...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» 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 Cass/: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Oshun: "Saharan" vs. "Non Saharan" is a political construct.[/QUOTE]Simply recognising the Saharan desert as a distinct climatic/eco-zone isn't politics. [/qb][/QUOTE]But not acknowledging the other eco zones in regular conversation like you do the Sahara is political. That's subtly trying to treat Africa as a monolith outside of the Sahara. [QUOTE][qb] Hence a few posts ago, you wouldn't say "Saharan ecological pressures", but "African ecological pressures" even though we were [i]only[/i] discussing the Sahara. [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually we weren't. Through the historical continuity of the cultural complex and dynastic period they went from a humid/tropical, Sahel-Savannah to Sahara desert complex. They showed biological adaptions to multiple ecological systems from different time periods in Africa. You called them "Levanites" but that wouldn't be an accurate geological term for where the ecosystems producing dynastic culture developed. [QUOTE] [QUOTE][qb] When you evaluate Africa there are several ecological constructs, not two. Why would people from the other several ecosystems be characterized as one unit ("Sub Saharan") though their ecosystems are unique as well? [/QUOTE]Stop with the straw man arguments. I've never said there is a single Sub-Saharan African climatic/eco-zone, but the complete opposite. [/qb][/QUOTE]You defend the use of "Sub Saharan" which provides the illusion of a singular eco-zone outside of the Sahara. [QUOTE][qb]This is just the stupid straw man you made, I've covered it like 10 times... When we discuss Sub-Saharan Africa, no one is saying those different climatic/eco-zones cluster together; look at the Koppen climate map. [/qb][/QUOTE]Later he says ... [QUOTE][qb]Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa. :rolleyes: [/qb][/QUOTE]The Koppen-climate map doesn't mean people are describing Africans by the different environments they live in. It doesn't mean the word "Sub Saharan" in language magically describes the different ecosystems on similar terms. Many people don't even know about that map but they know what SSA is. SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara. If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity. [QUOTE] [QUOTE][qb]It's "political" to discuss the Sahara and the people in it as Africans when they are in Africa?[/QUOTE]The point is your political agenda is to cluster all Africans together hence you either ignore or downplay the great differences/heterogeneity between distant populations inside Africa. [/qb][/QUOTE]Later he says... [QUOTE][qb]Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa. :rolleyes: [/qb][/QUOTE]Convenience! [IMG]https://anonimag.es/i/distancef1066.png[/IMG] Not acknowledging the MUCH larger distances and heterogeneity within "Sub Saharan Africa" is supposedly okay because it's "easier." It's fine to make excuses for clustering them together. But saying they're "African" is not ease but political. It cannot just be a way to refer to all areas within the continent on equal terms via geological description. Acknowledging they live on the same continent and that all the ecosystems share that land mass is not saying they lack heterogeneity, and that distances/differences don't exist. Asians are [b]not[/b] homogenous. Pakistanis and and Koreans aren't the same. They are also separated by large distances. Despite the distance and diversity, it's not "political" to call them Asians and to acknowledge they share the same continent. The "diversity" and distance is arbitrarily decided not to be "too much." Your hyper sensitivity when people speak about Africans as people that share the same continent triggers you because you feel they could find enough commonality in that to do something politically and that appears to especially bother you. [QUOTE] [QUOTE][qb]Is discussing Australian Aborigines as Australians political too? Or is it only not political unless I referred to them by specific ecological system (Tanami Australians)?[/QUOTE]You're completely ignoring the fact there is little genetic/phenotypic differences between Australian aborigine tribes. That's why people call them "Australian aborigines". Its also why only one morphotype, with few exceptions, was recognised by old anthropologists: "Australoid". [/qb][/QUOTE]So you pretty much wasted a whole paragraph defending the singular use of aborigine but then say variations to morphology exist (though only acknowledged by old anthropologists). [QUOTE] [QUOTE][qb]Otherwise all of Africa and it's people would be discussed in ecological terms.[/QUOTE]As they already are. Read Hiernaux (1975).[/qb][/QUOTE]SSA is not a term that ALLOWS for all of Africa to be discussed in ecological terms. Uh oh I said "Africa" again! Be strong! [/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