|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 14:16:40 GMT -5
Going around measuring cephalic index, nasal index.. documenting two features out of hundreds on the head is NOT SCIENCE.. NO ANTHROPOLOGIST uses such dense, simplistic typology to do anything.
Agrippa can't cite a real, professional, modern study if his life depended on it.
Here's 35 traits in a real crania study:
(1) sutura metopica, (2) foramen supraorbitale, (3) foramen frontale, (4) spina trochlearis, (5) foramen infraorbitale accessorium, (6) os japonicum (traces), (7) spina processus frontalis ossis zygomatici, (8) os Wormii sut. coronalis, (9) stenocrotaphia, (10) os epiptericum, (11) processus frontalis squamae temporalis, (12) os Wormii sut. squamosae,(13) os postsquamosum, (14) os asterion, (15) foramen parietale, (16) os incae, (17) os triquetrum, (18) os apicis lambdae, (19) os Wormii sut. lambdoideum, (20) sutura mendosa(traces), (21) foramen mastoidem exsuturale, (22) foramen mastoideum absens, (23) os Wormii sut. occupitomastoideum, (24) processus interparietalis, (25) canalis condylaris, (26) canalis hypoglossalis bipartitum, (27) facies condylaris bipartitum, (28) tuberculum praecondylare, (29) foramen tympanicum, (30) foramen spinosum apertum, (31) foramen spinosum bipartitum, (32) foramen pterygospinosum, (33) foramen pterygoalare, (34) sutura palatina transversa (suture shape); (35) torus palatinus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leader of the Barbarian Juns on Jan 31, 2006 14:24:27 GMT -5
since you since you modified your thread a bunch of times give me time to responde. a really quick comment \\"Nazi Germany anthropology\\" Well the study you are refering to in this thread come straight out of Nazi Germany. Thats like if I would say even John R. Bakers work "came out straight of plutocratic and Liberal-Individualistic America". Nonsense. First avoid "Nazi" but say Ns. Germany, National Socialist Germany, 3rd Reich or just Germany - thats like speaking of "Commie Russia" or "Jewish America", stereotypical and pejorative terms, stamped by the respective propaganda machine which defame people automatically if they just lived in that time and country and even those which were not even active National Socialists, Communists, Liberals etc. at all. \"Liberal-Individualistic America\" John R. Bakers was not idealogical.America of that time was not Liberal either. So you analogy fails. btw,Liberal Individualism began with Greece  Nazi-ns=Germany of that time. America was never \"jewish America\". This is where your idealogy blinds you. \"defame people automatically\" I am sorry but living for the \"Nordic Germanic spirit\" which many of people you read lived for. |
|
|
|
Post by asianist on Jan 31, 2006 15:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by asianist on Jan 31, 2006 15:59:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 16:05:28 GMT -5
Do you even have any idea what these German terms you use refer to and what exact theories they expound.
You don't.
God, if there is one thing that's universal.. it's that people are all alike. If there should be eugenics, let it not be based on race.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 16:28:44 GMT -5
Do you even have any idea what these German terms you use refer to and what exact theories they expound. You don't. God, if there is one thing that's universal.. it's that people are all alike. If there should be eugenics, let it not be based on race. Agreed. Thats something I said myself in various threads. Eugenics should be based on favourable individual feature combinations, but progressive traits, largely independent from exact race, fall in that category as well as positive physical traits. Furthermore its more interest why I discuss so much about race and the will to preserve the own group and more favourable feature combinations because contraselection works both inside and between ethnoracial unities. There is no need to destroy naturally grown and locally adapted populations for nothing. Thats a major point. I didnt suggested that f.e. Nordids, though I consider them being the benchmark, are really that much above other progressive types, nor that every individual has advantageous feature combinations - which would prefer it in a Eugenic program - which I would base mostly on prenatal selection and manipulation anyway, without attacking individuals with the exception of extreme cases - positive Eugenic means just to encourage positive individuals to get more children and to change the socio-economic and cultural framework in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 16:46:07 GMT -5
Nasal Index.. Facial Index.. LOL It's so outdated. This is Nazi anthropology broken down to its essence: Take a group of 10 men. Those who are are above 175 cm are one race. Those who are below it are another. They keep mistaking natural variation for races. By that logic these two Jarawa girls are different races. There's only 90 of them left on an island in the Andamans. Well, you confuse variation by chance with selective pressures and specialisation, thats not the same. Furthermore what you said doesnt have to mean that there couldnt be different groups involved in the forming of this people and its not about a single trait, with some very extreme exceptions, but the feature combination. Whats the sense in measuring small traits without any real selective advantage? Thats like ancestry tree reconstruction, necessary and useful too, but for sure not the same and not of the same value. Races go through bottlenecks, become selected by certain forces, thats the point. Suture shape was measured f.e. like most other traits you mentioned, but they were for the theories of minor importance, because many traits of that kind are just relatively different, they are indeed rather the sign of variation or ancestry, because they were less often, if at all selected. Those traits were only mentioned in the classic works if there was a statistically significant difference between racial types which were in other ways, by exploring the racial specialisation, determined. So f.e. if metopism was more common in a specific racial type. Nonsense, two very good articles: forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=365586forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=365663Tibetids are like Japanese/Korean largely a group on their own, but they fall mostly in the Mittelsinid category. |
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 16:53:42 GMT -5
Well, you confuse variation by chance with selective pressures and specialisation, thats not the same. How does the fact that those two are different concepts prove your point about 5 different Japanese races? If anyone is confused, as always, it's you. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 17:01:39 GMT -5
Well, you confuse variation by chance with selective pressures and specialisation, thats not the same. How does the fact that those two are different concepts prove your point about 5 different Japanese races? If anyone is confused, as always, it's you. First of all, there are no "5 Japanese races", there is only one really Japanese type, and thats the aboriginal Ainuid one. All others came from different directions and their existence in Japan is not just proven by looking at the Japanese variation, which might be indeed quite often social, regional (re-) selection and individual recombination. But if looking at the wider region, you see that a) you find Sinid and Tungid and in SEA Palaemongolid. I will post examples when I'm at home again and the differences are obvious and the relations to the respective source populations as well. You see those Tungo-Sinids coming over Korea and Palaemongolids from the South - and the aboriginal Ainuid group should be clear. A Nordsinid Japanese is by type and racial specialisation closer to a Nordsinid Chinese from the Hwangho area than to a respective Tungid Japanes (or Chinese)... You doubt that? Put them into the the cold steppes in which the Tungids evolved and again the racial specialisation of Tungid will have better chances (if there are no individual defects) than that of a Sinid which is already made for a different environment... |
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 17:15:00 GMT -5
But if looking at the wider region, you see that a) you find Sinid and Tungid and in SEA Palaemongolid. 1. And you can tell this by nasal index and cephalic index seeing how long a face is? I will post examples when I'm at home again and the differences are obvious and the relations to the respective source populations as well. Again, you are mistaking a physical type for a race. There is no "palaemongolid" physical type. It's all very variable. Did they forget to bring all but one physical type? Ok, let's go to the source of these "races". In China, for example, you have short people and tall people. Narrower faces and wider faces. That's normal for a large population. Some with higher noses and some with lower ones. By your standard, a person with a combination of a narrow, long face with a relatively narrow, high nose.. a combination which might be just random shuffling of traits... is a race. It's dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 17:42:12 GMT -5
No, but they can complete the picture so to say. For differences inside the Mongolid spectrum CI is of low importance, but most important for distinguishing Nordsinids from the rest and of the Mongolid core (without mixed forms) and from Tungids in particular. If you read the description of Negrid types you would see that this was included in the term, its about types with a weaker Mongolid features usually, many regional specialisations and admixture - but still pred. Mongolid characteristics. The typical Palaemongolid form of Japan is more specific, I will post a picture and say more about it when I'm at home. Inside the Japanese population you can clearly distinguish the somewhat darker, more gracile build and short Palaemongolid type from Sinid, Tungid and Ainuid. Thats not dumb, thats evolution. A specialisation was selected, you should know that. If you see the combination of this traits more often and at least for a certain time regionally more often, you have a racial category. If its random, you should expect seeing only some individuals, but if you see the combination of traits very often and even in a region more often - well, there are not too much chances you know and such variation is almost always the result of mixture of formerly distinct groups - you can see that everywhere in the world. From an older posting: Its about showing evolutionary tendencies which were or are real in a region - just because people live in the same area, doesnt have to mean they really belong to each other, especially if its about the source and evolutionary tendency. F.e. we can look at regions were as farmers live that, as herders this group, low countries this, high that and so on, but they are in the same region, to simply lump them together is oftentimes totally useless because they came from different directions, live in different socioeconomic and cultural, therefore selective regimes. Now in modern states such distinctions are often eliminated by new structures, so especially in the cities and larger agglomerations in general totally different types can meet each other, if they were not brought together by mobility (both spacial and social), settling strategies etc. But I agree with you that both should be done and I explained how typologies should be made or on what they should base on: They should use genetic results to explain the make up and physical anthropology to describe racial types. The types, or if you so want feature combinations should include soft parts and bones, head-skull and body features. So at least including pigmentation, hair and skin characteristics, morphological characteristics of the soft parts on the living, height and proportions, bone and cranial features, indices and special characteristics. After this features have been sampled they should be group regionally and for regions it should be looked if there are correlations (f.e. lower CI, higher HLI) inside a population. If you find the same correlations over a wide area, even if the populations are all mixed, you have found types, racial specialisations. If we look back into prehistory we should find for regional-population specialisations ancient remains for that development, if its just a social specialisation inside a population its more difficult, but usually extreme social specialisations without any other racial base dont occur too often... To put it simple, higher positive regional and individual feature combinations determine a racial type - f.e. in Sweden is a positive correlation between a narrow face, nose and longer skull, but a negative if looking at brachycephals - broader face and nose. This can be expanded until you have the basic racial types of Europe. As long as you dont show me such studies or at least studies which speak against the assumed typology its of secondary importance for a racial typology. So to me, races are just evolutionary tendencies, specialisations, populations, groups, which went through selective filters, they can be, and usually are, genetically related, both because of common source populations and intermixture, but they must not be more related to each other as individuals than to another, closely related but racially differently specialised group. Thats true and not true because it depends on the context you use to calibrate them. F.e. comparing Northern Europe with aequatorial regions, pigmentation is of great importance. But inside a spectrum of a given climatic region with all being more or less adapted to the weather conditions, other things are of much greater importance. Since races are just evolutionary tendencies, adaptations, those features of general importance for a given context and for distinguishing different tendencies should be emphasized. So far genetics are often almost useless if its about racial specialisations, since the autosomal dna and related features of the phenotype are not fully understood and analysed so far. forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41532 |
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 17:51:49 GMT -5
No, but they can complete the picture so to say. For differences inside the Mongolid spectrum CI is of low importance, but most important for distinguishing Nordsinids from the rest and of the Mongolid core (without mixed forms) and from Tungids in particular. Do you know how circular this all is? On the one hand you admit to natural variation within a population, meaning that someone will have a longer head and another have a shorter one. Then you go on to say that those with longer heads are "Nordsinids". It's cicurlar. This is what you waste your time on day after day, year after year. The Ainu were dark, short , and had many of the facial features characteristic of "Australoid" groups. You can even see in pictures how they have a variety of looks. The Yayoi and Jomon meeting produced a variety of looks. It doesn't mean one belongs to a "paleamongolid" and another to Jakunin. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 31, 2006 17:56:47 GMT -5
Nah, it means those of a certain region with a longer skull are Nordsinids, whereas there are other regions in which the Sinids meet other long headed types (f.e. Ainuied) in which this feature is of lower importance.
|
|
|
|
Post by human2 on Jan 31, 2006 18:06:37 GMT -5
Nah, it means those of a certain region with a longer skull are Nordsinids Do you realize how circular and dense this is? It's like saying in an isolated tribe somewhere of 500, those with a longer head than the rest are a different race. Unless there is actually some type of evidence other than varied measurements, (which you have never provided), it's nonsense and speculation. In fact, it goes against legitimate studies so it's just all bullshyt that you never seem to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Feb 1, 2006 8:55:38 GMT -5
First of all its not about a single trait but correlated feature combinations and we see in ancient populations a clear dominance of this or that form, we discussed that already and the selective advantages, different kinds of adaptation are also quite clear.
With the CI+FI+HLI alone you get the Tungid-Sinid distinction and you can prove that on various populations.
|
|
