|
Post by ericksmith on Dec 16, 2005 18:19:37 GMT -5
This cambodian is unlike the Japanese The italian is unlike the scandanavian man The amerind guatemalan is unlike the Japanese,or cambodian posted before Somali Benin
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 18:22:51 GMT -5
It's all about clusters. The skulls of East Eurasians and Amerinds are too similar to ignore. Same with the Italians and Scandinavians.
Unfortunately for the Somali and the Benin guy, their skulls probably aren't as similar to each other. Thus the big "What are East Africans (Horners, actually)?" debate.
Let's strip off the flesh and look at the skulls. See what clusters come up. After all, if races are only morphological types, then even unrelated genetic populations would be considered the same race. For instance, in ye olden days, Oceanic black people (like Tasmanians, Papuans) and sub-Saharan Negroid people were considered part of the same race morphologically. But with the advent of genetics, that changed.
But if race is to only be defined genetically, then morphology isn't as important because it is subject to environmental change/sexual selection/all manner of adaptation. See the conundrum here?
See, let's assume for a second that the Somali and the Italian/Scandinavian have skulls too similar to ignore. Thus they are both Caucasoid morphologically.
Then let's assume for a second that the Somali is actually genetically closer to the Benin man. So you see, if people reject race as morphology, then under this scenario the Somali and Benin are members of the same race. But if people reject race as genetics, then the Somali and the Italian/Scandinavian are members of the same race. Thus, it all depends on one's definition of what constitutes a race. Is it based on phenotype, genotype, or some incredibily-difficult-to-reconcile combination of both?
*brain explodes*
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 18:33:33 GMT -5
making conclusion based on idealized types is what causes alot of distortion and misinformation. When we get away from that type of thinking then we can talk, especially in regards to Africans. No one has any problems speaking about a "Caucasoid" family of people from Europe to India, but when it comes to sub-Saharan Africans like East African Horners its a big debate, lol. So-called "Caucasoids" from Europe to India don't all look the same, ditto for Africans from East to West.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 18:36:11 GMT -5
Maybe not on the outside, but we're talking skulls here, remember?
I'd be willing to bet that Swedes and Iranians still have more in common with each other skeletally than Ibos and Somalis do.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Dec 16, 2005 18:39:14 GMT -5
But even genetically the Somali is quite far from the Benin man.... Still..people should focus only on the skull/skelleton, too many times they focus on secondary things like pigmentation, fleshiness and hair...
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 18:52:42 GMT -5
Maybe not on the outside, but we're talking skulls here, remember? I'd be willing to bet that Swedes and Iranians still have more in common with each other skeletally than Ibos and Somalis do. Thats still idealized thinking Mike, look at this thread full of Nigerians users.boardnation.com/~theoasis/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=181You see many different skin tones, nose sizes and facial types, if we were to strip off their flesh and look at skulls[at the interindividual level] you'd have many different races. If we study Horn of Africans we see that their origins are in sub-Saharan Africa and that they're metrically different from Caucasoids. They only question is how and why are they that way, not what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 18:55:19 GMT -5
But even genetically the Somali is quite far from the Benin man.... Still..people should focus only on the skull/skelleton, too many times they focus on secondary things like pigmentation, fleshiness and hair... But the Benin and Somali as well as Berbers all share genetic unity under the PN2 clade[E3], while Europeans and Middle Easterners have low levels of lineages under the PN2 clade.
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Dec 16, 2005 18:56:02 GMT -5
Almost all of them look West African....besides..there are Aethiopids present in that area and even Berber admixture..
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 16, 2005 18:59:13 GMT -5
Cambodians aren't supposed to be fully Mongolid, clearly...
|
|
|
Post by Miguel Antunes on Dec 16, 2005 19:00:13 GMT -5
But berbers look quite different...although they do share a lot of E3b with Horners and Sahelians too.. Bah...this is to complicated...why are we even doing this? What good will come out of this? I came in to this race business to combat racism and prejudice but now I think even more about race...who cares!?
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 19:03:01 GMT -5
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, Charlie. I mean, it would be easy to just say Somalis are elongated Negroids, but when compared to other traditionally elongated populations, they still stick out like sore thumbs skull-wise, do they not? I mean, even when you look at the flesh differences between Norwegians and Iranians, they still have very similar skulls. Too similar to be ignored. Can that be paralleled with Horners and other sub-Saharans? FULANI: MAASAI: There is a definite skeletal similarity between the Fulani and the Maasai. Look at the particulars of the occiput, the bulbous doming foreheads, the hairline, etc. These groups are traditional bastions of the elongated morphology in West and East Africa respectively. They are very similar to broad Negroid peoples, but they just have elongated proportions. But when you stretch that variation to include people who look like this: Perhaps you're taking it too far. SKELETALLY speaking. It's obvious that Horners have very dark skin and many other FLESHY features in common with their black brothers living further into the interior. But I'm trying to ignore the flesh features because they are easily adapted. It's the skull that I think is important. And I don't see a big similarity between Somalis and elongated Maasai/Fulani, much less to broad Negroids. Of course it would be better if I could actually compare the actual skulls of all these peoples instead of having to look through regular pictures to do it, but you can still see the basic tenets of what I'm saying. This is the problem with the variation theory. Now if you can convince me that Somalis are similar enough skeletally to be considered in the same morphological league as the rest of black Africans, then I'd be very content. But for now, I'm conflicted about where they fall cranially. To clarify, I don't believe the Aethiopid type is a hybrid of modern races like Caucasoid and Negroid. If it is a hybrid at all, perhaps it is a mixture of a fine-featured morphology SIMILAR to prehistoric Caucasoids, but certainly not in the same league as modern West Eurasians. Or maybe they are like the Khoisan and don't belong to any morphological group but their own. I honestly don't know. Of course there is that theory that fine-featured Somali-looking L2/L3 carriers migrated into the interior of Africa and mixed with pygmies to create the true Negroid type, but I doubt you'd agree with that either.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 16, 2005 19:04:56 GMT -5
Almost all of them look West African....besides..there are Aethiopids present in that area and even Berber admixture.. There are no Ethiopiods in West Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 19:06:34 GMT -5
Despite the variation, they all look very similar to me. I don't think you'd have different races if you stripped off their flesh. Maybe some of them would be outliers on a chart, but not the lot. If we study Horn of Africans we see that their origins are in sub-Saharan Africa and that they're metrically different from Caucasoids. They only question is how and why are they that way, not what they are. I agree they are metrically different to Caucasoids. But by the same token are they just as metrically different from Negroids?
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Dec 16, 2005 19:08:57 GMT -5
Somalis are Somaloid TM
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 16, 2005 19:10:21 GMT -5
You think they deserve their own morphology like the Khoisan, Libaax?
|
|