Aethiopids are just leptomorphic/aquiline negroids

[gelaye]

and selective - like the jakunin of north eastern asia and nordsinids.

eg.





OR more extreme lol





oh yeah - is this girl really ethiopian?

shes classed as aethiopid from ethiopia in another thread - this is an EXTREME type of light skinned aethiopid with no admixture

[Mike the Jedi]

Yes. We all know this already, Gelaye.

[bibib]

Aethiopids are NOT Negroids, just like Capoids are NOT Negroid.


Negroids came from Western and Central Africa and spread due migrations all over the continent.

Aethiopids are an ancient race distinct from Negroids, and all EuroAsians descent from Aethiopids.

[Mike the Jedi]

bibib said:

Aethiopids are NOT Negroids, just like Capoids are NOT Negroid.

Negroids came from Western and Central Africa and spread due migrations all over the continent.

Aethiopids are an ancient race distinct from Negroids, and all EuroAsians descent from Aethiopids.

There are three definitions for Negroid I know of:

1.) Archaic Definition: West-Central African, including only West African and Congo types and excluding all others.
2.) Modern Definition: Sub-Saharan African, including the West African, Congo, Bantu, and Nilote types while excluding Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners.
3.) Revisionist Definition: Sub-Saharan African, all-inclusive, encompassing all black Africans, including Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners.

The archaic definition is outdated and has been totally discredited because the Negroid morphology is not restricted to West-Central Africa. The Nilotes are some of the blackest, most Negroid-looking people on earth, in fact. And the earliest Negroid remains are found in the East African Sudan, in fact.

So trying to attach West-Central African to Negroid is futile when the earliest base we know of is around the Nile. So, we can scratch that first definition off for good.

The real debate is between the next two definitions. The modern definition is the one purported by most people here. The revisionist one is the one people like Charlie hold to.

[eufrenio]

xcalator1 said:

There are three definitions for Negroid I know of:

1.) Archaic Definition: West-Central African, excluding Nilotes and including only West African and Congo types.
2.) Modern Definition: Sub-Saharan African, excluding Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners, but including Nilotes.
3.) Revisionist Definition: Sub-Saharan African, including Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners.

The archaic definition is outdated because the Negroid morphology is not restricted to West-Central Africa. The Nilotes are some of the blackest, most Negroid-looking people on earth, in fact. And the earliest Negroid remains are found in the East African Sudan, in fact.

So trying to attach West-Central African to Negroid is futile when the earliest base we know of is around the Nile. So, we can scratch that first definition off for good.

The real debate is between the next two definitions. The modern definition is the one purported by most people here. The revisionist one is the one people like Charlie hold to.

Aren´t there extreme Afrocentrists who hold the view that there´s just an African race, which would account for all the human variation found in Africa, north and south of the Sahara?
Charlie seems to be drifting to that position...

[bibib]

Real elongated negroids (Nilotes)






Aethiopids.






See the difference? The features of Aethiopids can not only be explained due elongation.

[Mike the Jedi]

There is a definite difference between Nilotes and Aethiopids. That is not in dispute, however it's easy to post selective pictures of "Europid-featured" Horners and not tell the whole story. There are many different types living in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia. Not all Ethiopians look like Haile Selassie. Not all Somalis look like Abdullahi Yusuf. So, if you're going to draw conclusions, at least present an adequately representative sample.

What about this guy:



He doesn't look too different from the Nilotes. And I'll wager more Somalis look more like him than they do like Yusuf.

bibib said:

See the difference? The features of Aethiopids can not only be explained due elongation.

That's a pretty bold statement, Bibib. How can you be so sure? Your conclusion is certainly possible, but I wish it could be backed up with scientific data or an expert's opinion, say... via e-mail correspondence?

eufrenio said:

Aren´t there extreme Afrocentrists who hold the view that there´s just an African race, which would account for all the human variation found in Africa, north and south of the Sahara?
Charlie seems to be drifting to that position...

I could name a few (*cough, EgyptSearch, cough*), but Bass is not one of them. Say whatever you guys will about Charlie. At least he had the guts to ask the professionals for their expert opinions.

[magneto]

xcalator1 said:

bibib said:

2.) Modern Definition: Sub-Saharan African, including the West African, Congo, Bantu, and Nilote types while excluding Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners.
3.) Revisionist Definition: Sub-Saharan African, all-inclusive, encompassing all black Africans, including Pygmies, Khoisan, and Horners.

The archaic definition is outdated and has been totally discredited because the Negroid morphology is not restricted to West-Central Africa. The Nilotes are some of the blackest, most Negroid-looking people on earth, in fact. And the earliest Negroid remains are found in the East African Sudan, in fact.

So trying to attach West-Central African to Negroid is futile when the earliest base we know of is around the Nile. So, we can scratch that first definition off for good.

The real debate is between the next two definitions. The modern definition is the one purported by most people here. The revisionist one is the one people like Charlie hold to.

AFAIK most consider Horners as a negroid subrace/type with caucasian influences.Noone that I've seen calls them caucasoids.Now from what I've seen they consider Khosian something totally different but not Horners.I mean even Agrippa admits to this even though he didn't wan't to LOL.

agrippa said:

Sure Aethiopids are considered by most Negroid, but they are not pure-typical, because Negrids expanded from a centre, similar to Mongolids, into other areas, including parts of Ethiopia.

They are a type of Negroids in the wider sense formed by older influences (probably related to Khoisanids, just more advanced) and Europoid admixture, than the mixture was re-selected and that leads to a new type which is more or less intermediary in many features, but still rather Negroid, but not Negrid in the narrower sense any more.

[Mike the Jedi]

Yes, I think the Khoisan are distinct enough from other Sub-Saharans to warrant a group of their own. Perhaps the same can be said of Aethiopids.

[asdf]

I was under the impression they already were. Capid/Khoisanid were set aside by Coon too, weren't they?

[magneto]

xcalator1 said:

There is a definite difference between Nilotes and Aethiopids. That is not in dispute, however it's easy to post selective pictures of "Europid-featured" Horners and not tell the whole story. There are many different types living in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia. Not all Ethiopians look like Haile Selassie. Not all Somalis look like Abdullahi Yusuf. So, if you're going to draw conclusions, at least present an adequately representative sample.

I agree.I don't think anyone is saying they don't have some admixture(Amhara have more than Somalis)but I think it's pretty easy to see which are really mixed and which ones aren't.They obviosly don't all look like Halie Selassie

Somalis









Amhara/Tigre (ethiopian and eritrean)

[Mike the Jedi]

Is it just my imagination, or does anyone else spot some Khoisan tendencies in some of the folks in that last picture? Three of them look like they have peppercorn (or at least more tightly curled than normal) hair. The two adults in the pic below look even more Capoid than the third one, which is a kid:



Compare to:

San (Bushman, the true Capoid type).


Khoikhoi (Hottentots, who have mixture with non-Khoisan).

[oubit]

I think Khoi-San people were much more widespread in the past and there are still some of the living in the East-Central region of Africa (Tanzania?)

[One Humanity]

xcalator1 said:

Is it just my imagination, or does anyone else spot some Khoisan tendencies in some of the folks in that last picture? Three of them look like they have peppercorn (or at least more tightly curled than normal) hair. The two adults in the pic below look even more Capoid than the third one, which is a kid:

Possibly, although they have different admixtures than the South African Khoisanids. In prehistoric times, they were brachycephalic btw.

I created a new thread on East African Bushman tribes (the Hadzabe in Tanzania, the Hadza in Kenya):
dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=raceclass&action=display&thread=1127877737&page=1

[magneto]

bibib said:

Real elongated negroids (Nilotes)

i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/bibib9/AdutDengChan.jpg
i19.photobucket.com/albums/b175/bibib9/dinka.jpg

Nilotes



Elongated West African