posted 05 October 2005 04:34 PM            

quote:

---

I was born and raised in Egypt, so please don't tell me about my country as though you know it more than I.

Also, some members of my family are Upper Egyptian and they do not look like Black Africans at all. <http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/smile.gif>

---

Which part of Upper Egypt?

posted 05 October 2005 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Therefore, he must be a CAUCASOID NORTH AFRICAN, as King Tut was recently, forensically and scientifically shown.

---

Only the Frenh team made the statement. Through personal communication with Dr. Susan Anton she said that the Tut-ankh-amun crania had other features people would commonly associate with negriods such as avelour prognathism. She was not inclined to classify it as caucasoid.

posted 05 October 2005 04:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]AFRO-C, you're still having problems understanding Africa and its people.

There are BLACK AFRICANS, but NOT ALL AFRICANS ARE BLACK.

The Tuareg are a case-in-point of NON-BLACK AFRICANS.

I know it is a little hard for you to believe, but most Africans don't follow your American Black Afrocentric Ideas.

[/B]

---

OK, since I'm so dumb and you seem to know how all africans think of themselves, why don't you educate me.

what is a "black" african?

how dark do you have to be to be a black african?

you say black like it is some sort of dialect knowing fully well what the devisive implications of "blackness" are; yet you throw the meaningless word around to stir up debate (I am guilty for responding to it - yes) as though it means anything at all.

you call yourself an african, yet you routinely use black and non-black to qualify your beilief in race. I don't deny being caught up in a personal struggle with race, conceptually......... YOU ......seem to be in denial about how much it means to you

IS there a minimum amount of "black african" in your lineage that you must have before you would be considered "black african"?

or is the term "black african" so stigmatized that word association (in english no less - language of the opressor)causes a, pavlovian, involuntary response in your pshche............

you suffer greatly from a condition called ......

INTELLECTUAL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

posted 05 October 2005 04:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]
I was born and raised in Egypt, so please don't tell me about my country as though you know it more than I.

Also, some members of my family are Upper Egyptian and they do not look like Black Africans at all.

[This message has been edited by Giza-Rider (edited 05 October 2005).][/B]

---

Okay, you were born in Egypt. What are your family roots? Has your family always lived in Egypt or did they come from the “Middle East”? Did you grow up in Egypt?

posted 05 October 2005 05:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Don't you think you should speak to a few Tuareg people before you assume what they think of themselves. BTW, so that you know the word tuareg comes from an Arab word called Targui[ones without faith]. Most Tuareg people call themselves collectivly Kel Tamelsheq[people of the veil]. They divide themselves into different Kels.

---

I guess its necessary to repeat basic information just to prevent the ignorance of Giza and Leba from spreading.

But frankly Ausar vs. Leba/Giza is like Diop vs. Beavis and Butt-head.

posted 05 October 2005 05:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdogg:
Okay, you were born in Egypt. What are your family roots? Has your family always lived in Egypt or did they come from the “Middle East”? Did you grow up in Egypt?

---

posted 05 October 2005 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But frankly Ausar vs. Leba/Giza is like Diop vs. Beavis and Butt-head....

---

What the hell? I didn't argue with Ausar.

posted 05 October 2005 05:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
Very few people in Egypt know what their family roots are, myself included. Simply, we are regular Egyptians from Cairo and Upper Egypt. I have heard rumors of one turkish great great grandparent, but that does not mean we are Turkish. Many Egyptians have Turkish Blood. Yes, I grew up in Egypt, but now I live in America.

---

Is CAIRO AN EGYPTIAN CITY....or just adjacent to one?

INTELLECTUAL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

posted 05 October 2005 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFROCENTRIST32:

Is CAIRO AN EGYPTIAN CITY....or just adjacent to one?

---

posted 05 October 2005 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
it is an egyptian city, but populated with egyptians heavily mixed with foreigners.

---

posted 05 October 2005 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
it is an egyptian city, but populated with egyptians heavily mixed with foreigners.

---

posted 05 October 2005 05:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AFROCENTRIST32:

Is CAIRO AN EGYPTIAN CITY....or just adjacent to one?

INTELLECTUAL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

[This message has been edited by AFROCENTRIST32 (edited 05 October 2005).]

---

posted 05 October 2005 06:11 PM            

quote:

---

Very few people in Egypt know what their family roots are, myself included. Simply, we are regular Egyptians from Cairo and Upper Egypt.

---

Are you sure about this? I know many Sa3eedi and Fellahin Egyptians that know exactly from what village they came from. Infact many people have sur-names unless they are fellahin. Many still visit their grandmothers and grandfathers in rural villages.

In Upper Egypt the Ashraf tribe has papers that authenicate their origins.

There were not many Upper Egyptians in Cairo untill about 1950's or 60's. Infact, not many Egyptians Muslim or Christian lived in Cairo. If they did it was usually the more the rich individuals. Most Cairenes are from rural villages either from the Delta or parts of Middle Egypt.

quote:

---

I have heard rumors of one turkish great great grandparent, but that does not mean we are Turkish. Many Egyptians have Turkish Blood. Yes, I grew up in Egypt, but now I live in America.

---

This is true. Many Egyptian Christians have Greek and Armenian ancestry as well. An Egyptian from the Delta told me that his family had Moroccan,and Armenian admixture.

posted 05 October 2005 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]AFRO-C, it seems that you have not read too much about Africa, Egypt, or Cairo.

I can recommend a few good books, but I hope that you don't reject them just because most of them are written by "White Authors & Historians".

[/B]

---

NO THANKS THEN - by the way I was being facetious

speaking of funny........I find it hillarious that you talk so much smack about being a native "real" egyptian......"real" african and all and as it turns out you are Turkish......and you live in the US. I'll bet a million dollars you are labeled as white on your drivers license

[This message has been edited by AFROCENTRIST32 (edited 05 October 2005).]

posted 05 October 2005 06:44 PM            

quote:

---

the reason I asked was becaus I had read that it was founded by Arabs; non Egyptian Arabs.
DOES IT or doesn't it sit adjacent to Memphis?

---

The city founded by Arabs was a city called al-Fustat. This city was just a rudimentary military camp for various nomadic Arab tribes that expanded into a large city.

However, it did have a large indigenous Egyptian population that lived there. Many areas of al-Fustat still spoke Coptic and had traditional customs.

During the Fatimid caliph it was then relocated to the curren position it is today and called al-Qahria. It was built by a Sicilian-Armenian architect.

quote:

---

it is an egyptian city, but populated with egyptians heavily mixed with foreigners

---

Most people that live in modern day Cairo come from rural villages. So in Cairo today you have an amalganation of Fellahin[Lower Egyptian villagers],Sai'idi[Upper Egyptians],and Cairene people[meaning people that already lived there before the 50's or 60's when rural villagers began to move in Cairo] Some are a mixture of either two or all three of the following.

In the more upscale areas like Dokki and Zamalek you have lots of foreign expatriots from areas like Lebanon ,etc.

I will agree that Lower Egyptians have lots of Western Asian,Greek,Turkish,and Armenian admixture. More so than people in Upper Egypt.

quote:

---

AFRO-C, it seems that you have not read too much about Africa, Egypt, or Cairo.

I can recommend a few good books, but I hope that you don't reject them just because most of them are written by "White Authors & Historians".

---

Even better recommendation is a book written by a Palestinean anthropologist:

J.L. Abu Lughod Cairo: 1000 Years of the City Victorious

posted 06 October 2005 05:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]You have no idea whatsoever about these pictures, so don't try to pretend that these people are REGULAR UPPER EGYPTIANS, because it is highly unlikley.

---

I agree with you. Yesterday, I met one Masri and thought that he is probably from delta, since he was very light-skinned, practically white and he was from Sohag!

3ala el 3omoom, ma3raft el Masreyeen kenz

posted 06 October 2005 06:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
This is very true... Somalis have more loosely curled/wavy hair then for example very mixed habesha Eritreans don't know why...

[This message has been edited by leba (edited 05 October 2005).]

---

posted 06 October 2005 06:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

The different hair textures in Africa are likely due to a combination of foreign admixture and climate.

---

That's what it is, and we shouldn't forget that applies to all Africans who were in close contact with non Africans whether in South Africa (Xhosa,Zulus) West Africa (Tuaregs) or the Horn of Africa (Somalis or Ethiopians).
Relaxx

posted 06 October 2005 06:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

The different hair textures in Africa are likely due to a combination of foreign admixture and climate.

---

That's what it is, and we shouldn't forget that applies to all Africans who were in close contact with non Africans whether in South Africa (Xhosa,Zulus) West Africa (Tuaregs) or the Horn of Africa (Somalis or Ethiopians).
Relaxx

posted 06 October 2005 06:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:

DNA study, Prove?

---

Here are two DNA studies done on Modern Egyptians that confirm the foreign diversity of the region.

From Wikipedia's article on Ancient Egyptian people:

"A recent genetic study links the maternal lineage of a traditional population from Upper Egypt to Eastern Africa. A separate study further narrows the genetic lineage to Northeast Africa; reveals also that modern day Egyptians "reflect a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African"

1. Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.

posted 06 October 2005 06:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the reason I asked was becaus I had read that it was founded by Arabs; non Egyptian Arabs.
DOES IT or doesn't it sit adjacent to Memphis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city founded by Arabs was a city called al-Fustat. This city was just a rudimentary military camp for various nomadic Arab tribes that expanded into a large city.

However, it did have a large indigenous Egyptian population that lived there. Many areas of al-Fustat still spoke Coptic and had traditional customs.

During the Fatimid caliph it was then relocated to the curren position it is today and called al-Qahria. It was built by a Sicilian-Armenian architect.

---

SO IS THAT A YES OR NO.

Or does what I typed not accurately represent the truth.....

posted 06 October 2005 06:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
It's obvious, because Somalis are less mixed with Yemenis than Tigre who mixed heavily with Arabs in ancient time, and the president of Somalia has probably more ancient Arab ancestry (only a DNA test can prove it) than the average Somali, because his hair texture is not very common among Somalis.
Relaxx

---

Abdulahi Yusuf doesn't look Arab at all not even close.. And his hair is nothing like Arab hair which is very thick and the hairline almost starts near the eyebrowes he is 100% East African no arab at all.

posted 06 October 2005 08:28 AM            

quote:

---

I agree with you. Yesterday, I met one Masri and thought that he is probably from delta, since he was very light-skinned, practically white and he was from Sohag!

3ala el 3omoom, ma3raft el Masreyeen kenz <http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/smile.gif

---

Was he Muslim or Christian?

posted 06 October 2005 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
That's what it is, and we shouldn't forget that applies to all Africans who were in close contact with non Africans whether in South Africa (Xhosa,Zulus) West Africa (Tuaregs) or the Horn of Africa (Somalis or Ethiopians).
Relaxx

---

Different hair textures exist all around the world, and likely always have in Africa.

At present there is no way of gauging ancestry from hair texture.

One of the biggest myths of [folk-wisdom] on hair in Africa, is that the Afro texture which is most common is somehow -> pure.

This is nonsense.

"Afro" textured hair is intermediate between peppercorn hair found among some Khoisan, and curly hair found among some Saharans and Horn Africans.

These textures exist among the earliest non Africans, which suggests they are native to Africa - Andamans with Afros, Melanesians with curly hair, Australians with wavy hair and so on.

Thats why hair texture among the earliest Africans is something of a guess for physical anthropologists:

, there is no evidence that Africans ever had only 1 hair texture, and if they did, it would be hard to explain the subsequent non African diversity, and should be possible to prove, genetically.

We have more and better information infering ancestry from the genetics of skin color than we do from hair texture.

posted 06 October 2005 11:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Different hair textures exist all around the world, and likely always have in Africa.

At present there is no way of gauging ancestry from hair texture.

One of the biggest myths of [folk-wisdom] on hair in Africa, is that the Afro texture which is most common is somehow -> pure.

This is nonsense.

"Afro" textured hair is intermediate between peppercorn hair found among some Khoisan, and curly hair found among some Saharans and Horn Africans.

These textures exist among the earliest non Africans, which suggests they are native to Africa - Andamans with Afros, Melanesians with curly hair, Australians with wavy hair and so on.

Thats why hair texture among the earliest Africans is something of a guess for physical anthropologists:

, there is no evidence that Africans ever had only 1 hair texture, and if they did, it would be hard to explain the subsequent non African diversity, and should be possible to prove, genetically.

We have more and better information infering ancestry from the [b]genetics of skin color than we do from hair texture.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).][/B]

---

I thought(I could be totally wrong-I don't claim to be a teacher / only student) that there was some similarity between the morphology of skulls traced to 10s of thousands of years and modern central africans........
if this is true (not saying whether it is or isn't - or if using morphology is reliable) wouldn't one think that whatever their hair type is.........is what ancient africans' hair type most likely was

posted 06 October 2005 12:35 PM            

There is no way to determine hair texture from skeletal remains.

We do know that early non-AFricans migrated from East Africa to Southern Asia, Melanesia and Australia 60-50 thousand years ago, before spreading into Northern Eurasia 45-40 thousand years ago, and into Europe 35-40 thousand years ago.

Skeletally early non Africans resembled modern tropical Africans, and of course modern Native Australians and Melanesians still do resemble Africans. Though these populations resemble one another skeletally and in skin color, their hair textures vary.

This implies that this was likely the case with early non-Africans.

Among different populations, different hair textures come to predominate due to genetic drift, and local natural or sexual selection, but the variability most likely was present from the start.

posted 06 October 2005 03:08 PM            

You may be right about hair in Africa because the hair of the primates in Africa--chimps and other assorted monkey types all have straight hair. The African mammals too--from zebras to camels. So the African curl is obviously a late human adaptation to some environmental pressure. But puzzled as to what that pressure could be. Heat? Don't know, because even camels built for the bright heat have straight hair.

posted 06 October 2005 04:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Different hair textures exist all around the world, and likely always have in Africa.

At present there is no way of gauging ancestry from hair texture.

One of the biggest myths of [folk-wisdom] on hair in Africa, is that the Afro texture which is most common is somehow -> pure.

This is nonsense.

"Afro" textured hair is intermediate between peppercorn hair found among some Khoisan, and curly hair found among some Saharans and Horn Africans.

These textures exist among the earliest non Africans, which suggests they are native to Africa - Andamans with Afros, Melanesians with curly hair, Australians with wavy hair and so on.

Thats why hair texture among the earliest Africans is something of a guess for physical anthropologists:

, there is no evidence that Africans ever had only 1 hair texture, and if they did, it would be hard to explain the subsequent non African diversity, and should be possible to prove, genetically.

We have more and better information infering ancestry from the [b]genetics of skin color than we do from hair texture.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).][/B]

---

I agree with all of the above, even in Ivory Coast, there are some tribes with curly hair, which is another indication that hair type varies among indigeneous Africans, however the following statement is quite plausible as well:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

The different hair textures in Africa are likely due to a combination of foreign admixture and climate.

posted 06 October 2005 06:19 PM            

quote:

---

I agree with all of the above, even in Ivory Coast, there are some tribes with curly hair, which is another indication that hair type varies among indigeneous Africans, however the following statement is quite plausible as well:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

The different hair textures in Africa are likely due to a combination of foreign admixture and climate.

---

I disagree with that statement because it is purposefully misleading.

It implies that hair texture variation in Africa is due to foreign influence, whereas presumably elsewhere it is, somehow...not.

There is simply no proof of this, nor is it plausible given variations among early out of Africa peoples.

And since every physical feature that exists, among every people in the world can be attributed to adaptation and intermixtures of overlapping lineages, there is nothing unique about hair/in/africa vs. say...variable height in India, or variation in eye color in Europe.

You seem intent on implying that hair texture exists uniquely in some sort of pure vs. mixed state, in Africa.

If so, what would that 'pure state' of hair be?

What population possess said 'pure texture of hair'?

This kind of typological thinking is outdated and one of the major sources of distortion of African anthropological history.

posted 06 October 2005 06:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I disagree with that statement because it is purposefully [b]misleading.

It implies that hair texture variation in Africa is due to foreign influence, whereas presumably elsewhere it is, somehow...not.

There is simply no proof of this, nor is it plausible given variations among early out of Africa peoples.

And since every physical feature that exists, among every people in the world can be attributed to adaptation and intermixtures of overlapping lineages, there is nothing unique about hair/in/africa vs. say...variable height in India, or variation in eye color in Europe.

You seem intent on implying that hair texture exists uniquely in some sort of pure vs. mixed state, in Africa.

If so, what would that 'pure state' of hair be?

What population possess said 'pure texture of hair'?

This kind of typological thinking is outdated and one of the major sources of distortion of African anthropological history.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).][/B]

---

posted 06 October 2005 06:41 PM            

In my own family for example are many different types of hair texture. I have more wavy-curly hair as does my father and my mother's side has more tightly coiled hair, my father's side is due to the non-Black mixing in our family. That is not to say that African-Americans represent all African variation because of the explanations of their variation just that it is posssible. I left in TWO plausible explanations for the variation in African hair.

It is plausible that East Africans always had groups with straight hair and that recent Arab admixture made them on average even straighter.

That doesn't mean I believe for instance that light colored eyes are exclusive to Northern Europeans as many Nordicists contend. They usually use evidence that a group is:

1. Anthropologically Caucasian

2. Has Blue Green or Hazel eyes

to say that the population at its base must have been Nordic, ruling out the possibility that those populations could have evolved those traits on their own.

Is African hair variation due to enviromental adaptation? Maybe.

Perhaps some populations always had straight hair and it is not an adaptation.

Perhaps some of it was foriegn admixture. I don't pretend to know the answer.

posted 06 October 2005 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

Do you have any studies on the subject that could help us analyze this question?

---

posted 06 October 2005 06:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
The Tuareg are not Black Africans. As a matter of fact, they used to enslave many Black West Africans.

[b]

Before the French colonisation, Tuaregs used to enslave West Africans, either to sell them or to use them for domestic purposes; those who were not sold were usually assimilated into the Tuareg community.

When the French abolished slavery in its colonies, it affected Tuaregs' way of life and many had to abandon their nomadic life for an urban one.

[/B]

---

No Sir, Tuaregs are black people who live all the way from Nigeria and Niger repulics in the west Africa all the way to Morrocco. There are variations in skin colour, yes, but there are definitely blac ones too. In Niger and Nigeria they are called Bouzou people.

Tuaregs were never known as slavers traditionally. They were more like desert ruslers, stealing from whoever whatever.

West Africans were never enslaved by Tuaregs. It is only a twisted racist mind that will make such a hollow and false sentence. A mind wholly without education or information.

Because Tuaregs are an integral people of West Africa. And they never nor do they presently see themselves as other than one of the numerous inter-connected nations of West Africa.

So here Mr. Giza Rider please stop spreading lies here. And cease to slander west Africans. Because I sure can tell you one or two things about your origins. Shame on you.

posted 06 October 2005 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
Very few people in Egypt know what their family roots are, myself included. Simply, we are regular Egyptians from Cairo and Upper Egypt. I have heard rumors of one turkish great great grandparent, but that does not mean we are Turkish. Many Egyptians have Turkish Blood. Yes, I grew up in Egypt, but now I live in America.

---

Another mongrel from the dumps trying to hate on Africans.

That all. Just another mongrel puffing hot air, seeking to steal my heritage othrwise to tarnish it.

Another thief, another ungrateful refugee; another fleeing hungry one, red eyeing the true African Eygptian, after feeding fat from the soil of mother Africa.

Another ingrate, another beggard, another rootless canine.

O just another pathetic mongrel!

posted 06 October 2005 07:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lion!:
No Sir, Tuaregs are black people who live all the way from Nigeria and Niger repulics in the west Africa all the way to Morrocco. There are variations in skin colour, yes, but there are definitely blac ones too. In Niger and Nigeria they are called Bouzou people.

Tuaregs were never known as slavers traditionally. They were more like desert ruslers, stealing from whoever whatever.

West Africans were never enslaved by Tuaregs. It is only a twisted racist mind that will make such a hollow and false sentence. A mind wholly without education or information.

Because Tuaregs are an integral people of West Africa. And they always see themselves as nothing than one of the numerous inter-connected nations of West Africa.

So here Mr. Giza Rider please stop spreading racist lies here. And cease to slander West Africans. Because I sure can tell you one or two things about your origins. Shame on you.

[This message has been edited by Lion! (edited 06 October 2005).]

---

posted 06 October 2005 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
I'm not sure who that is directed at Rasol but as for my opinion, saying that African hair variation is likely due to BOTH climate (adaptation) and foreign admixture (population intermixing) does not imply that African diversity is the exception to the "rule" that all human variation is due to adaptation.

---

That is not a rule of biology. Human biology encompases both adaptation and overlapping lineages which are the rule everywhere, not just in Africa.

The manner in which you are dealing with variation in Africa is however an example of exceptionalism.

Africa is where humanity was borne.

Africa is the birthplace of the majority of human variation - hair texture included.

Africa is home to the majority of human genetic variation.

And yet, some of us continue to think of Africa in the way in which colonialist Europeans have brainwashed us:

In terms of what is brought into Africa by others.

This is simply illogical.

quote:

---

It is plausible that East Africans always had groups with straight hair and that recent Arab admixture made them on average even straighter.

---

More enslaved thinking from an African - or a non African with an African name sake.

Either way - very disappointing.

Arab hair texture also varies, Arabs have African and West Asian lineages. Why make Arabs some sort of basis from which to guage African hair?

In your mindset: Arab hair is pure - East African hair reflects mixture.

That's just messed up.

quote:

---

1. Anthropologically Caucasian

---

Please define 'anthropologically' caucasian.

quote:

---

2. Has Blue Green or Hazel eyes
to say that the population at its base must have been Nordic, ruling out the possibility that those populations could have evolved those traits on their own.

---

That is exactly the mindset you bring to hair texture in Africa.

Your approach is very hypocritical and Eurocentric.

posted 06 October 2005 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Do you have any studies on the subject that could help us analyze this question?

---

quote:

---

No Mansa, I think Rasol is more resourceful than most of us...let's see what scientific study he might be familiar with.- Relaxx

---

As I said:

quote:

---

One of the biggest myths of [folk-wisdom] on hair in Africa, is that the Afro texture which is most common is somehow -> pure.

This is nonsense.

"Afro" textured hair is intermediate between peppercorn hair found among some Khoisan, and curly hair found among some Saharans and Horn Africans.

These textures exist among the earliest non Africans, which suggests they are native to Africa - Andamans with Afros, Melanesians with curly hair, Australians with wavy hair and so on.

Thats why hair texture among the earliest Africans is something of a guess for physical anthropologists:

, there is no evidence that Africans ever had only 1 hair texture, and if they did, it would be hard to explain the subsequent non African diversity, and should be possible to prove, genetically.

We have more and better information infering ancestry from the genetics of skin color than we do from hair texture.

---

Study the anthropological history of early non Africans and their closest living relatives, and you will understand why physical anthropologists do not assign to africa a single hair texture -> African hair texture has always varied, most hair textures are thus *native to Africa*.

posted 06 October 2005 07:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Study the anthropological history of early non Africans and their closest living relatives, and you will understand why physical anthropologists do not assign to africa a single hair texture -> African hair texture has always varied, most hair textures are thus *native to Africa*.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).]

---

Rasol,
As you admitted earlier, there is no real scientific study that tackles accurately that subject, the information you provided is overall correct. Indeed, the hair type observed in Southern India or Australia is quite divergent from even the curliest hair type in Africa. There is a correlation between very long hair and body hair. Indeed it seems that early humans lost their hair for the following reasons:Humans may have lost their body hair to reduce their vulnerability to fur-loving parasites and therefore attract the opposite sex, a new evolutionary theory proposes. However the more you move in cooler area of the world the less parasites you will encounter. It might be one of the reasons many non Africans has more body hair and longer hair than Africans because they adapted to cooler conditions and didn't need to get rid of parasites that are always less numerous in colder environments. Even in Africa, people who live in higher altitude are much less exposed to malaria. We have to be careful when we want to emphasize hair diversity in Africa, certain climatic conditions that favor heavy body hair are not present in Africa. It's possible that Australian, Southern Indian and other early humans were less exposed to parasites than Africans, which is one of the reasons they have much longer hair.
Relaxx

posted 06 October 2005 07:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That is exactly the mindset you bring to hair texture in Africa.

You approach is very hypocritical and Eurocentric.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 October 2005).]

---

Rasol, you are being waaaaaay too critical in your tone of speech. This is destructive critism you gain nothing from attacking me with accusations of "hypocrisy", and "Eurocentric slave mentality".

I am well aware that there is variation in Arab hair types and even even stated as much that it is possible given that Africans are the parent group that differnet hair types orginated in Africa with no admixture.

You seem to be of the mind set that because I give credence to the idea that some variation in modern humans comes from foreign admixture that I am saying that it must be so and I clearly did not.

I am not an anthropologist and I don't pretend to be. I was born and raised in a Western society so I will be ignorant naturally of some things. You call it a "slave mentality" I am a descendant of slaves, atleast that is the history of my people here on the United States.

posted 06 October 2005 07:54 PM            

quote:

---

There is a correlation between very long hair and body hair. Indeed it seems that early humans lost their hair for the following reasons:[url]Humans may have lost their body hair to reduce their vulnerability to fur-loving parasites and therefore attract the opposite sex, a new evolutionary theory proposes[/url]. However the more you move in cooler area of the world the less parasites you will encounter. It might be one of the reasons many non Africans has more body hair and longer hair than Africans because they adapted to cooler conditions and didn't need to get rid of parasites that are always less numerous in colder environments.

---

Simplistic: North East Asians are the best adapted skeletally to cold weather and have less body hair on average than Africans.

quote:

---

We have to be careful when we want to emphasize hair diversity in Africa, certain climatic conditions that favor heavy body hair are not present in Africa.

---

Simplistic as well, as some Broad faced West Africans and diminuative central Africans have relatively heavy body hair, and some elongated East Africans have curly head-hair but sparse body hair.

San have lighter skin color due to adaptation to South Africa's sub-tropical climate, but they have the curliest hair of all and relatively little body hair.

quote:

---

It's possible that Australian, Southern Indian and other early humans were less exposed to parasites than Africans, which is one of the reasons they have much longer hair.

---

posted 06 October 2005 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Rasol, you are being waaaaaay too critical in your tone of speech. This is destructive critism you gain nothing from attacking me with accusations of "hypocrisy", and "Eurocentric slave mentality".

I am well aware that there is variation in Arab hair types and even even stated as much that it is possible given that Africans are the parent group that differnet hair types orginated in Africa with no admixture.

You seem to be of the mind set that because I give credence to the idea that some variation in modern humans comes from foreign admixture that I am saying that it must be so and I clearly did not.

I am not an anthropologist and I don't pretend to be. I was born and raised in a Western society so I will be ignorant naturally of some things. You call it a "slave mentality" I am a descendant of slaves, atleast that is the history of my people here on the United States.

So rather than critisize you might want to practice enlightening, if something like what I am saying diappoints you, you are going to be very VERY disappointed by the mindset of many African-Americans.

---

posted 06 October 2005 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That's possible in some cases, but they don't *all* have longer hair, and malaria is common in Southern Asia.

---

However a clear observation is that the longest hair are found outside Africa and might have evolved outside Africa (like those found among Australians).
Relaxx

posted 06 October 2005 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That's possible in some cases, but they don't *all* have longer hair, and malaria is common in Southern Asia.

---

posted 06 October 2005 08:25 PM            

quote:

---

Many West African and Central African have more body hair than Elongated Eastern Africans but it's not comparable to many non Africans

---

posted 06 October 2005 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Again, some non-Africans have less hair than most Africans. Your generalisations simply aren't accurate, and that leads you directly into illogical speculations.

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simplistic: North East Asians are the best adapted skeletally to cold weather and have less body hair on average than Africans.

-----Rasol
An Ainu from North Eastern Asia

Relaxx

posted 06 October 2005 08:29 PM            

After all there is more of continuity between the hair of a chimp or Gorilla and some curly haired Arab or Greek than between those primates and the yellow skinned San.

With Euro in mind and LOL--I guess so-called "archaic" or as Euro himself would say "primitive" traits can cut both ways.

posted 06 October 2005 08:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
Now here's a twist for you. Since the hair of primates such as chimps and gorillas is quite straight, can we say that in humans the "purest" kind of hair is straight hair and that the curly hair forms found in places like Arabia, New Guinea, Fiji, North Africa, etc. are less mutated(some would say "mixed") than the type found among the San and the Twa(so-called Pygmy types).

---

Chimpanzee's who are our closest relatives also have pink skin underneath their hair.