|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Aug 9, 2005 4:56:22 GMT -5
Which I would be fine with, provided you can think of a more precise term.
Ay, that's the rub, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be one. I think the use of Caucasoid can be justified however, seeing as how the Caucasus is the historical geographic center of the "Caucasoid" race. Remember, before Mongoloid mongrelization, Turkestan used to be Caucasoid territory afterall.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Aug 9, 2005 5:06:29 GMT -5
Which I would be fine with, provided you can think of a more precise term. Ay, that's the rub, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be one. I think the use of Caucasoid can be justified however, seeing as how the Caucasus is the historical geographic center of the "Caucasoid" race. Remember, before Mongoloid mongrelization, Turkestan used to be Caucasoid territory afterall. Those called 'Caucasoid' originated mostly in the Middle East, but not all originated there. There's still the problem of locating the original people of North Africa. North Africans are also called 'Caucasoids' yet most of their ancestry lies in Africa.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Aug 9, 2005 9:22:00 GMT -5
I have always wondered why in english language europeans call "caucasians". The first time when I saw this term using in this way was in one book in english language about food. There was written about the best food suited for each race - asian, black and caucasian. Reading this book I wondered why there aren't mentioned europeans, because for me " caucasian" associated with people only from Caucasus region and nowhere else. And still now for me is somewhat weird to use term "caucasian" for europeans.
|
|
|
Post by CooCooCachoo on Aug 9, 2005 9:30:36 GMT -5
I have always wondered why in english language europeans call "caucasians". The first time when I saw this term using in this way was in one book in english language about food. There was written about the best food suited for each race - asian, black and caucasian. Reading this book I wondered why there aren't mentioned europeans, because for me " caucasian" associated with people only from Caucasus region and nowhere else. And still now for me is somewhat weird to use term "caucasian" for europeans. HAHAHA... You know what's funny? I have that same cook book. I disregarded their stupid recomendations on which dish to serve what race. ...But ironically a negro ended up choking on a potato I cooked for him. (Strictly for Caucasians the book said.)
|
|
|
Post by Evan1211 on Aug 9, 2005 12:12:55 GMT -5
I am having an argument on another forum for dumb teenaged americans like myself ;D about Caucasoids. They are too darn dense to understand any of it! When I talked about the berbers being caucasoid and that NA has many caucasoids via Berbers and Arabs, they went nuts haha. Berter should put his picture up if they dont believe that pure berbers are caucasoid ;D.
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on Aug 10, 2005 7:45:49 GMT -5
HAHAHA... You know what's funny? I have that same cook book. I disregarded their stupid recomendations on which dish to serve what race. ...But ironically a negro ended up choking on a potato I cooked for him. (Strictly for Caucasians the book said.) lol If that book, what you have, is about food based on each blood groop, then you really have the same cook book.
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Aug 10, 2005 12:38:11 GMT -5
Which I would be fine with, provided you can think of a more precise term. Ay, that's the rub, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be one. I think the use of Caucasoid can be justified however, seeing as how the Caucasus is the historical geographic center of the "Caucasoid" race. Remember, before Mongoloid mongrelization, Turkestan used to be Caucasoid territory afterall. Those called 'Caucasoid' originated mostly in the Middle East, but not all originated there. There's still the problem of locating the original people of North Africa. North Africans are also called 'Caucasoids' yet most of their ancestry lies in Africa. This is rather distorted, misleading, and unfair. Most of North African maternal ancestry can be traced back to the Near East. Yes, they have E3b, which can be traced to East Africa but male lineages are not very good indicators of relationships, not even mtDNA is, (actually nothing is 100%). If we go by male lineage, than M9's descendents, everyone from Indians, Papuans, Chinese, Spaniards are one race, whereas the Middle East is directly M89-derived. North Africans are mainly "Caucasoid", with recent sub-Saharan layer, a neolithic Middle eastern layer, a European Cro-Magnon layer via Iberia, and prolly sub-Saharan contributions throughout. All this is in the lineages. They are not "African" as in "Negroid" or anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by ohes on Aug 11, 2005 5:28:21 GMT -5
I think Blumenbach might have confused Gerogians with Cherkes (Circassian). Afterall, Cherkes girls are famous for their beauty and manners.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 11, 2005 14:28:43 GMT -5
Which I would be fine with, provided you can think of a more precise term. Ay, that's the rub, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be one. I think the use of Caucasoid can be justified however, seeing as how the Caucasus is the historical geographic center of the "Caucasoid" race. Remember, before Mongoloid mongrelization, Turkestan used to be Caucasoid territory afterall. Those called 'Caucasoid' originated mostly in the Middle East, but not all originated there. There's still the problem of locating the original people of North Africa. North Africans are also called 'Caucasoids' yet most of their ancestry lies in Africa. What you say is completely misleading for the reader, As everyone knows you are speaking about E3b, I wonder why you don't bring back the other exception (cameroon) into the discussion, they have 90% R*. But, just to make the things clear, there are two possible explanation for E3b2: -Either it is a result of back migration from the middle east, there was maybe 1 individual out of 10 carring E3b, The frequency got higher because of Genetic drift. -It is not a result of back migration but an intrusion of an east African lineage into Egyptians (remember that Berbers came from neolithique egypt). Every other senario is wrong, Coastal Berbers have low frequencies of subsaharan mtdna (L), and most importantly they custer with middle easteners and europeans in autosomal tests. Another important thing to say: there is no difference between the capsians and modern Berbers. The same thing goes with Cameroonese, they still cluster with Negroids.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 11, 2005 14:32:28 GMT -5
Those called 'Caucasoid' originated mostly in the Middle East, but not all originated there. There's still the problem of locating the original people of North Africa. North Africans are also called 'Caucasoids' yet most of their ancestry lies in Africa. This is rather distorted, misleading, and unfair. Most of North African maternal ancestry can be traced back to the Near East. Yes, they have E3b, which can be traced to East Africa but male lineages are not very good indicators of relationships, not even mtDNA is, (actually nothing is 100%). If we go by male lineage, than M9's descendents, everyone from Indians, Papuans, Chinese, Spaniards are one race, whereas the Middle East is directly M89-derived. North Africans are mainly "Caucasoid", with recent sub-Saharan layer, a neolithic Middle eastern layer, a European Cro-Magnon layer via Iberia, and prolly sub-Saharan contributions throughout. All this is in the lineages. They are not "African" as in "Negroid" or anything of the sort. I did not see your post, in anyway that's more or less what I -wanted- to express. But you still don't make the difference between coastal Berbers and the saharan ones, 95% of coastal Berbers look 100% caucasoid, I'm speaking about them.
|
|
|
Post by Ewig Berter on Aug 11, 2005 17:36:35 GMT -5
mmmh, kasparov kinda looks like berter I know I'll sound like boasting but, Educate me, you are right! ;D In his 75, 78, 84, 89, 95, 97, 2003 pics he looks like me; In his 95 and 2003 pics he looks like zidane. ;D Aditional Info: I'm a big headead cromagnid, a born mathematician. Not boasting again! ;D Igu, what you think!? @charlie: f*ck Off!
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Aug 12, 2005 0:37:45 GMT -5
A lot of ppl are very Ignorant, trust me I live in the midwest. Here if I even mention that Iranians or North Africans or Arabs are Caucasian this will insult their "whiteness". Then I get a big lecture on the importance of skin color . Most ppl think middle-easterners are related to Hispanics or blacks. I've been mistaken for a mulatto many times .
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Aug 12, 2005 1:22:17 GMT -5
In that case you should ask them if East Asians with milky white skin are white people.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Aug 12, 2005 1:48:04 GMT -5
Yeah, skin color is a vital factor in determining race, but is only of secondary importance.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Aug 12, 2005 5:25:02 GMT -5
People who determine race only after skin-colour seem to think that precisely every member of a race must have the exact same skincolour. Variation is not allowed.
|
|