|
Post by mike2 on Apr 7, 2005 20:17:39 GMT -5
There's no need to blast the terminology. Aethiopid is a good enough word to describe the Cushitic-speaking races of the Red Sea Coast. Everybody likes one-word races.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 7, 2005 20:36:24 GMT -5
There's no need to blast the terminology. Aethiopid is a good enough word to describe the Cushitic-speaking races of the Red Sea Coast. Everybody likes one-word races. Yeah but it has too many syllables.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 7, 2005 21:23:26 GMT -5
Mujahid, you have a romantic view of scientists and science. They are argumentative, opinionated, judgemental and extremely bitchy. Think about quantum physics and string theory, and you will get my drift. There is an old division within biology between the ones who include and the ones who exclude features characteristics, color and whathaveyou in species or subspecies division. The lumpers and the splitters. Topdog lumps all dark skinned Africans irregardless of their other characteristics into negroids and some others here split the north east Africans into a separate ancient group of mixed caucasoids/negroids. The argument is typical each finding something to link the disputed subspecies into their group. Either way, it will never be resolved.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 8, 2005 1:35:37 GMT -5
LOL race is not a science, if it were none of this dredgefuldebated would go on. Race isn't a science. “Aethiopid” doesn’t exist in fossil record, its hypothesised to be a blending of two distinct subraces, an elongated type and a Caucasoid type, but we can see that Eurasian mixture is limited in Somalis. I agree that Somalis and Oromos have a similar genetic profile[Oromos have even less paternal Eurasian mixture than Somalis, only 3.8%] but Amharas have an altogether different genetic profile which includes haplogroups A and B, thus the racial classification of ‘Aethiopid’ for all these peoples is refuted by genetics. Ethiopians and Somalis are elongated types with varying degrees of Eurasian mixture. Moreover it seems that Oromo and Somalis originated someplace south of Ethiopia for the reason that Oromos and Somalis have higher levels of E3b[gamma] than do Ethiopians like the Amhara, plus Amharas have A and B haplogroups. You can’t accuse people of misrepresenting your people when they refute whitewashers then turn around and use pseudo-scientific terminology used by whitewashers. Thats whats been said the entire time, that ‘East African Caucasoid’ does not exist. Somalis are an elongated physical type that ranges from pure Somalis to moderately Arabized[Eurasian] physical types. Some Nilo-Saharan speakers do resemble Somalis in some physical attributes, no need to use Dinka as a catch-all example of a ‘True Nilo-Saharan’ physical type.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 8, 2005 1:42:08 GMT -5
The lumpers and the splitters. Topdog lumps all dark skinned Africans irregardless of their other characteristics into negroids and some others here split the north east Africans into a separate ancient group of mixed caucasoids/negroids. The argument is typical each finding something to link the disputed subspecies into their group. Either way, it will never be resolved. Don't put words in my mouth, I've split up ‘Negroids’ into different subtypes because physically there is wide variation in peoples commonly called ‘Negroids’. Because an African population or group has less pronounced ‘Negroid’ features it doesn’t makes them mixed with non-Negroid races. In a continent and geographically and climatically diverse as Africa you are going to have variation, not to also mention that Africa has accumulated more genetic diversity than any other continent.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 8, 2005 1:50:26 GMT -5
Whoever said anything about them migrating from anywhere, especially from Central and Western Africa? The argument was that they were probably associated with Negroids not with Central and Western Africans. To you Dienekes, ‘Negroids’ are only Central or West Africans. You’ve proved that by continuously citing Howells’ study that pre-historic East Africans looked nothing like Teita and Dogon people plus you even said in this thread that if a person or group doesn’t look West African its not fully Negroid. Using that type of logic, where else could these L1-L2 ‘Negroid’ females have come from? Are you now saying that males lineages in East Africa evolved into being ‘Caucasoid’ while females lineages evolved to become Negroids?
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Apr 8, 2005 2:05:19 GMT -5
Somalis could not have originated in southern Ethiopia, because we conquered the Oromo's from present day northern Somalia starting from the north than pushing down.
Another reason why I will never believe Somalis came from south of Ethiopia is the fact that Somalis moved into Ethiopia and parts of Kenya for better pasture land for our camels, I doubt Somalis would leave such nice pasture areas in Kenya for the Haud. LOL
Anyways all this mumbo jumbo is funny, I know where the majority of my clan and many Somalis originated from and that is the Makhir coast, even my patriarch is burried in the Mayd coast.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 2:49:35 GMT -5
Don't put words in my mouth, I've split up ‘Negroids’ into different subtypes because physically there is wide variation in peoples commonly called ‘Negroids’. Because an African population or group has less pronounced ‘Negroid’ features it doesn’t makes them mixed with non-Negroid races. In a continent and geographically and climatically diverse as Africa you are going to have variation, not to also mention that Africa has accumulated more genetic diversity than any other continent. You have just confirmed what I said. To you all dark skinned Africans are negroids no matter where in Africa they are. Your geographic and climatic variation is rather shakey considering that all your negroid sub sub species happen to live side by side and still look different. Regular Somalis and Jareer, Amhara Ethiopians and the descendents of their slaves, Tutsi and Maasi live side by side with regular looking Bantus even in the Tutsis case with pygmies. Your geographic and climatic excuse floats like the Titanic.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 8, 2005 6:39:16 GMT -5
Tutsi and Maasi live side by side with regular looking Bantus even in the Tutsis case with pygmies. Your geographic and climatic excuse floats like the Titanic. I completely disagree. In terms of genetic lineage Tutsi and Maasi and and many Bantu groups all share common lineages, much unlike say...the Swedes and the Greeks, who not only look very different but have vastly different genetic profiles. Genetics also link southern Sudanese groups like the Berta, to Ethiopian groups like the Afar. Genetics makes a joke out of all classification systems which are pre-genetic synthesis and based on phenotype isolate. A better analogy is that racial science is the titanic, and genetics is the iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 8, 2005 6:46:27 GMT -5
Eiither way, it will never be resolved. I agree with this conclusion, though perhaps for a different reason. Science is perfectly capable of resolving that which has a logical solution. Science cannot resolve the inherently illogical. It can only demonstrate the lack of logic. It is precisely because dividing human beings into discrete racial groups is an ultimately contrived, political, and anti-scientific act, that race classifications are irresolvable.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 6:57:57 GMT -5
Genetics is in its babyhood. There can be many reasonable hypotheses for similarity or differences in genetic results which have nothing to do with actual relatedness or similar origins. Race classification is based mostly on phenotypes and skeletal characteristics not genetics. The reason Tutsi and Maasi share genes with their racially Bantu neighbors is intermarriage. Even in that 'Out of Africa' woman's books she mentions the intermarriage of Maasi men with Kikuyu women or even pygmies. The genes of Maasi or Tutsi today are probably quite different to their original parental stock. Genetics gives results which have to be extrapolated backwards by thousands of years to the ancestors of those modern groups studied. According to Tutsi legend, they originated from the North and were cattle pastoralists with a high milk diet. Bantus are farmers and part of the wave of immigrants from the west of Africa bringing their farming culture and food plants with them.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 7:14:15 GMT -5
If you hold such opinions why are you discussing races in a human biodiversity forum? You sound like another romantic about science and scientists. There is nothing logical about science. It is a process of elimination. Science is also about paradigms. The paradigm you are going on about is the race is a concept, unscientific paradigm. There is a good if boring book about science, scientists and paradigms often used by universities as a textbook: Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas. S. Kuhn. Read it.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 8, 2005 7:23:09 GMT -5
Genetics is in its babyhood. Not really. And frankly it is more to the point that racial classifications are 300 years old and are as much of a mess as they have always been. Genetics has simply placed the nail in the coffin of an ultimately false idea. Do you know, what in genetics, a haplotype is? Do you know what a clade is? An allelle? Genetics can prove biological relationships - it can prove paternity of a child, and can prove relationships between ethnic groups. Sometimes those relationships aren't what people expected, or wanted or imagine based on physical appearance. But genetics, and ONLY genetics finally, can prove them. Much confusion here: In biology a race, is a genealogical line, or line of ancestry. Prior to genetic synthesis the prevailing method was to "guess" at this via skeletal analysis. Try to understand that skekeltal analysis cannot 'define' race, it can only be a means to and ends. The ends is actually lineage. However genetics has proven that peoples can resemble one another skeletally in spite of having relatively little actual genetic relationship. Obversely, people can be physically dissimilar and yet closely related in terms of actual biological lineage. Actually no. Genetically the Tutsi are entirely of sub-saharan African origin. If they were the product of "mixture" between distinct lineages...then genetics and only genetics would reveal it. Oh my god. Maybe this is the wrong forum for a discussion of 21st century biological science.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 9:05:40 GMT -5
No need for arrogance. I am a science person from childhood. My qualifications are in science. Better than most. Physics, Chemistry, Biology you name it, I have studied. Genetics is in its babyhood. Alleles, haplogroups, and so on are old definitions. Sub saharan African is just a euphenism for Negroid. And according to my map of Africa most of Africa is sub saharan. I cannot see anything scientific or 21st century about your arrogant statements. So racial classification started 300 years ago. It has moved on and evolved. Your ancestors may have believed in a flat earth, shamans or animism. Do you? Yet you are a product of your ancestors. You can say whatever you like about the ancestry of Tutsis, Somalis, Ethiopian ethnic groups and claim they are sub saharan Africans but saying is not proving anything. And Topdogs argument of geographic and climatic differences does not account for the obvious physical differences between Africans who live in close proximity to each other. Twa pygmies, Tutsi, Hutus all live in the same geographic and climatic zones. Maasai live adjacent to other more negroid Africans. Nilotids live in close association with standard non elongated negroid Africans. To say they are all related and just phenotypic variations of the negroid theme is begging credulity. In the thousands of years since the movement out of West Central Africa by negroids these people have colonised most of Africa and penetrated into non negroid areas like North Africa, Egypt, South and the North east zones of Africa. They have interbred with the people they found in those parts. The idea that negroids developed in all of Africa from the west to the east and the north to the south is ludicrous. Caucasoids, mongoloids and Australoids are from the Eurasia continent. Yet the vast continent of Africa manages to product one type of race, the negroid.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 8, 2005 9:32:41 GMT -5
No arrogance is involved in noting that this is a Genetics forum, and genetics is not a topic you are prepared to discuss. Genetics is a 'baby' science, allele, haplotype and so on are 'old' definitions. I actually stopped reading your post at this point. I'm sorry, you lost me.
|
|