|
Post by topdog on Jun 20, 2005 13:34:15 GMT -5
It really does not matter what peoples are chosen. You can only compare known samples with known samples to get similar results. Using any known living Africans to compare with unknown dead Africans like the Badarians or anyother human remains of unknown providence is a waste of time. Modern Egyptians are known. The remains of humans found in Egypt of whatever Dynasty or time frame is pointless. How can you prove who or what many of those people were and what race or phenotype they were? I unlike most other people am not willing to make any assumptions as to the phenotypes or genotypes of ancient remains found in or near Egypt or anywhere else. Using the Dogon or Teita as standards is as valid as any. And probably more valid than using ancient remains of people whose phenotypes and races are not known. The further in time those remains are to living humans in the same vicinity the less valid the comparison exercise is. Howells only has value to me when comparing modern remains, as in recent, with modern human races, and even then errors will occur. Obviously I consider comparing ancient remains with modern ones to work out race or place of origin has no validity. My job on this board is to point out that many of the things people accept as fact or proven is not fact or proven and just assumptions. You believe in the OOA theory, I don't. I don't believe any theory of human origins as none can be proven. I am not willing to give up my ability to check the veracity of claims made about genetics or human origins or ideologies. I will leave my belief system to my religion anything else, I want proof, not opinion, not assumptions and not discussions to try to explain the results. Ponto just shut up because you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Using one population to represent an entire region can be and normally will be misleading. Teita are fairly recent Bantu migrants into Kenya, so comparing a prehistoric population to them to gage the somatic relationship of the prehistoric population is stupid, thats like comapring American citizens of 2005 to ancient native Americans who lived in America in 2005 B.C. It would make better sense to compare modern Native Americans to the prehistoric ones. As for the Dogon, they do not represent *ALL* West Africans, thats obvious to anyone who has really looked closely at diversity in West African populations. You want to see how diverse West Africans are? Look at these treads Northern West Africa: Ethnic GroupsSouthern West Africa: Ethnic GroupsNow tell me its possible to use one population to represent an entire region. You're obviously clueless.
|
|
|
Post by Gus Morea on Jun 20, 2005 13:50:56 GMT -5
I read most of the book (all of the first half) years ago, and I think that the gist of what he's saying is spot-on. Keeping in mind what Coon had available to him at the time, I give him much respect. Modern research will likely confirm most of his ideas. I am almost done with Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe, and when I am done I will post a review of the book. So far, all I can say is that I am deeply disappointed, and have come to understand why there is so much gibberish in "phenotype forums." Coon equates Southern Europeans with Arabs, and claims Eastern Europeans are "significantly Mongoloid." While the book is seemingly acceptable to Nordicists who despise Southern Europeans, it has a noticeably anti-Eastern European slant. This makes my contempt for the "Slavic asskissers" who cite his largely outdated work grow more and more. Lots of Nordicists treat this book as gospel, when in fact it smears the most Nordic populations of Europe. Anyway, I am almost done with it, but if anyone wants to give his take, go right ahead.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 21, 2005 1:29:10 GMT -5
Coon's work is just outdated trash, especially his observations about human behaviour in human races. His work needs to stay where it should be, in the time frame it was originally in.
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 21, 2005 11:14:07 GMT -5
I am sure the Teita people would be amused by your foreign and arrogant opinion of their African status. You have no shame. A foreigner who thinks he knows more about Africa than Africans who lived and died there for generations upon generations. Find out about the indigenous people of your country and leave the indigenous people of Africa, which is not your country, alone. What do you know about the Iroquois Nation, the Haudenosaunee? Where did the Iroquois Indians live before the Whites came? Have you heard of Chief Seattle? You probably don't know a Lakota from a Suquamish, but every African group you are Mr. knowall. The Teita are as representative of a part of Africa as any, and their African status is not yours to question. You are very offensive to native Africans. Every African on this board you have lambasted and call immigrant or not African. Coon was sincere, and did a scholarly study of Europeans including some nearby peoples not in Europe and his excuse is that he was born in 1904. You on the other hand have no excuses, offer nothing but excessive whining. Go on, get your PhD in anthropology and embark on a physical anthropological study of Europe including West Asia and other parts of Asia and Africa where caucasoids live. It will only take you a few millions of dollars to pay for it, and about 8 years. I would leave out East Africa, too boring. Anyway, some Somalis would probably use you for target practice and use your tanned hide as a mat. Anthropology can take you to dangerous places. If you are unwilling or unable or too lazy to get off your hiney to do that anthropological study. Shut up.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 21, 2005 13:57:04 GMT -5
I am sure the Teita people would be amused by your foreign and arrogant opinion of their African status. You have no shame. A foreigner who thinks he knows more about Africa than Africans who lived and died there for generations upon generations. Ponto, shut up you're really bcoming very annoying with you stupid distortions, when have I ever questioned or put into doubt the African status of Teita People? I simply stated that Bantu speaking Teita do *NOT* represent all East Africans and if you think I playing around just ask one of the Somalis here do they think a Bantu is the best representatives of East Africa proper. You're the idiot who thinks he knows more about anything, even more than the professionals who conduct studies. What exactly do you know about the Teita people Mr Professor know it all? Africa isn't a country you idiot and I have all rights to study and know about African people all i want, you're *NOT* an African so shut up and quit speaking for Africans. I am partially Blackfoot and Seminole-Creek on both sides of my family so don't ask me stupid questions about Native Americans because I have substantial Native American ancestry, however i do *NOT* see myself as Native American. I don't know about every African group but I know more about Africa than what you will ever know. Idiot, I've already addressed this issue, see the above and when have I called them immigrants? You're too stupid to even understand what I posted so I'm not wasting time explaining it again. You're the only offensive one here, I never said Teita were non African, are you hard of reading and understanding? I actually know plenty of Africans where I go to school at as well as the ones who stay in the same dorm as I do and they're quite pleased that a black American like myself knows something about Africans and their history besides the negative image often depicted in Africa. Most Africans automatically assume that black Americans are totally blind about Africans and their history , so when I go up to a Ghanian and them are the Ashanti or Ewe they're often surprised that I know about such groups. You don't speak for Africans they speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 21, 2005 13:58:30 GMT -5
This is the last time I'm going to respond to anymore of your pathetic ramblings Ponto, when you elevate to my level then I'll respond.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 22, 2005 19:56:17 GMT -5
Wow, those are incredible pictures!
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jun 23, 2005 14:02:35 GMT -5
Its time to really put the nail in the coffin with this iconic fascination with Coon:
Richard Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity's search for its Origins, 1990, p.381-382
"As late as the 1960s, the respected American physical anthropologist Carleton Coon published a massive, long awaited study, The Origin of the Races (1962), which was taken seriously by a wide public, despite its racist assumptions and nonsensical biology. Coon has proposed that each of the "five races"(by his classification) had evolved separately in Asia, Europe, America, Australia, and Central and Southern Africa. He thought a "pre-sapient" population of hominids(near-men) had first spread over the world; then, each group "crossed the threshold of humanity" separately at different times.
He vastly overemphasized group differences, which he confused with cultural behaviors, and imagined some kind of inevitability for "pre-human" populations to evolve into Homo sapiens wherever they might be. Can one similarly imagine "pre-moose" hoofed animals dispersing throughout the world, then each local population evolving to "cross the threshold of mooseness" at different times?
Although acute at examining skulls and skeletons, Coon was particularly inept as an observer and reporter of human behavior. In one particularly obnoxious passage, he contrasted what he perceived as the wide range of subtle nuances in an "Italian Caucasians's" facial expressions with the "limited repertoire" of an "African Negro." The black man, he said, could only widen his exes or show his white teeth for emphasis in conversation. Amazingly, such was the state of anthropological science in the United States in 1963, that the book was seriously debated instead of being dismissed as pseudoscience."
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Jun 23, 2005 19:49:58 GMT -5
The Origin of Races has been completely dismissed because it's mostly evolutionary tripe but not the Races of Europe is good for its description of Caucasoid types.
|
|