|
Post by Power Cosmic on Sept 18, 2005 1:41:54 GMT -5
Place him beside a Kafrid and you see what I mean...race is not just skin deep. When you place Kagame next to a European you see no close resemblance. I'm more incline to stick with the information I've seen Charlie post since it came from e-mail communication with bio-anthropologists. Paul Kagame doesn't have to have any Europid mixture or mixture from any Europid like people. Most if not all of the terms you're using and their definitions have been made obsolete by modern genetics.
|
|
|
Post by Power Cosmic on Sept 18, 2005 1:44:59 GMT -5
Isnt Kagame a Tutsi. Tutsi immigrated from the southern ethiopian highlands, but fully assimilated into the local bantu speaking hutus, through intermarriage. i assume they must have spoken a cushtic language in the past. I have seen many tutsi, some that looked nothing like aethiopid and some that i have mistaken as a fellow somali . It isn't a proven fact that Tutsis migrated from southern Ethiopia, thats mainly a theory propagated by Europeans. Their lineages on the Y-chromosone indicate they're nearly the same as the Hutu.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 18, 2005 7:30:41 GMT -5
It isn't a proven fact that Tutsis migrated from southern Ethiopia, thats mainly a theory propagated by Europeans. Their lineages on the Y-chromosone indicate they're nearly the same as the Hutu. Yes, sure, and Neil Armstrong was a Bantu ;D Many Tutsis are rather Nilotid than Aethiopid, but still that implies they came from the North - Negrid but from the North. That game is just idiotic. They were herder-warriors who became the elite in the region and formed their own states. It just happened that they adopted the local Bantu language. The other example on a similar height are the Massai, who just happened to keep their more nomadic and independent lifestyle and are therefore not considered Bantus. Sure mixture took place between Tutsis and Hutus, and in the Tutsi group the selection towards herder-warrior type was strong, so you can see really elongated Bantus under them, but the majoriy is Nilotid-Aethiopid and can't be considered autochthoneous, but Hutus aren't too anyway, the really old-primitive H-G group are the Twas. Its the whole culture of the Tutsis, their herder specialisation and habitus, racial type which points to a Northern origin of at least a great part of them. Because that was in later times often more a social distinction (herder-warrior Tutsi, farmer Hutu) it could happen that poor Tutsis became Hutus and rich Hutus which specialised on being a herder-warrior too Tutsis in the social system. But the basic distinction between them is still alive. And you must finally understand, though you dont like it, that the specific adaptation couldnt happen in the region they live now alone. There are morphological traits which can only be explained by being directly Europid (more likely) or being selected in another, more dry and open climate in a long time (less likely). Its absolutely impossible that they came up in such a short time under Kafrids! Pure allometric elongation looks different! There are Tutsis which could be explained with much fantasy as elongated Kafrids with Nilotid influence, but Kagame definitely not. Kabila, the corrupted Kafrid which cheated: Kabila with Tutsi soldiers whom he betrayed after he was in power: www1.cs.columbia.edu/~sable/research/photos/cn16406.jpgCompared with Kagame: Ethiopian man: Tigrai woman from Ethiopia: Kagame with Museveni: Average Hutus, look at the facial features, typical Kafrids: Hutu militia: Tutsi soldiers: Obviously most average Tutsis are a complex mix out of Nilotid with Aethiopid and Kafrid, selected towards the herder-warrior type. But in some individuals, especially of the highest elite, they clearly show Aethiopid features like Kagame. www.interet-general.info/IMG/tutsikigali1994-1.jpgThey are racially Nilotid-Aethiopid mostly, its obvious. Just if you compare the hair length, something which has nothing to do with elongation, typical-pure Kafrids have the typical short-frizzy hair whereas many Aethiopids have hair almost like mulatoes, much longer. They dont have prognathy, whereas the elongated Sudanids of West Africa have often even more extreme one, they have more prominent-narrow noses, the beard growth is different too and narrow face has a Europid formed chin. Whats mainly Negrid is the forehead which is like in many Nilotids and you can find almost pure Nilotid Tutsis too, definitely more than Kafrids. Typical Kafrid Hutus, just compare the nasal shape, jaws and chins, cheekbones and lips with the Tutsis pictured above: Only if you look at skin color alone you can say that Tutsis "are just elongated"... That would be like saying that the Todas are just elongated Weddids *lol* Its true for some (mostly Nilotid-Kafrid type), but the typical rather Aethiopid types can't be explained only by local selection.
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Sept 18, 2005 8:06:19 GMT -5
Ethiopian Aethiopids: ok so what i dont understand is if you can get europid types with noses that arent 'typical europid' eg nordid LOL and more round features, why are they still called europid? Aethiopids are just a TYPE of negroid, they have lived throughout east and southern africa for thousands of years, give them a little dignity by saying that they arent some mixed race population LOL also i heard a while ago that european scholars attempted to 'caucasianise' Ethiopians because they believed that no negroid could produce a civilisation like the ancient axumite empire lol. maybe thats where all of this is stemming from.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 18, 2005 9:15:21 GMT -5
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. The time was not long enough to change in that environment the facial features to what they are in the TYPICAL Aethiopids. Furthermore the elongated Nilotid type which is an adaption to dry-hot climate, something which leads often to narrower noses etc. has a somewhat higher nose but is otherwise not comparable. As I said, there are various features from hair length, nasal shape, teeth-jaw-chin region and certain body characteristics which point to an Europoid influence. I dont know what you mean with your dignity because a "mixed race" is not per se good or bad, it just depends on what comes out of it and how it fits into the population. As for Aethiopids there was a selection and they formed now a rather homogeneous type on their own, and the result is more progressive than a pure Negrid type so I dont think you arguments make sense because mixed doesnt always imply an insult. 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. Just look at Sudano-Kafrids as the typcial form from West Africa to South Africa and compare it. Thats just no simple allometric elongation, thats the point, the logical conclusion is Europoid admixture. Just look at Iman: Very harmonious features, but lets look at racial characteristics: Eyes deeper set, forehead more above the eyes, eyes distance lower, eye form more Europid, nasal root higher, nose longer, narrower and more prominent. Midface overall longer, narrow face. Lips less extreme-everted, orthognathy, jaws Europoid formed, pointed chin. The features are just somewhat softer and the forehead is higher and more vaulted, otherwise she could pass, if "painted white" as Mediterranoid. Of course she is Somali, but she represents what a typical Aethiopid is. If you compare her with Lil Kim, which has probably admixture too and had surgeries, Kim looks still more Negrid though she is even lighter skinned than Iman! As for the Europid types, is there a type (not just individual!) with an AVERAGE nose as flat and broad as the Negrids one? ...
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 18, 2005 9:48:49 GMT -5
Some of these -id words are fine, but Kafrid is a stupid term because it is insensitive and has more derogatory meanings than it has neutral ones. You might as well say "Niggerid" or something, as the two terms are basically equivalent in their assumed negativity. Human2 wouldn't want his people called Chinkoids, I wouldn't want my people called Greasyoids, and I'm sure you wouldn't want your people called Krautoids. So why don't we clean up the terminology a bit and substitute the perjorative "Kafrid" (Kaffir) with the more contemporary "Bantid" (Bantu)? It would be the respectful and polite thing to do. Of course you couldn't imagine doing something as simple and dignified as that. Putting down those old German books and thinking for yourself is too monumental a task, I'd wager. Really, it wouldn't hurt to discard your outdated "progressive" theories and start reading up on actual up-to-date scientific research. Oh, I forgot, the Liberalcapitalistic Eye of Sauron has polluted our sciences and therefore contemporary research is not to be trusted! Our only alternative is to read outdated Guentherian literature! Let's snap to it, lads! Before the schizothymes get there first!
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 18, 2005 10:51:46 GMT -5
Human2 wouldn't want his people called Chinkoids, I wouldn't want my people called Greasyoids, and I'm sure you wouldn't want your people called Krautoids. So why don't we clean up the terminology a bit and substitute the perjorative "Kafrid" (Kaffir) with the more contemporary "Bantid" (Bantu)? It would be the respectful and polite thing to do. Kafrid is the standard term, Bantuid is used for it as well, though its insofar unprecise as not all Bantus are Kafrid, however, I dont care whether one is saying Bantuid or Kafrid because both terms are valid in the basic terminology. If you like I use Bantuid I dont care myself too much, but you know things should be exact. The name derives from various tribal groups of the Xhosa, which are most typical for the Kafrid type (like Armenid because of Armenians, Alpinid because of the Alps, Sinid because of the Chinese etc.) www.cbold.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Lgs/LgsbyGN.htmlXhosa of the Kafrid/Bantuid type: However, I read modern articles, books and had lectures, so dont tell me what I should do. I replace things only if they are disproven, not just because they are no longer "politically correct", because I shit on "political correctness". A certain politeness towards, and respect for people which did not insult me or harmed my group or myself is another thing. Usually I dont thing I'm too insulting, if I would be insulting to someone innocent for a bad reason, than I'm sorry for that. However, saying the truth might be abusive to some, but then I dont care, because the truth and destiny of the collective comes always first. Yes, she is just Aethiopid, thats why I have chosen her. There are other more Europoid looking Aethiopids, but many of them have more recent Arabid admixture. She is indeed distinctly East African.
|
|
grg
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by grg on Sept 18, 2005 11:17:21 GMT -5
Does this Somali looks Europid?
|
|
|
Post by Power Cosmic on Sept 18, 2005 11:27:19 GMT -5
Does this Somali looks Europid? That man is a Baanidir, a minority group in Somalia a quiet atypical.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Sept 18, 2005 11:35:38 GMT -5
The same tribe Mandela was a member of:
|
|
|
Post by Power Cosmic on Sept 18, 2005 11:45:32 GMT -5
Just look at Sudano-Kafrids as the typcial form from West Africa to South Africa and compare it. Thats just no simple allometric elongation, thats the point, the logical conclusion is Europoid admixture. Look at these central African Rwandans and please tell me whats so Sudano-Kafrid about them. www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002559.htmlThese people are the result of a peculiar adaptation to an environment.
|
|
|
Post by Power Cosmic on Sept 18, 2005 11:49:35 GMT -5
Human2 wouldn't want his people called Chinkoids, I wouldn't want my people called Greasyoids, and I'm sure you wouldn't want your people called Krautoids. So why don't we clean up the terminology a bit and substitute the perjorative "Kafrid" (Kaffir) with the more contemporary "Bantid" (Bantu)? It would be the respectful and polite thing to do. Kafrid is the standard term, Bantuid is used for it as well, though its insofar unprecise as not all Bantus are Kafrid, however, I dont care whether one is saying Bantuid or Kafrid because both terms are valid in the basic terminology. If you like I use Bantuid I dont care myself too much, but you know things should be exact. The name derives from various tribal groups of the Xhosa, which are most typical for the Kafrid type (like Armenid because of Armenians, Alpinid because of the Alps, Sinid because of the Chinese etc.) www.cbold.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Lgs/LgsbyGN.htmlXhosa of the Kafrid/Bantuid type: However, I read modern articles, books and had lectures, so dont tell me what I should do. I replace things only if they are disproven, not just because they are no longer "politically correct", because I shit on "political correctness". A certain politeness towards, and respect for people which did not insult me or harmed my group or myself is another thing. Usually I dont thing I'm too insulting, if I would be insulting to someone innocent for a bad reason, than I'm sorry for that. However, saying the truth might be abusive to some, but then I dont care, because the truth and destiny of the collective comes always first. Yes, she is just Aethiopid, thats why I have chosen her. There are other more Europoid looking Aethiopids, but many of them have more recent Arabid admixture. She is indeed distinctly East African. Except from what I've read on these message boards I have seen no use of any of those degrading terms. Kafrid is a derivative of Kaffir which is offensive Bantuid comes from Bantu which is a huge language group in sub-Saharan Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 18, 2005 12:35:13 GMT -5
Does this Somali looks Europid? Whereas Aethiopids are more Negrid or intermediary, this person is definitely already more Europid than anything else. I dont see a picture, but if it depicts Hutus, they are Sudano-Kafrid with a very high probability. A) Its not degrading meant. B) Most people dont use subracial distinctions if its about Negrids, they are just all "black" (including Aethiopids) to some, whats deluded since racial types are specialisations which go much beyond skin pigmentation. No. Thats the reason I prefered Kafrid - exactly THIS! Bantus are an ethnolinguistical group (like Indoeuropean) people of Kafrid, Palaenegrid, Sudanid, Khoisanid and even Aethiopid and old substratum speak Bantu languages. Thats like saying because someone speaks Germanic he must be Nordid, no, thats not true. The Kafrid type is not that easy to distinguish from Sudanids oftentimes, but there are clear differences to Palaenegrids, Nilotids and Aethiopids! The suffix -id should suggest that there is a difference, so Bantuid = Kafrid, whereas Bantu alone means just the ethnolinguistic and cultural movement in SSA. Therefore I prefer Kafrid and others do so too, because people always confuse things. Its the same like it is with Alpine - Alpine means mountaineous or Alpine region in Central Europe, nice, but thats why I prefer Alpinid, the racial type is not just distributed around the Alps. Same with Kafrid/Bantuid, not every Bantu is Kafrid! And in South Africa Europeans used it pejorative, but originally it came from the Xhosa groups - it was the basic word-name for many tribes, and because they are typical for the type as are North Europeans for Nordids, and Chinese for Sinids it was decided in continental, mostly German-Scandinavian, anthropology to use the term for the subrace and this was widely accepted, though again some dont distinguish Sudanid and Kafrid and group it together, Kafrid is mainly different in certain aspects but generally similar to the basic Negrid type (Sudanid). (F.e. greater sexual dimorphism, it seems that males are less extreme than the females which tend to obesity and more pronounced Khoisanid features at least in the South, the mixed group, the difference is even less pronounced to more robust Sudanids in the Hutus f.e.).
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 18, 2005 12:55:51 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with being politically correct. This has everything to do with using inoffensive, neutral terminology. Kaffir is a perjorative term and is therefore not preferable when there is an alternative term. Like I said before, would you like it if the Phalian race of Germany was deemed "Krautoid"? Of course not, because kraut is offensive. Same with Kaffir. Not all Armenians are Armenoid, but most are, so the term fits. Likewise, not all Bantus are "Kafrid/Bantuid," but most are. So there is no problem in labelling the southernmost Negroid group "Bantuid." No, most Palaenegrids are Bantus too and as I said, no matter how they used it in South Africa, it wasnt intended that way but derived from the ethnic groups typical for that type. However, as I said, both terms can be used (Kafrid/Bantuid) but you see above which confusions can come up... I know the suffix story might sound ridiculous, but once you understood it makes clear the difference between geographical, ethnical etc. terms and racial-population ones. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KafirsThis is just one source, you can check more if you like. In SE-Africa is the main population of quite typical Kafrids/Bantuids. Furthermore the Kafrid type was not indigenous in East Africa, both Niloto-Hamits and Bantus were conquerors, the original people in Rwanda were the Twa:
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 18, 2005 13:01:49 GMT -5
That's all well and good, I just want you to know that Kafrid carries a very real, racist stigma with it and I try to avoid those kinds of terms at all costs if possible.
|
|