Do you believe Dienekes to be racist?

[Agrippa]

Now how many proto-Europids types are there, I'm curious. They are everywhere and every type..

With "Proto-Europoid" I referred to Cromagnoid:
forum.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43269

The Iberomaurusiens were mostly Cromagnoid (Mechtoid), Ferembach even saw similarities to Oberkassel. They mostly survived in the mountainous areas where I assume they became partly Alpinised, what lead to those typically light Alpinoid variants which were classified by the French as just being "Alpine".
In the Neolithics more gracile Mediterranids appear, so we basically have all ingredients we need for what I said above, not mentioned Negroid admixture so far.

Egyptians have a Berberid, Mediterranid base more or less, but various admixtures, mainly Negrid and Aethiopid coming from the South and Orientalid (Arabid) and Armenoid from the East. The North-South gradient is obvious.

Modern Berberids are the closest relatives to this basic North African form.

Concerning Egypt I have whole plates, images, statistics etc. I didnt wanted to post it though, just posted some images in the thread on Skadi and same on Stirpes.

P.A.: Whats the earlist known Negrid (you know the definition hopefully) you accept?
Boskopids are no Negrids and even they didnt played a big role in Upper Egypt.

One of the earlist commonly as at least Negroid accepted skeleton was that of Asselar to me - you know where it was and when and that most of Africa became Negrid (narrower sense) mainly through the Bantu expansion.

If I have the time and nerve I might post more on Egypt from the works I have to prove the obvious.
You stated before ~"that images of ancient Egyptians show them being closer to Negroids than Europids", thats a joke. Again compare "Nubians" with obvious Negroid features with classic Egyptians...

I want to pin you first before we might go on, do you say that Lower Egypt was stronlgy influenced by Negrids in the predynastic and dynastic period? Just for having a base you know...

[Planet Asia]

If we look at all the artwork, convincingly we can see that AEs were closer to other Northeast Africans than to Eurasians. The same thing is reflected in physical anthropology.

[Planet Asia]

crimsonguard said:

This fool Bass, is a complete moron! Unsurprisingly he denies every conceivable piece of evidence from historical to genetic. Look at how he deliberately miss uses quotes of ancient authors and misconstrues them to the way of the typical braindead Afrocentrists that he is...

To show just how dumb you are, we all know an archaic blending of Negroids and Mediterranean Caucasoids 60,000 years ago produces a physical type like this

img10.imageshack.us/img10/4180/somalilandoid1nt.jpg


You're very bright, ****NOT****!!!

[Planet Asia]

Notice how Dienekes closed the Egyptian dental pattern thread after he failed to refute my points and instead relied on strawman arguments about sub-Saharan components, when no one said ancient Egyptians looked like Gabon, Dahomey, nor Haya. The point was whether they closely resembled other black Africans like Nubians and Somalis, not Medits, and i proved my point quite well with well cited sources and he closed the thread. LOL!

[Planet Asia]

"Brace is clear that there is no Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians and a hint of it in Somalis. CASE CLOSED."

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

[Dienekes]

bertrand said:

Notice how Dienekes closed the Egyptian dental pattern thread after he failed to refute my points and instead relied on strawman arguments about sub-Saharan components, when no one said ancient Egyptians looked like Gabon, Dahomey, nor Haya. The point was whether they closely resembled other black Africans like Nubians and Somalis, not Medits, and i proved my point quite well with well cited sources and he closed the thread. LOL!

That thread had stopped being about the Ancient Egyptian dental pattern a long time ago. Quite clearly you had nothing to say on the fact that Egyptians had simple mass-reduced Caucasoid teeth and not complex mass-additive Sub-Saharan teeth.

[Dienekes]

bertrand said:

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

"Black African" is not a valid biological category. Ethiopians are socially "Black" for example, but don't cluster with other "Black Africans".

"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a `Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. "

dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09/human-population-genetic-structure.html

[Dienekes]

bertrand said:

"Brace is clear that there is no Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians and a hint of it in Somalis. CASE CLOSED."

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

According to Brace, Northeast Africans are closer to Modern Europeans than to Niger-Congo speakers, hence the inclusion of both Niger-Congo speakers and Northeast African in a "black" cluster does not reflect the genetic structure.

[Planet Asia]

admin said:

bertrand said:

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

"Black African" is not a valid biological category. Ethiopians are socially "Black" for example, but don't cluster with other "Black Africans".

"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a `Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. "

dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/09/human-population-genetic-structure.html

We've been through the same crap about Wilson et al's study. I've emailed already and you can do the same and he said it was never his intention that Ethiopians are non-black.

[Planet Asia]

admin said:

bertrand said:

"Brace is clear that there is no Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians and a hint of it in Somalis. CASE CLOSED."

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

According to Brace, Northeast Africans are closer to Modern Europeans than to Niger-Congo speakers, hence the inclusion of both Niger-Congo speakers and Northeast African in a "black" cluster does not reflect the genetic structure.

Northeast Africans like Nubians and Somalis are black period and it is Modern Europeans who are closer to the former, not the other way around. You have no argument and no answers about why the Greeks are outliers in one of the plots. Jim wilson email response:

"I certainly did not intend to give anyone the impression that Ethipians
were 62% "Caucasian" or somehow 'not black'. The entire point of the
paper is to show that labels such as Caucasian and black do not reflect
the underlying genetics very well and it is the underlying genetic
structure that matters for things like drug response and disease
susceptibility."

I hope this clarifies things for you.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if I can be of further assistance.
All best wishes,
Jim

[Planet Asia]

admin said:

bertrand said:

"Brace is clear that there is no Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians and a hint of it in Somalis. CASE CLOSED."

it is clear that ancient Egyptians as represented by the Naqada series in Brace's study are closer to black Africans like Somalis and Nubians, than to Medits, cased closed!!! Unless you consider Somalis and Nubians to be some ambiguous race of people that are not bloack, you have no argument.

According to Brace, Northeast Africans are closer to Modern Europeans than to Niger-Congo speakers, hence the inclusion of both Niger-Congo speakers and Northeast African in a "black" cluster does not reflect the genetic structure.

According to Brace Naqada Bronze Age Egyptians are closest to Somalis and Nubians hence the inclusion of Naqadans in a Medit caucasoid cluster does not reflect genetics and anthropology.

While we are at it, the Neolithic Algerian samples is closer to Northeast Africans than to Modern and Prehistoric Medits hence the inclusion of Neolithic Algerians in a Medit caucasoid race does refelct anthropology.

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

admin said:

According to Brace, Northeast Africans are closer to Modern Europeans than to Niger-Congo speakers, hence the inclusion of both Niger-Congo speakers and Northeast African in a "black" cluster does not reflect the genetic structure.

Northeast Africans like Nubians and Somalis are black period and it is Modern Europeans who are closer to the former, not the other way around. You have no argument and no answers about why the Greeks are outliers in one of the plots. Jim wilson email response:

"I certainly did not intend to give anyone the impression that Ethipians
were 62% "Caucasian" or somehow 'not black'. The entire point of the
paper is to show that labels such as Caucasian and black do not reflect
the underlying genetics very well and it is the underlying genetic
structure that matters for things like drug response and disease
susceptibility."

I hope this clarifies things for you.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if I can be of further assistance.
All best wishes,
Jim

/


That's brilliant, Charlie: Can Chicago be closer to New York than New York is to Chicago, or is it the other way around? Please explain.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Northeast Africans like Nubians and Somalis are black period and it is Modern Europeans who are closer to the former, not the other way around. You have no argument and no answers about why the Greeks are outliers in one of the plots. Jim wilson email response:

"I certainly did not intend to give anyone the impression that Ethipians
were 62% "Caucasian" or somehow 'not black'. The entire point of the
paper is to show that labels such as Caucasian and black do not reflect
the underlying genetics very well and it is the underlying genetic
structure that matters for things like drug response and disease
susceptibility."

I hope this clarifies things for you.
Don't hesitate to get in touch if I can be of further assistance.
All best wishes,
Jim

/


That's brilliant, Charlie: Can Chicago be closer to New York than New York is to Chicago, or is it the other way around? Please explain.

Northeast Africans are the ancestral pool from whence all non-Africans descend from for one. For two, modern Europeans have lineages that are derived from northeast Africa[E3b1 for example]. But Northeast Africans have no lineages that come from modern Europeans, so you do the math.

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/


That's brilliant, Charlie: Can Chicago be closer to New York than New York is to Chicago, or is it the other way around? Please explain.

Northeast Africans are the ancestral pool from whence all non-Africans descend from for one. For two, modern Europeans have lineages that are derived from northeast Africa[E3b1 for example]. But Northeast Africans have no lineages that come from modern Europeans, so you do the math.

/

However you interpret it, the fact remains that one group cannot be "closer" to another group than the other group is to it, so the logic of your statement fails.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Northeast Africans are the ancestral pool from whence all non-Africans descend from for one. For two, modern Europeans have lineages that are derived from northeast Africa[E3b1 for example]. But Northeast Africans have no lineages that come from modern Europeans, so you do the math.

/

However you interpret it, the fact remains that one group cannot be "closer" to another group than the other group is to it, so the logic of your statement fails.

my logic fails? Nay, my logic is supported by genetics