...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ethiopians, Somalis
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately I cant agree with that. Any look at the works of the early 19th century on African crania shows the overt racialist tone and ideology behind how these crania were categorized. So it is impossible to claim that those studies had merit and the problems of classification arose later. If anything, later scholars after the 70s had to change their approach to be less overt due to the social upheavals and independence movements in the wider world. [QUOTE] But the distinction is based on social, linguistic, and cultural, as well as on physical grounds, so that, as at present constituted, the Sudanese and Bantu really constitute two tolerably well-defined branches of the Negro family. Thanks to Muhammadan influences, the former have attained a much higher level of culture. They cultivate not only the alimentary but also the economic plants, such as cotton and indigo ; they build stone dwellings, walled towns, substantial mosques and minarets ; they have founded powerful states, such as those of the Hausa and Songhai, of Ghana and Bornu, with written records going back a thousand years, although these historical peoples are all without exception half-breeds, often with more Semitic and Hamitic than Negro blood in their veins. ........ But in Negroland the case is reversed, and here the less cultured Bantu populations all, without any known exception, speak dialects of a single mother-tongue, while the greatest linguistic confusion prevails amongst the semi-civilised as well as the savage peoples of Sudan. [b]Although the Bantu language may, as some suppose ^ have originated in the north and spread southwards to the Congo, Zambesi, and Limpopo basins, it cannot now be even remotely affiliated to any one of the numerous distinct forms of speech current in the Sudanese domain. Hence to allow time for its diffusion over half the continent, the initial movement must be assigned to an extremely remote epoch, and a corresponding period of great duration must be postulated for the profound linguistic disintegration that is everywhere witnessed in the region between the Atlantic and Abyssinia. Here agglutination, both with prefixed and postfixed particles, is the prevailing morphological order, as in the Mandingan, Fulah, Nubian, Dinkan, and Mangbattu groups. But every shade of transition is also presented between true agglutination and inflection of the Hamito-Semitic types, as in Hausa, Kanuri, Kanem, Dasa or Southern and Teda or Northern Tibu.[/b][/QUOTE] https://archive.org/details/cu31924014120814/page/44/mode/2up [/qb][/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they weren't racist tones or academic racism predating the 90's etc. I'm just saying that the criteria built at the time served our purpose better whether racist or not. Simply describing what you see and using racialist terms is better than disguising racialist terms under inclusionary models. [/QB][/QUOTE]I am talking about the idea that human features originated in features unique to specific "racial groups" and that any presence of said features represents evidence of "racial mixture" in a population. That is simply nonsense pseudoscience and what the old models of cranial studies and anthropology are based on. Human features are the result of evolution and adaptation to environmental conditions and vary all over the planet and are not the result of ancient "racial mixture". [/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