|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 27, 2005 23:48:25 GMT -5
Well, it is not only about skin, but cranofacial type. Few people on photos have congoid fetures. It is noticable in low wide nose bridge, scull shape, cheek bones, etc. They look like Nubians. I cannot believe that Egyptians on borders did not mix at all. They cannot be completely isolated from iteracting with another race. I don't think you've ever seen a Nubian. None of them look anything like Nubians, with the possible exception of the picture I previously posted. Nubians tend to be pitch black if you haven't noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 27, 2005 23:54:11 GMT -5
They don't have to look 100% Nubian, why should they? They look that had someone in their bloodline from that region.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Feb 27, 2005 23:56:03 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Dark skin means almost nothing. Southern Indians and Sri Lankans are often pitch black, but they are not Negroid. Pakistanis and Indians are as dark as the above-posted people and they are not Negroid. Have you ever seen people from southern Saudi Arabia and seen how dark they can get? It's not always due to Negroid blood. Also, factor in the fact that these people spend all day, every day, outside under the hot desert sun. If egypt was as modernized as Lebanon or Saudi, the people would look different. Indians, Sri Lankans etc do no live near Negroid or largely Negroid populations. Moreover, it's not only the dark skin but, as Kazakhgirl pointed out, cranofacial type. What viable explanation other than the Negroid explanation is there? You talk about southern Saudis... look at these Yemeni kids: You can't even compare them to those Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 28, 2005 0:02:49 GMT -5
What? There is a tiny black african population in india and no native negroids, what are you talking about? Its amazing how quick you are to see african ancestry in southern caucasians when you so vehemently deny the obvious mongloid affinities of russians.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Feb 28, 2005 0:17:56 GMT -5
What? There is deny black african population in india and not native negroids what are you talking about. Its amazing how quick you are to see african ancestry in southern caucasians when you so vehemently deny the obvious mongloid affinities of russians. First of all, learn to write. Most of your posts look like garbled nonsense. Anyway, that's pretty funny in light of how I just posted a picture of Yemenis to contrast how very much Caucasoid they are as opposed to those Egyptians. And why don't you ask Kazakhgirl about those obvious Mongoloid affinities. I'll tell you what I know. Unlike Egyptians, for example, Russians didn't even live in close proximity to any largely Mongoloid population until relatively recently. They didn't have Mongoloid slaves and mix with them. You know, I posted something like 170 pictures of Russians in those two threads-- where were you then?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 28, 2005 0:29:30 GMT -5
Dyn, I couldn't see the pic of Yemeni kids, but its ridiculous to contrast two extreme pics. Those kids Shenuda posted are the very extreme end of the Egyptian spectrum and I'm sure those Yemeni kids you posted are extreme for Yemenis too. Look at Osama Bin laden- he's Yemeni. Look at the 19 hijackers, the lightest one is Egyptian, the darkest ones are all Saudis. There are so many different examples. I don't see any Negroid features outside of the hair. Please, point them out to me if they're so obvious. Look at other pics I have posted of modern egyptians in the Black History thread and look at the Northern Egyptians thread. I can't believe you think that posting one pic of Yemeni kids versus a few pics of extreme Egyptian types proves that Yemenis are oh so caucasian in comparison to Egyptians. Yemenis do have a reputation as the darkest of the Arabs (with the exception of the black Arab states like Sudan and Comoros and stuff) whether you are willing to admit it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 28, 2005 0:30:10 GMT -5
Uh speaking of mispelling is that supposed to be "do not live near negroid populations" cause that would save you allot of credibility.
As for my post yeah I'm dyslexic you'll see I edited it, I have to do that allot.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 28, 2005 0:31:57 GMT -5
Hey dyn...he are better pics of Egyptians: compare to these Yemenis:
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 28, 2005 0:44:57 GMT -5
What do you mean better? Egyptians with Negroid features exist. They are minority, but it does not mean that they worse then light Egyptians. Noone claims that Egyptians with Negroid features are majority.
Speaking Russians. Russians did not have Mongol slaves. They simply could not have them because they were subordinate to Mongols/Kypchaks for a long long time, longer then Bulgarians were under Turks. Facial reconstruction of Russian tzars such as Andrei Bogoljubski, whos mother was Kypchak only proves that Russian did mix with Mongoloid nations from Caspyan on highest levels. They also have Uralic admixture. Many Uralic and Altaic nations just dissolved in Russians. Siberian Tartars assimilated with Russians and were literally engulfed. According to Coon, Ladogans have noticable Mongoloid features, which are not skin and eye color, but rather brahicephaly, nose bridge, cheek bones, etc. it is about again cranofacial features, not skin.
Prince Trubezkoi wrote a book 1920 about Turanian (Mongoloid subgroup) influence on Russian anthropology. He classified nations, which mixed with Russians. some of Russian aristocracy were Tartar and Kypchak descent. Famous Russian aristocracy: Derzhavins-tatar murza Bagrim, Prince Urusov-from tatar prince Edygei (Ghengizkchans bloodline), Apraksin-Tartar aristocratic ansectry, Chaadaev, Aksakov, etc.
|
|
|
Post by dyn on Feb 28, 2005 0:52:20 GMT -5
Dyn, I couldn't see the pic of Yemeni kids, but its ridiculous to contrast two extreme pics. Those kids Shenuda posted are the very extreme end of the Egyptian spectrum and I'm sure those Yemeni kids you posted are extreme for Yemenis too. Look at Osama Bin laden- he's Yemeni. Look at the 19 hijackers, the lightest one is Egyptian, the darkest ones are all Saudis. There are so many different examples. I don't see any Negroid features outside of the hair. Please, point them out to me if they're so obvious. Look at other pics I have posted of modern egyptians in the Black History thread and look at the Northern Egyptians thread. I can't believe you think that posting one pic of Yemeni kids versus a few pics of extreme Egyptian types proves that Yemenis are oh so caucasian in comparison to Egyptians. Yemenis do have a reputation as the darkest of the Arabs (with the exception of the black Arab states like Sudan and Comoros and stuff) whether you are willing to admit it or not. Here's the url of that picture: mk31.image.pbase.com/u14/abysmo6/large/8505539.Jemen315.jpgAre those extreme types? Bin Laden's father was from Yemen and according to zain of an Afro-Arab caste. I don't know what looking at the hijackers is supposed to prove when there are so many non-Arabs in Arab states.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Feb 28, 2005 0:57:04 GMT -5
Here's the url of that picture: mk31.image.pbase.com/u14/abysmo6/large/8505539.Jemen315.jpgAre those extreme types? Bin Laden's father was from Yemen and according to zain of an Afro-Arab caste. I don't know what looking at the hijackers is supposed to prove when there are so many non-Arabs in Arab states. Oh come on. There is no proof that Bin laden is of Afro-Arab caste, its just an inference. He doesn't have many Negroid features. Also, that thing about there being so many "non-Arabs in Arab states". What are the chances that the majority of the Saudi hijackers are not gonna be native Saudi? Are you going to dismiss every dark-skinned Saudi as a foreigner? You are unbelievable. By the way, Egyptians in Saudi Arabia have a much harder time standing out then Pakis or Filipinos or Indians or even Yemenis, so that says something. By the way, what did you think of the Egyptian/Yemeni contrast I posted above?
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Feb 28, 2005 1:03:21 GMT -5
What do you mean better? Egyptians with Negroid features exist. They are minority, but it does not mean that they worse then light Egyptians. Noone claims that Egyptians with Negroid features are majority. Speaking Russians. Russians did not have Mongol slaves. They simply could not have them because they were subordinate to Mongols/Kypchaks for a long long time, longer then Bulgarians were under Turks. Facial reconstruction of Russian tzars such as Andrei Bogoljubski, whos mother was Kypchak only proves that Russian did mix with Mongoloid nations from Caspyan on highest levels. They also have Uralic admixture. Many Uralic and Altaic nations just dissolved in Russians. Siberian Tartars assimilated with Russians and were literally engulfed. According to Coon, Ladogans have noticable Mongoloid features, which are not skin and eye color, but rather brahicephaly, nose bridge, cheek bones, etc. it is about again cranofacial features, not skin. Thanks for providing balance here, I agree. Some Upper Egyptians definitely have considerable sub-Saharan admixture but it's not as if we're saying that all Egyptians are mixed. Still though, Egypt is a very heterogeneous nation ranging from the lightest types looking southern European to the darkest types who resemble the northern Sudanese. Again, both extremes are in the minority. As for Russians, of course nobody's going to deny the essential Europeanness of them, but there has been some mixing with Asians, and there's nothing wrong with that of course. Uralic peoples and Tatars were largely absorbed into the larger Russian Slavic population over the centuries in places as far west as Moscow. I believe genetic tests of a large sample of ethnic Russians proved that Russians on average have about 13% Asian admixture. That's still a minority and I'm sure Dyn's going to have a heart attack when he reads this, but it's not bad to have Asian ancestry, and again, Russians are a Caucasoid people of mainly Slavic origin, just with some Uralic admixture. The Finns show even higher levels of Siberian genes. The Lapps are a remnant of this, and though they've been largely absorbed into the surrounding Scandinavian populations and, by the same token, have absorbed many Scandinavians into their ethnic group, the distinctive features remain in many instances and I think that's where the "Ladogan" look comes from.
|
|
|
Post by santana on Feb 28, 2005 1:06:35 GMT -5
the picture of the egyptians are Copts... someone toldme that Copts are mixed with syrians... and alexandrian, they do look lighter than the average egyptian...
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 28, 2005 1:10:08 GMT -5
Buddy as allways nice post .
|
|
|
Post by Kazakhgirl on Feb 28, 2005 1:15:31 GMT -5
In case with Russians, i wrote all this long story because dyn denied Mongol influence in Russian anthropology and implied non directly that Russian did not own Mongols slaves???, which is in a way laughable statement for those who know history of Russia and reality of who enslaved whom.
Russians obviously Caucasians, noones claimes opposite, but Mongoloid elements in Russians are mildly noticable here and there.
|
|