocentrists on this forum you're following a pan-Africanist political agenda that tries to lump all African populations together (your statement AE's are closer to all Africans than non-Afrcans is false). [/QUOTE]I don't think AE are genetically connected to "all Africans" to the same degree.This for example suggests SSA are closer to Ancient Amarnas than North Africans. [IMG]http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w513/Amunratheultimate/Misc/Ancestry-GeneticAnalysisofAncientEgyptiansKemetmummiesDNA-TopMLIMatchLikelihoodIndexscoresforAmarnamummiesbasedontheworldregions-1.jpg[/IMG] For example many Africans are heavily admixed by recent migrations into Africa dating back centuries ago. so no I don't believe all of Africa is the same. That wasn't really the claim tho and you don't mind comparing regions when it benefits you. When we're discussing populations in terms of region as (you've been allowed to do), they overall reflect stronger biological and cultural connection to many Africans before "Eurasia," (and yes, that includes SSA). When academia does it, it's fine. When you do it, it's fine. When people do it to discuss Egypt as a population that is regionally included as African (contradicting your viewpoint) it's some "Afrocentric falsehood." [/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