|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:13:55 GMT -5
It's not our fault that we share the same native continent with nordicist. I'm talking about the "normal" things you don't notice, like the continent of Europe itself. It's an arbitrary draw of the line. How is it not part of the continent of Eurasia? If Europe is a continent, then I want eastern Asia to be a continent. I'm tired of sharing the word "Asian" with Iranians.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 14:16:51 GMT -5
Start printing the maps then. I we were to respect only geographical accident to draw political lines there wouldn't be countries.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:21:03 GMT -5
Start printing the maps then. I we were to respect only geographical accident to draw political lines there wouldn't be countries. Hey, if Europe is a valid political concept, then Egypt is African, with the term African having a specific meaning that can be defined in a way that makes Afrocentrists happy. I mean some of the statues of ancient Egyptians can pass for black Americans. How do you expect some of them to feel? BTW, not all blacks feel that way. Many have no problems with Ethiopians being partly West Eurasian at all.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 14:23:54 GMT -5
I've always considered Egypt an african civilization.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Oct 20, 2005 14:32:49 GMT -5
It's not our fault that we share the same native continent with nordicist. I'm talking about the "normal" things you don't notice, like the continent of Europe itself. It's an arbitrary draw of the line. How is it not part of the continent of Eurasia? If Europe is a continent, then I want eastern Asia to be a continent. I'm tired of sharing the word "Asian" with Iranians. How do you define a continent? an area with natural borders?if we follow your your reasoning, Africa is not a continent, "Afro-eurasia" sounds cool.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:38:21 GMT -5
I'm talking about the "normal" things you don't notice, like the continent of Europe itself. It's an arbitrary draw of the line. How is it not part of the continent of Eurasia? If Europe is a continent, then I want eastern Asia to be a continent. I'm tired of sharing the word "Asian" with Iranians. How do you define a continent? an area with natural borders?if we follow your your reasoning, Africa is not a continent, "Afro-eurasia" sounds cool. I don't see any logic in your post. A continent would be a land mass with natural boundaries, like Africa, North America, Australia, and Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Oct 20, 2005 14:43:40 GMT -5
How do you define a continent? an area with natural borders?if we follow your your reasoning, Africa is not a continent, "Afro-eurasia" sounds cool. I don't see any logic in your post. A continent would be a land mass with natural boundaries, like Africa, North America, Australia, and Eurasia. What is the natural boundary between Africa and "Eurasia"? an artificial "hole"?
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:45:30 GMT -5
I don't see any logic in your post. A continent would be a land mass with natural boundaries, like Africa, North America, Australia, and Eurasia. What is the natural boundary between Africa and "Eurasia"? an artificial "hole"? Figure it out yourself, my North African genius. www.cdxa.org/images/world_flat_map_800w.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 20, 2005 14:47:24 GMT -5
But you could argue that the Urals and the Caucasus are natural boundaries. It's all very convenient, I know, but it still checks out.
The people who say America is just one continent due to Panama would also have to concede that Africa and Eurasia are also one continent due to Sinai.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 14:47:59 GMT -5
How do you define a continent? an area with natural borders?if we follow your your reasoning, Africa is not a continent, "Afro-eurasia" sounds cool. I don't see any logic in your post. A continent would be a land mass with natural boundaries, like Africa, North America?, Australia, and Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:50:10 GMT -5
But you could argue that the Urals and the Caucasus are natural boundaries. It's all very convenient, I know, but it still checks out. The people who say America is just one continent due to Panama would also have to concede that Africa and Eurasia are also one continent due to Sinai. I've never heard of anyone saying the Americas is one continent. As for mountain chains making Europe a continent, I figure the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush, the Tianshan, the Urals also make eastern Asia a separate continent from South Asia and the Middle east. I'd like that.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 14:54:01 GMT -5
I don't see any logic in your post. A continent would be a land mass with natural boundaries, like Africa, North America?, Australia, and Eurasia. It's not that hard to separate North America from South America... my European firend www.cdxa.org/images/world_flat_map_800w.jpg
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Oct 20, 2005 14:56:26 GMT -5
Your statement "I just don't think that current W Africans are genetically much farther from Anc Egyptians than Germanics from Greeks" is not only wrong; it is absurdly wrong: Fst distances (Fst= co-efficient of ancestry)---- from Cavalli-Sforza Between Egyptians and West Africans 1408 Germans and Greeks 144 Other examples: Yoruba and Mande 171 Danes and Indians 293 Danes and N American Indians 948 Danes and Tibetans 746 Danes and Dravidians 458 Danes and Koreans 947 Danes and Germans 16 As you can see, W Afs and Egyptians are very different in ancestry, more distantly related than any other of the paired groups I showed. The difference between Greeks and Germans is miniscule by comparison, in fact about the same as that between the two W Af groups, Mande and Yoruba. Where in the world did you get the notion that inspired your statement? It's a matter of degree that doesn't take away the legitimacy of the argument. There were clearly black African-"Negroid" types in anicent Egypt (perhaps more so than now), so if a German can take pride in Western civ., which included Egypt, then a Nigerian can be proud of Egypt. I used to regard Afrocentrists as deluded idiots, even when I started posting at Dodona, but then I realized that although some of their views are very far off the mark, other views just needs a shift in point of view. A lot of Eurocentrists views are just as ridiculous but no one notices it because it is in the foundations. I'm not certain what argument you're referring to or what you mean by its legitimacy. I responded to Batrus' statement that W Afs were as close by ancestry to Egyptians as Germans were to Greeks. What this has to do with "eurocentrism"-- whatever you mean by that--- I haven't the foggiest. This "claiming" of people seems like a silly exercise in identity politics. How close (genetically) do you have to be to a group in order to "claim" them? Can Danes "claim" Korea or India, or the Dravidians? After all, according to CS, they appear more closely related to these people than are W Afs to Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Oct 20, 2005 15:00:26 GMT -5
I've never heard of a geographical accident significan enough to separate two areas that obviously belong to the same plaque P.s not european but argentinian
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Oct 20, 2005 15:02:06 GMT -5
It's a matter of degree that doesn't take away the legitimacy of the argument. There were clearly black African-"Negroid" types in anicent Egypt (perhaps more so than now), so if a German can take pride in Western civ., which included Egypt, then a Nigerian can be proud of Egypt. I used to regard Afrocentrists as deluded idiots, even when I started posting at Dodona, but then I realized that although some of their views are very far off the mark, other views just needs a shift in point of view. A lot of Eurocentrists views are just as ridiculous but no one notices it because it is in the foundations. I'm not certain what argument you're referring to or what you mean by its legitimacy. I responded to Batrus' statement that W Afs were as close by ancestry to Egyptians as Germans were to Greeks. What this has to do with "eurocentrism"-- whatever you mean by that--- I haven't the foggiest. This "claiming" of people seems like a silly exercise in identity politics. How close (genetically) do you have to be to a group in order to "claim" them? Can Danes "claim" Korea or India, or the Dravidians? After all, according to CS, they appear more closely related to these people than are W Afs to Egyptians.That's exactly my point, in red, my whatever ___oid friend. So, you just answered your own puzzlement at what I said. There is no standard for claiming who is your kin. Either you can't claim anyone or you can claim anyone. I can be proud of Egypt too since I'm closer to an Egyptian genetically than a Nigerian would be. Why can a German be proud and I can't? Because he is closer to Egyptians by 200 points on some test done by Cavalli-Schmalli? Don't critique Afrocentrists when the one pointing the finger, unknowingly, lays the same bullshit.
|
|