|
Post by Vitor on Jun 8, 2004 17:43:44 GMT -5
Afro, I am not saying that.. I only said that there are more genetic variation in Africa than in europe or in china or whatever... the world races in the world (outside africa) come from a small group who ventured outside africa...with lots of genetic similarities... maybe closer to that african tribe...I really don't know. nop... we can trace back our ancestry for some generations...most of the time not more than 4 generations (I am one of those who don't know more than that)... There was a catholic church in our village that could have some documents about my father's family history, but it was burnt in a pro-comunist revolution... my grandfather father was one of those who put fire on that church.. there were also some killed priests in Portugal... (not here) starving people make that...they built a bread cooperative on that place, the bread was 1/3 the price from other "capitalist" places... there were a lot of people who didn't starved because of that! There was no time for religion... hehehe Of course some years after arrived the ultra-fascism with salazar (with the church behind it) in portugal. Nevertheless we were different ... a breeding ground for comunist!
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 8, 2004 17:56:40 GMT -5
I remember hearing of tribes in Black Africa being more GENETICALLY closer to Nordic Swedes then other Black Africans Oh, you probably mean lactose intolerance. Masai and Swedes, lactose intolerant brothers.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 6:35:40 GMT -5
So or so, Aethiopids are no typical Negrids but have a intemediate although somewhat more on the Negrid side position. What is a typical "Negrid"? People here keep speaking of racial types as if to be pure anything the person must have features that do not overlap with any other race, but anthropology tells us something different
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 9, 2004 7:44:43 GMT -5
Dear Afro, you mistake my vehemence for racism. You have slandered me and owe me an apology. The only thing that is blatant is the sensitivity some people of negro appearance to anyone who attacks their racist, anti caucasian, anti European, pro Negrocentric views. Everyone is entitled to think what they like, but proferring blatant pseudoscientifically laced garbage is worthy of attack. Said is a nutter, a schizoid man who happens to be negro. So what, dickheads exist in every race. He deserves to be placed in a home for the dewildered and cared for humanely. Alas I am his satanic majesty, I don't have humanistic feelings, caring feelings or even racist ones. All humans are just animals to me, no better than annelids or nematodes. One thing about Said is, what do we know about him? He is racist. He has already expressed his anti white feelings, his opinions of Maltese people, their origins and so on. I think that is racist and anti Semitic. Jews are not the only Semitic people. Said is a waste of skin and an insult to negro history, achievements and culture. He is a bad representative for muslims. He proves the common idea that muslims are dangerous, psychotic and aberrant. He cannot accept any criticism of his insane negrocentric beliefs. What is his training and speciality? Is he a scientist like I am, specialising in genetics and molecular biology? I can teach microbiology also. I make mean wine and beer. I think Said is a cleaner aka janitor in USA language. No wonder he thinks those "experts" cannot be challenged.
As for East African, KhoiSan and North Africans, after all these thousands of years some mixing with negroes is to be expected. They all live on the same continent and like sex.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 9:43:10 GMT -5
Said is a nutter, a schizoid man who happens to be negro. So what, dickheads exist in every race. He deserves to be placed in a home for the dewildered and cared for humanely. Alas I am his satanic majesty, I don't have humanistic feelings, caring feelings or even racist ones. All humans are just animals to me, no better than annelids or nematodes. One thing about Said is, what do we know about him? He is racist. He has already expressed his anti white feelings, his opinions of Maltese people, their origins and so on. I think that is racist and anti Semitic. Jews are not the only Semitic people. Said is a waste of skin and an insult to negro history, achievements and culture. He is a bad representative for muslims. He proves the common idea that muslims are dangerous, psychotic and aberrant. He cannot accept any criticism of his insane negrocentric beliefs. What is his training and speciality? Is he a scientist like I am, specialising in genetics and molecular biology? I can teach microbiology also. I make mean wine and beer. I think Said is a cleaner aka janitor in USA language. No wonder he thinks those "experts" cannot be challenged. As for East African, KhoiSan and North Africans, after all these thousands of years some mixing with negroes is to be expected. They all live on the same continent and like sex. What is East African, North African? Those are not Caucasoids if you were trying to imply that. Your stupidity is laughable. You postzed another lame ad-hominem attack on me, but as usual you haven't displayed the smarts to refute specifically anything that I've said. You sound like a kid coming home complaining to his mama how the bully whipped him at school with your charges of racism against me, yet you kept calling me Kunta Kinte and all other names. You calling me an ape and saying everyone hates Congoids, yet you're trying to appeal to a black man, how f*ckin smart you are. Now I'm anti-Semitic? You're not even a Semite. You talk shit about Arabs yet call me an anti-Semite, man you're f*ckin stupid. Anyways, my original post was about so-called Ethiopids and you haven't posted or provided evidence to refute anything I've said. Get this through your stupid skull and pull the pitchfork out your ass: Unless you can post data or sources tio back anything you say you look pathetic, no, your are pathetic. I will keep on whipping your sorry punk ass with abstracts and data while you keep attack me ad-hominem style. Satanic majesty? Ha, I'm exercising the demon out of your punk ass
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 9:45:34 GMT -5
Said, please tell me why North Africans aren't ( generally ) 'Caucasoids'.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Jun 9, 2004 10:21:50 GMT -5
Actually I am a Semite. My native language is Semitic a variant of the divine! Arabic language.
Alla=the Almighty, Harb=war, bint=daughter, Omm=mother, ghorfa=a type of room, art=earth, habib=friend, baqra=cow and so on.
Arabic is nothing, Quranic Arabic is archaic and backward. Its script is the only complex thing about it.
If you don't know any of the "divine" language, I have just taught you some.
Saying what you say about North Africans (Berbers), Egyptians and Orientalid Arabs makes you a racist as much as any Nazi, anti Semite or Nordicist fop. Negrocentrism is racism. You are blackwashing the inhabitants of those parts of Africa and Asia because of your racist views. I don't even think you have been to Africa. I have - Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Zambia and so on. You think you know something about Africa because you have a negroid/congoid appearance. Africa is and never has been inhabited solely by negroid/congoids. And I would rather believe Juvenal and his satire about Egypt and the fact that negroes were not allowed past the island of Meroe than anything you or your experts say. Juvenal lived in the early CE. Your experts are 20th century negrocentric pseudoscientific stooges. Linguistics is not a science, but a totally speculative and imaginative field.
North Africans are caucasoids. Orientalids, Arabs are caucasoid. East Africans are neither negroid or caucasoid. American negroes are mixed race, apologies Afro I know you don't like that, and belong nowhere except in the New World. Africa is not your home.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 10:22:41 GMT -5
Said, please tell me why North Africans aren't ( generally ) 'Caucasoids'. I believe North Africans to be Proto-Mediterranids predominately, admixed with tropical African and southern European. The original Proto-Mediterranids were distinct from both tropical African and European types. Look at those dark Arabs in southern Arabia, they don't look anything like Europeans yet people wish to include them in the same race as Europeans? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say North Africans are Caucasoids for the reason that no one has properly define what is Caucasoid, but people seem to have Negroid or Congoid pinned to people that are not east Africans, North Africans or Saharans, yet there are people who are 'Congoid' in these areas. How can a Indian, north African, European, and an Arabian(southern Arabs, true Arabs) all be define as Caucasoids, but Negroids are confined to one area, below the Sahara?
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 10:25:10 GMT -5
I believe North Africans to be Proto-Mediterranids predominately, admixed with tropical African and southern European. The original Proto-Mediterranids were distinct from both tropical African and European types. Look at those dark Arabs in southern Arabia, they don't look anything like Europeans yet people wish to include them in the same race as Europeans? I don't buy it. I wouldn't say North Africans are Caucasoids for the reason that no one has properly define what is Caucasoid, but people seem to have Negroid or Congoid pinned to people that are not east Africans, North Africans or Saharans, yet there are people who are 'Congoid' in these areas. How can a Indian, north African, European, and an Arabian(southern Arabs, true Arabs) all be define as Caucasoids, but Negroids are confined to one area, below the Sahara? Well, there's a fairly well-delineated group of 'Western Eurasian' haplogroups - both maternal and paternal. You DO agree that North Africans are mostly a part of it, right?
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Jun 9, 2004 10:27:27 GMT -5
So, they're not Tropical Africans, then they must be Malaric Africans
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 10:36:14 GMT -5
Actually I am a Semite. My native language is Semitic a variant of the divine! Arabic language. Alla=the Almighty, Harb=war, bint=daughter, Omm=mother, ghorfa=a type of room, art=earth, habib=friend, baqra=cow and so on. Arabic is nothing, Quranic Arabic is archaic and backward. Its script is the only complex thing about it. If you don't know any of the "divine" language, I have just taught you some. Saying what you say about North Africans (Berbers), Egyptians and Orientalid Arabs makes you a racist as much as any Nazi, anti Semite or Nordicist fop. Negrocentrism is racism. You are blackwashing the inhabitants of those parts of Africa and Asia because of your racist views. I don't even think you have been to Africa. I have - Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Zambia and so on. You think you know something about Africa because you have a negroid/congoid appearance. Africa is and never has been inhabited solely by negroid/congoids. And I would rather believe Juvenal and his satire about Egypt and the fact that negroes were not allowed past the island of Meroe than anything you or your experts say. Juvenal lived in the early CE. Your experts are 20th century negrocentric pseudoscientific stooges. Linguistics is not a science, but a totally speculative and imaginative field. North Africans are caucasoids. Orientalids, Arabs are caucasoid. East Africans are neither negroid or caucasoid. American negroes are mixed race, apologies Afro I know you don't like that, and belong nowhere except in the New World. Africa is not your home. Berbers aren't the only true North Africans and neither are Berbers one specific race of people. Berber is linguistic. Keita, Greenberg, and Ehret are Negrocentric? You're stupid and think very simplistically. Where is your proof that says this? Because I do not take your view does not make me Negrocentric or Afrocentric. Since you do not have anything to post to refute me, the best you come up with is that everyone I've cited are Afrocentric? Please, post some proof to refute them Graeme, you know how dumb you look everytime there is something you can't refute and you these things? East Africans are neither Caucasoids nor Negroids? What race are they? Most people like YOU, Dienekes, and RM say this crap out of an ignorance of anthropology of Africa. quite simple and plain, you all three say it because you have been taught that 'true Negroes' look a certain way and since East Africans have finer features they must have mixed or they are a different race which is contrary to anthropology about African people. There are thin nosed, thin lipped people in west Africa who are relatively unmixed tropical Africans. Human races didn't evolve in such a way that they do not have overlapping traits. Sanid people have that epicanthic eyefold and yellow skin and at one time people thought they were Mongloids or haldf mongloids, but studies have since proven that to be not true. If this can be said of sanids, why are people like you and especially Dienekes(East Africans are Paleo-caucasoid, "hamitic?) reluctant to accept variability in African populations? get your weight up and learn about some anthropology
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 10:37:52 GMT -5
By the way, the 'Caucasoid area' is actually not that large. Sub-Saharan 'Black Africa' might actually be a bit larger, especially if you don't include the peripheral 'racially mixed zones' of North/Central Asia and the Sahara.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 10:46:40 GMT -5
Well, there's a fairly well-delineated group of 'Western Eurasian' haplogroups - both maternal and paternal. You DO agree that North Africans are mostly a part of it, right? Genes and anthropology are different sciences. In other words genotype and phenotype are two different things and as you well know geneticists normally do not label genes as caucasoid and Negroid. Those southern Arabs the dark ones don't look Caucasoid at all, like the Mahra for example yet genetically they will group with others in the Arabian peninsula. Basically I'm referring to phenotype and in the phenotypic sense North Africans are generally distinct from tropical Africans and Europeans but more similar to those peoples in the Arabian peninsula, the dark and medium dark ones. I'm not blackwashing them, I just think that they're too disnct from Europeans to be placed in the same race as Europeans..
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Jun 9, 2004 11:06:46 GMT -5
By the way, the 'Caucasoid area' is actually not that large. Sub-Saharan 'Black Africa' might actually be a bit larger, especially if you don't include the peripheral 'racially mixed zones' of North/Central Asia and the Sahara. You see, thats the problem right there. people keep saying 'sub-Saharan' 'black Africa' . when people normally say 'black Africa' or black Africans, they're normally referring to West, Central, and southeast Africa, but exclude areas like Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, and the Sahara area, yet on the other hand they want people to believe that Arabs, Europeans, Indians, and North Africans are all the same race. At any rate scholars do not advance a view of a North Africa/Black Africa anymore. Read this extract: VI. RATIONALE
The current African history sequence is orgainzed geographically, with separate North and Subsaharan regional courses. It would be far more effective to reorganize them in a more chronological and topical fashion, dividing the sequence between precolonial and modern Africa. This would bring our offerings more in line with current teaching approaches and classroom materials. Moreover, it would prevent the repetition of skills and content, providing more time to develop topics or case study projects.
Few American, and certainly no African universities continue to divide their African history general survey geographically. While a north-south division may have some validity in contemporary political studies, it is not given wide currency in historical analyses. Most historians of prehistoric, ancient or precolonial Africa contend that the Sahara was more a bridge than barrier, and contact more the norm than isolation. Furthermore, thorughout the great expanse of human history, similar social processes were underway both north and south: hunting and gathering, the transtition to agriculture, state formation, long-distance trade, religious conversion, and so forth. Such themes are best dealt with together, is a single unit, rather than dispersed between two regional courses.
Few reasonably up-to-date texts or teaching materials are available for the sequence as it is currently arranged. Especially for the North African course, there has not been a comprehensive textbook in several decades. Consequently, students must struggle through the only material available: monographs, articles and collections better suited to a senior seminar or graduate course. Contemporary undergraduate textbook and monograph publishing is geared towards a course sequence with a precolonial, modern division.
The current sequence also necessitates frequent repetition of skills and content within the two courses, making them unattractive to students who might otherwise take both. For example, prehistory should be covered in both a North African and a Subsaharan course. Thus, necessary milti-disciplinary skill units such as archaeology, linguistics must be repeated in both, never allowing time to fully develop either one. By placing skills lectures, exercises and readings in their relevant chronological sequence, however, they would be better integrated and the courses would be more coherent.
Course time gained through a more efficient presentation of skills and material, would allow more time to pursue topics in case studies. This would give students hands-on experience, answering inportant historical questions through packaged "primary" materials. The scope and breadth of African history is difficult to cover within a survey course, hence well developed case studies are the best means to introduce students to problems and topics.www.ncate.lhup.edu/course_syllabi/Sec%20Ed/Social%20Studies/HIST362.htmSee,people sit in these forums advocating a divided Africa while Africans themselves don't do it.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jun 9, 2004 11:09:35 GMT -5
You see, thats the problem right there. people keep saying 'sub-Saharan' 'black Africa' . when people normally say 'black Africa' or black Africans, they're normally referring to West, Central, and southeast Africa, but exclude areas like Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, and the Sahara area, yet on the other hand they want people to believe that Arabs, Europeans, Indians, and North Africans are all the same race. I didn't even mention East Africa, geez. East Africa is part of Sub-Saharan 'Black Africa', as far as I'm concerned.
|
|