posted 22 December 2004 12:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.

---

posted 22 December 2004 04:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.

---

According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?

posted 22 December 2004 07:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?

---

The true "Negro" theory makes no sense as we can infer from this:

The cultural, economical and political events which have been sketched above induced vast expansions and migrations, many of which were northward or southward, crossing the climatic and vegetation zones. These zones themselves shifted northward or souhward with time, the forest front advancing north during the climatic optimum in the Sahara, and retreating southward when the Sahara dried up. From what has been said about climatic adaptation in Chapter 6, it can be deduced that changes of climatic zone released selection afresh in the populations concerned. However, several tens of generations, or even a hundred, are needed to attain a new genetic equilibrium. Many populations of the Western Sudan have lived in their present environment for too short a time to have reached the equilibrium state of climatic adaptation. It is therefore all the more striking to see how clear is the statistical association between human morphology and vegetation zones in sub-Saharan Africa, even after excluding Elongated Africans, Pygmies and Pygmoids(see Table 6). From the Sahelian arid zone to the rain forest, stature gradually decreases, the nose and face becomes gradually broader in proportions, and the head becomes slightly rounder. As pointed out repeatedly, the factors of these morphological clines lay in the environment, not in gene flow from North Africa or Arabia.

Clear-cut though they are, these clines concern anthropometric averages in the various zones, and within each zone there is a wide variety of populations. Each has its own biological history, which responded to many interacting factors. At present it is impossible to reconstruct the puzzle in the Western Sudan and Guinea forest, because too few populations have been studied by anthropo-biologists in adequate detail. Only a few pieces of the puzzle will be discussed here.

Some have already been investigated in the preceding chapter where the case of the Ful was mentioned. Long after dessication of the Sahara has pushed the Ful southward in the Senegal, they had expanded eastward and southward. This brought some of their communities into a considerably moister habitat, where two forces thrust their gene pool toward adaptive equilibrium: climatic selection, and gene admixture with local populations who had lived in the new biotope for longer. In turn, the Ful, as a potential source of gene admixture, affected these local populations.

The People of Africa

Jean Hiernaux

pgs 156-157

posted 22 December 2004 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Gottcha, let me preface my comment by stating that I do not use the term. However, within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita. There is no precise or technical use for this term.

---

quote:

---

According to Keita, what are the African types? You say that NOT all "negroid" types are African, would you include some South East Asians or Australian aboriginals in this type?
Also what do you mean there is no technical use for the term? Is it just hypothetical?

---

According to Keita and several other more progressive bioanthropologists, there are broad, elongated, diminuative, Khosanoid and coastal type Africans. Keita characterises them all as Africoid, which means roughly that they have physical characteristics that are Native to Africa. Moreover, many if not most Africans have a combination of these features and may not neatly fit into any one catagory. I agree with this concept and this term and think it is more consistent with modern science. Caucasian anthropology is ultimately based on Aryanist mythology of the origins of man in Eurasia and the archtypical nature of the European template, to which the correct rebuttal at this point is simply: You wish!

Hutu are typically of broad African types, Tutsi are typically elongated, Twa are typically diminuative. All of the above are native to the single small country of Rwanda.

posted 22 December 2004 10:40 AM            

The purpose of this page is to provide a brief introduction to the anthropology used in determining the biological ("racial") affinities of the ancient Egyptians.
Special attention will be focused on the work of S.O.Y. Keita, who bridges the gap in many ways between the Afrocentric and Eurocentric camps. While Afrocentrists do not accept the biased interpretations of Eurocentric scholarship, and the Eurocentrists guard the gates against Afrocentrists, Keita is one of the few who have been accepted by both sides. The historian, Basil Davidson, is another. Even Bernal has been characterized as an "antiquarian" by most of the "establishment." Keita's reputation as a physical anthopologist and his balanced approach to the problem have earned him probably the most trusted place among anthropologists involved in the debate.

The Method of Study

Most research conducted on ancient Egyptian remains has been in the area of "metric" studies (Keita 1993). These studies measure mostly craniofacial features of skulls. These features would be realized in living persons by broad or narrow noses, full or thin lips (caused by projection of the jaw pass the plane of the nose), and other similar features.

Thus, for the most part, even modern studies attempt to establish pretty much the same thing as the older anthropological studies. The main difference is that instead of measuring by indices or angular measurements, a technique known as Mahalanobis is used which measures distances between population (D^2).

That is, it shows which groups "cluster" together due mostly to having similar facial and cranial traits. Other methods often used are the Penrose statistic and discriminant functions. Basically, these use more complex mathematics in statistics and differential equations. Usually, the older studies tended to be "morphological" in nature. They classified groups according to the well-known racial types such as Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc. More modern methods tend to relate people in "clusters and clines" based on their closeness in particular traits, as already mentioned. The racial terminologies are usually not used.

However, in studying the cluster and cline method, one outside the Eurocentric perspective cannot but see an attempt to resurrect older "racial" theories under a new guise. Indeed, such old racial notions as the "Great White race," "hyperdiffusion," "dark whites," etc., seem to appear again as ideas with different more discrete labels, and different methods of determination.

The theory of "demic diffusion" (Barbujani et al., 1994) tends to not only support the old Indo-European race concept, but to expand it to include peoples formerly thought of as Ural-Altaic, Dravidian, etc. All these peoples are given a Near Eastern "Caucasoid" origin, and some suggestions have that even the Western Hemisphere was populated by these caucasoid Nostratic peoples of "Turkish" descent.

However, despite new mathematical methods, the same fallacies apply to new classifications as the ones conjured up by the olderl establishment whose racist biases are undeniable. To some extent, newer methods based on non-metric and genetic studies have come to fore, but also showing the same types of bias.

Non-metric studies do not measure features by length, breadth, etc., but take into account less obvious traits in the anatomy. Genetic studies concern themselves with genetic markers, which are said to help distinguish between different "races." In most genetic studies, racial classifications such as Mongoloid, Negroid, etc., are still used to this day.

The Fallacies in the Methods

Without trying to prove the intent of bias in modern anthropology (at least in this article), the presence of bias and the problems and errors in modern methods will be pointed out instead. The most important problems related to include:

1. Greater variability assigned to "Caucasoid" types. This type may have complexions ranging from very fair to very dark, and wide ranges of all other characteristics, often apart from "admixture." However, it is often implied (if not directly suggested) that other types do not have such variability.

2. Related to the previous point is the "labeling" of characteristics. Thus, as an example, there is the implication that narrow noses are "Caucasoid."

3. The inconsistency of results and evidence. The unwarranted assignment of greater value to certain results and evidence while downplaying that which does not agreee.

4. Poor interpretation due to natural biases. This is directly related to the "good ole boys" network in which few non-Euroamerican perspectives are available. These leads to errors that are various obvious to those outside to those outside this group. These are particularly important in bringing linguistic, cultural, historical and other studies into line with the anthropological and archaeological data.

5. Poorly planned studies based on old erroneous methods.

These are some of the faults related to the studies themselves. There are other problems related to the problems of academic racism and fraud that will not be discussed here. A more detailed look into each of the above points will now be given:

1. In the most recent well-known anthropological work attacking Afrocentric positions on the "race" of the Egyptians, Brace et al. (1993) commit the decades old error of giving greater variabilty to those traditionally labeled "Caucasoids." While, Brace et al. attempt to avoid using such labels, their classification methods nonetheless show that they subscribe to the same idea (only under the guise of "clusters and clines"). In attempting to show that greater gene flow has occured between Somalis and Europeans, they assign undue importance to the traits like narrow noses and narrow faces, while discounting evidence such as dark complexion and "supra-Negroid" limb ratios (long, slender limbs). Thus, while suggesting that the dark skins of Egyptians may not be due to gene flow at all, but only to adaptation, they see narrow noses in Somalia as suggestive of gene flow with northwest Europe more subtantial than that with the geographically contiguous sub-Saharan Africa!:

"There is the very real possibility, for example,
that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the
people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing
of a population that come from somewhere else."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 20)

"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa
are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of
samples marginally including South Asia and running
all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe
than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)

That gene flow is suggested by the Brace et al., data is proven by the following quote:

"Our own battery of craniofacial measurements, however,
deals with traits that , for the most part, have little
demonstrable relationship to specific selective forces.
For this reason, their use are largely indicators
of the genetic relationship of the groups compared."
(Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)

However, Brace et al.'s "own battery" of tests is based mainly on measurements of the nose. According to the same article, nasal "elevation and elongation" is influenced by adaptation to the environment. In fact, there is little to suggest that any of the nasal measurements that make up the vast majority of the twenty-four variables used by Brace et al., are not influenced by selective forces. Since these make up the vast number of variables used, the distances, or relative similarity, shown in the Brace et al. graphs (dendograms) do not support their argument on genetic relationship.
Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. Eskimos, American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples is due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, 1991)

There also is no evidence supporting claims that skin complexion and limb ratios are any less genetically determined than nose structure. Probably, light-colored eyes and hair are among the rarest prominent external traits among the human species. They are found mostly in Europe, and aside from albinos, are hardly found at all outside of Europe, West Asia, the northwest part of India (generally not past Gujarat) and possibly a limited region in the northwestern Africa. In the latter two areas their occurrence is very rare, and even in most of West Asia it is uncommon. Even populations that have resided for long periods in cold climates like the Altaic peoples of Siberia, the northern Chinese, the Eskimos and Native peoples of Canada do not possess such traits. Thus, light hair (including light brown and red hair) and light eyes (blue, green, etc.) might be seen as very strong genetic traits, and their complete or near complete absence among a group as evidence of minimal genetic relationship. Given such genetic resistance to such adaptation, the genetic distance between a significantly large Europoid people who had, say, 25% light hair and eyes and that of a proportional group that, outside of albinism, had zero % of these traits would be enormous. However, from the Eurocentric perspective, the color of skin, eyes, hair, etc., is given little importance in anthropological studies. This is not justified, and it shows the different standards in judging shades when the situation is related to politics, society, etc., as compared to matters of anthropology, history and the like.

2. Related to the previous point, there was, and to a great extent, still is a practice of labeling traits according to race. Thus, the long, high narrow nose becomes "Caucasoid." Indeed, the importance of the nose in Western anthropology is so great that one might label it "nasal science." For in the division of the races, the nose has played a greater part than the skull altogether. The nasal nature of the Brace et al. study is reminiscent of an earlier work by Risley (1915), that sought to racially classify the castes of India according to nasal index. According to Risley's thinking, the higher castes would have been primarily of Caucasoid ancestry and thus would have longer noses. Later studies by Ghurye (1961) and Dutt et al.(1973), however, show Risley's studies were invalid. The glaring discrepancy of the data in the two Indian studies as compared with Risley, despite measuring the same populations, was also startling.

One might wonder whether the claim of Afrocentrists and others of vandalism by Europeans of Egyptian, Indian and other non-European sculpture by breaking off the non-Europoid noses is not connected in some way to this nasal 'fetish.' The nasal index was popularly used by diffusionists to prove "white" origins of civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, Mayan and Polynesian. For example, in order to "claim" the great sailing accomplishments of the early Austronesians, the idea of their previously being a branch of "dark whites" unmixed with "Malays," was, and to an extent still is widely offered. This dark white relationship was founded on such concepts as long, narrow noses being labeled "Caucasoid." Although most Indonesian, Micronesian, Melanesian and Polynesian populations are actually mesorhinne, i.e., they possess medium broad noses, there are substanial numbers of individuals with narrow noses. However, at the same time, most Oceanic populations have the trait known as the sacral, or "Mongolian" spot at rates of 100% or nearly so. In comparison, most European populations have rates much lower than 10%, and often lower than 2% (Montagu, 1960). Few if any theories have been offered showing that the sacral spot is due in any great part to selective processes, yet this highly suggestive evidence is ignored, and the nose is focused on instead. In other words, only evidence that supports the idea of Caucasoid cultural and racial superiority, or "white" hyperdiffusion is given weight.

The fact that one of the most discriminating nasal characteristics is often ignored in studies of population affinities is revealing. This is the shape of the nasal profile, a non-metric trait. In forensic anthropology, it is this profile that allows investigators to determine the difference in ancestry between the Amerind or Polynesian, who might have narrow noses, as compared to Caucasians. The Caucasian type is one of the only groups that possesses almost entirely a straight profile, while most other groups have concave or concavo-convex. Most "Negroids," have either concave or straight profiles. Interestingly, in ancient and modern Egypt, the nasal profile is also a mixture of concave and straight. In an interesting study by forensic anthropologists of the Egyptian scribe, Pepi (Kennedy et al., 1986), the following interesting comments are made concerning the racial identification traits of ancient Egyptians:

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

Notice while the described traits are not "universal" in certain areas of Upper Egypt, yet these features definitely predominate even in these areas. In fact, the studies of Keita have shown this is so, and such traits are by no means uncommon in Lower Egypt (Keita, 1993). However, even such a trait as the concave nasal profile alone would not prove much. Any reasonable study would have to avoid any labeling of traits whether explicit or implied.

3. Inconsistent results and data also flaw most approaches in pinning down biological affinity. Keita (1993) mentions non-metric studies by Berry and Berry (1967) that group a combined series from Egypt with one from Punjab. It further found a West African series to be very similar to one from India, and exactly similar to one from Burma! Even using metric studies, Howells' (1973) found a late dynastic series from Giza clustered with tropical Africans in one study, but with northern Europeans when another technique was used! Even some modern studies like those of Keita and Brace et al. disagree in their conclusions. Keita (1993) believes the ancient Egyptians to be holocene "Saharo-tropical" variants who migrated relatively recently from tropical Africa and the northern Sahara to Southern Egypt before the pre-Dynastic period. Brace et al. (1993) suggest time again that the Egyptians, Somalis and other East Africans were cold-adapted migrants who had to adapt their pigment and limb ratios to the African climate. Keita finds no evidence of Africa-Europe/West Asia-Africa migrations to explain dynastic Egypt. Indeed, there is no suggestion early East Africans were ever cold-adapted.

The importance of the divergent results is that no single study is likely to offer sufficient evidence alone. Thus, casual dismissal of studies which do not agree with one's thesis is highly faulty. In this regard, Keita has been exemplary in carefully analyzing all the data and explaining his findings in his writings.

4. The problems here are self-explanatory. How can a guarded gate system be trusted to provide reliable results? It may be very easy for Europeans to assume original humans were white, but the non-European will notice the perspective problem immediately. In the sense of understanding culture, language, etc., all of which is important in verifying studies, Western scholars have often come up short. A system which is racially non-integrated and that has a long history of racist thinking is not likely to provide trustworthy results in questions bearing on race. Obviously, though, the gate keepers will disagree. 5. Poor approaches. The idea of Brace et al. to prove genetic relationship through a single dendogram that can be usefully termed "cranionasal" or "nasiometric" was indeed flawed. Even Keita, whose own phenograms covered a much broader spectrum of characteristics, and who carefully analyzed previous studies, was careful in suggesting "genetic" relationships. The latter would have been much more justified in doing so, but preferred to refer to ancient Egyptians as indigenous African variants (and not migrants from outside of Africa) whose culture, language, etc., was closely tied to the rest of the continent, particularly the Nile River region.

Brace et al., also made the mistake of pooling Predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians and Late Dynastic groups each into single categories. This method would do little in revealing the highly heterogenous population of Egypt. Sharp differences in features sometimes occurs over smaller spaces of times, and there also is a geographic gradient in features. By pooling the Egyptians north of Assyut together with those to the South, we get little idea of just how many groups indeed shared common features with many sub-Saharan Africans including groups from West Africa. How categories like "African" and "North African" were decided upon is puzzling since a large number of variants can be found in both regions. In order for Brace et al. to prove no affinity between West Africans and ancient Egyptians, which indeed was one of the main goals of their work, they would have to show that no groups in West Africa showed affinities with groups in Egypt or adjacent areas. This cannot be done by clustering all Africans together.

To illustrate this point if one were to group all the residents of modern Hawai'i together, it might be difficult to show any affinity between this grouping and any grouping in Europe, Japan or even Polynesia! Yet, we know that elements from all these areas can be found there.

Now, that we have reviewed some of the major failings in the Eurocentric approach, we will move to examine Keita and how he has properly addressed the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keita's Approach

Keita is one of the first Africans to reach prominence in Western anthropological circles (if not the first). That is, at least in the area of historical anthropology. If this has made him extra careful, and inspired him to more fervent effort, then it shows in his work.

In his most extensive effort to establish the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians, Keita (1993) presents no single dendogram of his own to support his contentions. Instead he throughly analyzes previous important studies, including his own, and brings them together in a cumulative and logical argument supporting his case. All approaches including metric, non-metric, morphological, genetic, etc., are used.

Keita's (1988, 1992) own phenograms are among the most well-planned in dealing with this problem. Keita notes that while the use of too few variables would lead to insufficent discrimination of types, too many variables would also lead to excessive discrimination. In the latter case, even peoples whom geographical, linguistic, cultural, historical and other factors show are obviously related, might be shown to be unconnected when using too many trivial discriminating variables. Keita uses phenograms with different quantities of variables and emphasizes only those results verified by all approaches. The choice of variables is broad, and Keita makes few attempts at gauging the selective quality of each trait. Indeed, views like those expressed by Brace et al., (1993) e.g., that the elongation and elevation of the nose is related to the local rate of moisture in the air is inconsistent with a number of examples found throughout the world. For example, the native Australians, despite living in one of the driest regions of the world for tens of thousands of years, have one of the broadest noses of any peoples. However, Keita generally avoids excessive focus on nasal measurements and simply chooses a wide range of cranial traits, while avoiding excessive discrimination. However, the traits selected do include many widely thought to be determined mostly by genetic factors. The choice of series that are specific in both temporal and geographic ranges is also an important advantage. The pooling together of north and south Egyptian crania over time ranges as wide as "Predynastic," "Dynastic," etc., is avoided. This allows the identification of specific populations of different times and locations that might be physically quite different from each other.

Keita's use of Multiple Discriminant Functions II & III in his phenograms (Keita, 1988, 1993) help demonstrate that the basic population might have been different than that shown by the highly discriminant Function I. In analyzing the First Dynasty royal tomb remains, unknown analysis is used comparing the crania with other known series. This is one of the best approaches to the problem and supports the theory of Keita, Hassan (1988) and others tha in the early dynastic period,the dominant South had engaged in political marriages with nobility from northern Egypt to consolidate their control of the region. Unknown analysis compares individual crania in a series with other known series, rather than using the whole series as a type. With this approach, Keita found that 57% of the First Dynasty Abydos royal tomb crania had affinities with Nubian and Sudanese populations.

None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt. Both Keita (1993) and Hassan (1988) have suggested that Saharan elements played a role in the modification of Badari and early Nakada types during the late Nakada period. These Saharan elements cannot be identified simply as "Caucasoid" though. Keita and Hassan see them as indigenous African variants among whom gene flow from outside Africa played only a minimal role. Keita classes these Saharans with northern Egyptians and calls them "northern coastal" types. These were by no means homogenous.

The late Nakada series preceding the formation of Dynastic Egypt was closest to the Nubian series at Kerma. Starting with the first dynasty, a trend toward hybridization of southern and northern types began, but with occasional anomalies. For example, the Third Dynasty and the Old Kingdom Giza remains are primarily of "Southern" affinity (Keita, 1992, 1993).

Again, the northern coastal types are indigenous African variants according to the available evidence. That they were not exactly the same as the modern coastal inhabitants could be explained by migration that occured after the breakdown of local sovereignty following invasions from West Asia and Europe. Most important was the Muslim period that brought some 2 million immigrants, mostly from the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean. In fact, in modern Cairo today, a substantial portion of the population are Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Turks, etc., of fairly recent arrival into the region.

According to Keita (1990) and Livingstone (1967), the Haratin are among the major descendants of the original Saharans. Close similarity in ABO serology between modern Haratin populations and those of ancient Egyptians. These Haratin are considered to be "Negroid" in physical type (Livingstone, 1967). Other serological tests have shown close affinity of certain Berber-speaking groups with tropical Africans in the high rates of cDe, P and V, and low Fy^a antigens(Keita 1990, Mourant et al., 1976, Chamla, 1980). They also group close with West Africans in the high incidence of HbC, HbS and the sickle cell condition (Livingstone, 1967).

However, in terms of phenotype and culture, the Southern Egyptians and Nubians are most closely related to Nile River peoples in the Sudan and to other peoples in adjacent regions. These peoples are, in turn, a blending of the same Saharan type with the type found in the Badari and early Nakada cultures that would fit into the so called "authentic African" typology. However, Keita (1993) rightly rejects such an idea of the authentic African, and similar terms like "Forest Negro," "True Negro," etc. He notes that the rejection of relationship between types not both meeting the "True Negro" standard, would be as invalid as rejecting relationships between Europeans who were non-Nordic, or for that matter, who were not of a type resembling W.C. Fields or Jimmy Durante. Indeed, the suggestion by Brace et al., of genetic relationships between Nordics, Somalis and Asian Indians, based primarily on nasal factors is the height of bad anthropology, and this work belongs to the 1990's rather than the beginning of the 20th century.

The very fact that narrow noses can be found over practically the entire globe among large populations who are highly variant in other ways should suggest that this is not a good choice for a genetic trait. However, early hyperdiffusionists saw it in a different light; one in which quite fantastic racial claims of a "white" origin for all civilization could be made. As mentioned before, blondism and light eye color are far more restricted in numbers and geography and would appear to be more genetically discriminant than nose structure. However, as this would be anti-hyperdiffusionist (in the "Caucasoid culture-bearer" sense) these traits were brushed aside.

So, while the Badari and early Nakada were clearly Africoid in character, even the neolithic Saharan element that came to cast more and more influence on Southern Egypt could also be characterized as African variants. In fact, in most cases, these hetergenous peoples were strongly "Negroid." (Gabel 1966, Keita 1993).

In concluding, we can illustrate the problem in this way using the old three race theory still commonly used by geneticists and forensic anthropologists:

Let A = Africoid, C = Caucasoid, M = Mongoloid; and the monotypic trait types so that in pure form:

A = A monotypic traits
M = M monotypic traits
C = C monotypic traits;

In addition, there are variants to the above traits that are similar to the monotype yet significantly different. Lets label these types:

A2, A3, A4 types,
M2, M3, M4 types,
C2, C3, C4 types;

And also there are variants that don't quite fit any of these patterns (at least not from the non-Eurocentric perspective) such as many South Asians, Australians, etc. For the sake of convenience lets say there are four such types (there are probably more):

D type,
E type,
F type,
G type;

Now, we will take the Eurocentric position and classify all types into the original three monotypic groups:

A does not = A2, A3, A4, M, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types

M does not = A, A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types

However,

C = A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, C4, D, E, F and G types

posted 22 December 2004 10:57 AM            

How reliable is Keita?

posted 22 December 2004 12:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html

How reliable is Keita?

[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 22 December 2004).]

---

How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted? You know Brace also believes that modern humans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA in their genepool aalthough this isn't supported by genetics, time and time again. Keita is reliable, even Mary Leftowitz cited him as a source she is the biggest opponent to Afrocentrism.

posted 22 December 2004 12:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
You know Brace also believes that modern humans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA in their genepool.

---

posted 22 December 2004 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
[b]That I didn't know. [/B]

---

Correction, C.Loring Brace believes that modern Europeans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA, not ALL humans per se. That position is still false and refuted by genetics.

posted 22 December 2004 03:19 PM            

quote:

---

http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html
How reliable is Keita?

---

Keita is probably the most universally respected bioanthropologist who deals with the AE skeletal remains.

Brace, as S. Mohammad has pointed out, clings to some views dogmatically in spite of the fact that they are directly contradicted by genetics and also refuted by other physical anthropologists.

Neanderthal have been found to have radically different DNA from ALL living human beings, so it is a bit stubborn minded to go on insisting that Europeans are descendant from them.

There is a reason, that Brace insists on this, it is out of ideological necessity, but that is beyound the scope of this post. lol.

Here is something relevant from Japan Times:
DNA evidence backs up 'out-of-Africa' human origin theory

Genetic research unveiled Thursday [may 2001] provides compelling support for the theory that anatomically modern humans rose out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and swept aside populations of prehistoric man, with no interbreeding.

A team of Chinese and American geneticists obtained blood samples from more than 12,000 men from across East Asia and examined characteristic DNA sequences called markers on the Y chromosome (the male chromosome).

The Y chromosome is considered one of the most powerful molecular tools for tracing human evolutionary history because it remains unchanged over eons when passed from father to son.

The researchers found that every one of the men could trace his ancestry to forefathers who lived in Africa over the past 35,000 to 89,000 years. They also found absolutely no genetic evidence that modern people, Homo sapiens, mated with archaic humans, Homo erectus, that already lived in Asia, having migrated from Africa about 1 million years ago.

The findings, appearing in the journal Science, appeared to confirm the so-called out-of-Africa theory that modern people originated in Africa about 100,000 years ago and then migrated outward, replacing Homo erectus around the globe.

"Our work not only provided the evidence that supports the out-of-Africa theory, but also showed that such a replacement is complete," human population geneticist Li Jin of Fudan University in Shanghai and the University of Texas in Houston, who led the study, said.
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news255.htm

posted 24 December 2004 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 25 December 2004 01:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Unfortunately the racial and cultural origins and affinities of Trevor's Fernand Vaz series are shrouded in mystery, but two of the specimens are catalogued as Fang, and the rest can hardly have come from very far away. According to Seligman ('35, p. 182) the Fang are immigrants probably from somewhere a little west of the Congo-Nile watershed, and he is inclined to consider them as of partly Hamitic origin although now much modified by mixture following their arrival on the West African coast.......... The series described by Trevor was collected presumably between 30 and 50 years after the arrival of the Fang in the Gaboon, and so we may assume that it is a relatively unadulterated sample of the original immigrant type together with perhaps, a certain proportion of the type of the older and probably Bantu inhabitants of the region.
[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).]

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 20 December 2004).][/B]

---

posted 25 December 2004 03:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

We have to also realize that Brace does not deny that the Ancient Egyptians were African, he claims that they were East African and hence not True Negroids. However, we now know based upon genetic studies (which post-date Braces study) that the primary genetic baseline populations of ALL of Egypt is East African in source, with high frequincies of Central/West African haplotypes in Upper Egypt and high frequincies of Berber haplotypes in Lower Egypt.

---

Hawass will say blatantly ridiculous things which are easily refuted by facts. Brace will envelope his racial biases in a cacoon of clines and clusters and challenge you to reveal the falsehood that lies within.

It takes time and patience to explain Braces fallacies. This made more difficult by the biased individuals who leap at Brace conclusions like a thirsty man in the desert pouncing upon a mirage.

Yes Brace admits that indigenous AE are skeletally most similar to elongated East African types - which consist of dozens of modern Black African ethnic groups containing 10's of millions of members. Yet Brace tries to cluster them 'out of Africa'.

Begging the rhetorical question exactly how many present day Black African peoples do the AE have to resemble in order to qualify as "True" Black Africans? At what point does one admit that a thing...is what it is, and stop trying to invent new labeling contructs that will make it into...something else?

Brace's biased views also contain deep internal contradictions but it requires and educated mind to detect them. They go over the head of the layperson.

For example how many people note the parodox involved in Brace's assessement of Herto man:

"The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.

Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.

That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.

Notwithstanding the dubious reasoning that Brace's 'battery' of cranial measurements dictate a genetic relationship...if Herto man is the ancestor of Ethiopians but not Europeans, and AE resemble most closly Ethiopians......then AE would be a kind of Ethiopoid, and highly distinct from Neanderthal/Caucasoid.

I'm sure that Brace recognizes and has devised rhetoric to the effect of 'clustering' his way out of the parodox, but most people don't even follow along well enough to recognize the paradox to begin with.

Brace wants Europeans to be a unique separate and special 'race' and he wants to pull AE into it, but the facts, genetic and skeletal, keep getting in the way.

posted 25 December 2004 10:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
[b] How reliable is Brace, whose study is cited in the link you posted?

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

We have to also realize that Brace does not deny that the Ancient Egyptians were African, he claims that they were East African and hence not True Negroids. However, we now know based upon genetic studies (which post-date Braces study) that the primary genetic baseline populations of ALL of Egypt is East African in source, with high frequincies of Central/West African haplotypes in Upper Egypt and high frequincies of Berber haplotypes in Lower Egypt.

---

Hawass will say blatantly ridiculous things which are easily refuted by facts. Brace will envelope his racial biases in a cacoon of clines and clusters and challenge you to reveal the falsehood that lies within.

It takes time and patience to explain Braces fallacies. This made more difficult by the biased individuals who leap at Brace conclusions like a thirsty man in the desert pouncing upon a mirage.

Yes Brace admits that indigenous AE are skeletally most similar to elongated East African types - which consist of dozens of modern Black African ethnic groups containing 10's of millions of members. Yet Brace tries to cluster them 'out of Africa'.

Begging the rhetorical question exactly how many present day Black African peoples do the AE have to resemble in order to qualify as "True" Black Africans? At what point does one admit that a thing...is what it is, and stop trying to invent new labeling contructs that will make it into...something else?

Brace's biased views also contain deep internal contradictions but it requires and educated mind to detect them. They go over the head of the layperson.

For example how many people note the parodox involved in Brace's assessement of Herto man:

"The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.

Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.

That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.

Notwithstanding the dubious reasoning that Brace's 'battery' of cranial measurements dictate a genetic relationship...if Herto man is the ancestor of Ethiopians but not Europeans, and AE resemble most closly Ethiopians......then AE would be a kind of Ethiopoid, and highly distinct from Neanderthal/Caucasoid.

I'm sure that Brace recognizes and has devised rhetoric to the effect of 'clustering' his way out of the parodox, but most people don't even follow along well enough to recognize the paradox to begin with.

Brace wants Europeans to be a unique separate and special 'race' and he wants to pull AE into it, but the facts, genetic and skeletal, keep getting in the way.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 December 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

People forget that Brace#s sole purpose was to debunk so-called "Afrocentric" claims to Egypt. When he said Nubians weren't black a red flag should have went off. That guy is a charalatan.

posted 25 December 2004 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
People forget that Brace#s sole purpose was to debunk so-called "Afrocentric" claims to Egypt. When he said Nubians weren't black a red flag should have went off. That guy is a charalatan.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 25 December 2004 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Funny thing is Brace is a Liberal and Richard Poe is a conservative. In my opinion Liberal racism is much more dangerous and insidious.

---

I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.

posted 25 December 2004 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.

---

Previously posted:

quote:

---

Keino wrote:

When I use a word,
'Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I chose it to mean-nothing less and nothing more. - Lewis Carol.

Marcus Garvey
January 16, 1923

The New York World under date of January 15, 1923, published a statement of Drs. Clark Wissler and Franz Boaz (the latter a professor of anthropology at Columbia University), confirming the statement of the French that Moroccan and Algerian troops used in the invasion of Germany were not to be classified as Negroes, because they were not of that race. How the French and these gentlemen arrive at such a conclusion is marvelous to understand.

The—custom of these anthropologists is whenever a black man, whether he be Moroccan, Algerian, Senegalese or what not, accomplishes anything of importance, he is no longer a Negro. The question, therefore, suggests itself, "Who and what is a Negro?" The answer is, "A Negro is a person of dark complexion or race, who has not accomplished anything and to whom others are not obligated for any useful service." If the Moroccans and Algerians were not needed by France at this time to augment their occupation of Germany or to save the French nation from extinction, they would have been called Negroes as usual, but now that they have rendered themselves useful to the higher appreciation of France they are no longer members of the Negro race, but can be classified among a higher type as made out by the two professors above mentioned......
Let us not be flattered by white anthropologists and statesmen who, from time to time, because of our success here, there or anywhere, try to make out that we are no longer members of the Negro race. If we were Negroes when we were down under the heel of oppression then we will be Negroes when we are up and liberated from such thraldom.

Professor George A. Kersnor, head of the Harvard—Boston expedition to the Egyptian Soudan, returned to America early in 1923 and, after de—scribing the genius of the Ethiopians and their high culture during the period of 750 B. C. to 350 A. D. in middle Africa, he declared the Ethiopians were not African Negroes. He described them as dark colored races ... showing a mixture of black blood. Imagine a dark colored man in middle Africa being anything else but a Negro. Some white men, whether they be professors or what not, certainly have a wide stretch of imagination.

---

posted 25 December 2004 04:45 PM            

If someone says he does not believe in race than he is not racist. Who are you to judge him.

posted 25 December 2004 05:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I agree because with liberal racists, racism is largely covert. Look at Brace, he says races don't exist, yet says Egypt wasn't black. Covert indeed.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 25 December 2004 05:41 PM            

Thought Writes:

There are no signs of fascism on this forum. In fact TROLLER are able to post here unabated.

{If someone says he does not believe in race than he is not racist. Who are you to judge him.}

Thought Writes:

David Duke at one time said he was not a racist. Most people realize that humans are capable of saying one thing, but having different intentions.

{A racist is a person who believes in craniometery and that pseudo-scientific stuff.}

Thought Writes:

You have use the term craniometery several times on this forum. Please define what this means?

posted 25 December 2004 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

You have use the term craniometery several times on this forum. Please define what this means?

---

Craniometry is the measurement of cranial features in order to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
http://skepdic.com/cranial.html

posted 26 December 2004 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Craniometry is the measurement of cranial features in order to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
http://skepdic.com/cranial.html

Brain volume data and other craniometric data is used in mainstream science to compare modern-day animal species, and to analyze the evolution of the human species in archeology.
http://copernicus.subdomain.de/craniometry

---

Thought Writes:

Thanks for defining your terms Orionix. Now you have stated that some (you never clearly stated WHO?) on this forum use Craniometry. Please give us a SPECIFIC example of someone on this form using Craniometry? Thanks in advance.

posted 26 December 2004 07:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Thanks for defining your terms Orionix. Now you have stated that some (you never clearly stated WHO?) on this forum use Craniometry. Please give us a SPECIFIC example of someone on this form using Craniometry? Thanks in advance.

---

In the book Stoneage races of northwest Africa he is clearly using early biological anthropology (skull measurements and the classification of which into distinct human types). This is called scientific racism.

Please refer to the thread's original creator and don't demand more information for me on this subject. Thanks.

Edit: Except in the field of forensic anthropology i don't believe any respectful scientist is still using these old methods.

Early anthropology heavily relied on the concept of race which today is largely rejected in science.

In modern biological anthropology polymorphisms and other quantitative methods are used, including the comparative analysis of genetic codes.

Also the human genome analysis found out that all humans are almost identical genetically and blurred the picture for biological anthropologists who are not even the majority in anthropology.

posted 26 December 2004 08:38 PM            

Thought Writes:

Two questions:

1) Have you read this book?

2) Where are you getting your definition of Scientific Racism from? Racial classification systems in and of themselves have NEVER been deemed Scientific Racism? Racial classifications may be scientifically inaccurate, but this does not equate to Scientific Racism which relates to the concept of “The Essence“. It seems as though you are misappropriating terminology.

{Please refer to the thread's original creator and don't demand more information for me on this subject. Thanks.}

Thought Writes:

If you don’t want us to address your posts don’t place them on this forum. Only a TROLLER would make such a suggestion! If you have a point you believe in make it and expect people to challenge you on it if it is silly (like the misuse of the term Scientific Racism ).

{Also the human genome analysis found out that all humans are almost identical genetically and blurred the picture for biological anthropologists who are not even the majority in anthropology.}

Thought Writes:

posted 26 December 2004 09:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Two questions:

1) Have you read this book?

---

No i've just seen parts of it posted by S. Mohammad and it looks old to me.

quote:

---

Thought:

2) Where are you getting your definition of Scientific Racism from? Racial classification systems in and of themselves have NEVER been deemed Scientific Racism?

---

Was that a question or a statement?

Race

Cultural concept based on the popular but mistaken notion that human beings can be divided into biolgically distinct entities by means of particular physical features such as skin color, head shape, and other visible traits that are transmissible by descent. Genetic studies undertaken in the last decades confirm that human races do not exist in any biological sense.

Source: Britannica 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human%29]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human%29

quote:

---

Thought:

Racial classifications may be scientifically inaccurate, but this does not equate to Scientific Racism which relates to the concept of “The Essence“. It seems as though you are misappropriating terminology.

---

Race is not scientific. What is scientific about race? Please post your sources.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

If you don’t want us to address your posts don’t place them on this forum.

---

Ok i won't. Thanks for the advice. I don't like this PC debates anyway.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

I am uncertain what you are trying to state here?

---

What are you so uncertain about?

Listen i don't care how you define scientific racism but the fact is that early anthropology was biased. Also the concept of human races is social.

posted 26 December 2004 09:22 PM            

Thought Writes:

I never said that “Race” was science in a biological sense (although it is a reality in Social Science). My point is that you are CONFUSSING Taxonomy (Biological Anthropology) with Scientific Racism (Social Science).

{Listen i don't care how you define scientific racism}

Thought Writes:

If you don’t care, why are you addressing the issue as though you do care? Scientific Racism is based upon the attribution of different levels of value and worth on different groups assorted by taxonomy. Taxonomy is invalid because we now know that humans may look or not look like other humans, yet still share or not share in common genetic lineages.

posted 26 December 2004 10:43 PM            

He should read Stephen Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for a thoughtful critique of phrenology and scientific racism. Skeptic's dictionary, wikipedia, britannica isn't going to cut it.

S. Muhammad's post is insightful and helps clear up much misconception concerning concepts like CroMagnon and Capsian...but asking Orionix to understand is like asking an infant to run the 100 meter's when he is still learning to walk.

posted 27 December 2004 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Orionix is confusing craniometry with phrenology.

---

I'm not confusing anything. Craniometry is even older than cranioscopy. Cranioscopy is just a branch.

quote:

---

rasol:

He should read Stephen Gould's The Mismeasure of Man for a thoughtful critique of phrenology and scientific racism. Skeptic's dictionary, wikipedia, britannica isn't going to cut it.

---

Stephen Gould did a good job in proving how cranioscopy is pseudo-science.

quote:

---

Thought:

S. Muhammad's post is insightful and helps clear up much misconception concerning concepts like CroMagnon and Capsian...but asking Orionix to understand is like asking an infant to run the 100 meter's when he is still learning to walk.

Nice try though Thought.

---

What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. This is tautology since race is social.

The first Cro-Magnons were found in southwestern France in 1868. They had replaced the Neanderthals (earlier humans). The term doesn't have much meaning.

The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

When cranial measurements are used in order to prove someones race than it's also pseuedo-scientific. Race is social and has very little standing in modern biological anthropology.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]

posted 27 December 2004 05:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
What is so insightful by claiming that NW African Cro-Magnons were black which is clearly a scientific no-no. This is tautology since race is social.

The first Cro-Magnons were found in southwestern France in 1868. They had replaced the Neanderthals (earlier humans). The term doesn't have much meaning.

The term 'Cro-Magnon' has [b]no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

When cranial measurements are used in order to prove someones race than it's also pseuedo-scientific. Race is social and has very little standing in modern biological anthropology.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 27 December 2004).][/B]

---

X4Dumbass, what don't you understand about what I posted? Craniometry itself isn't scientific rácism, but the use of craniometry to prove inferiority or superiority of races is scientific racism in the same way people attempt to use IQ tests as proof that some races are inherently superior or inferior. Thats what your thick skull fails to realize.

Craniometry can be used to prove biological affinities, but not race, since race is arbitrarily determined and is social. Thus using the craniometric information that I posted from that book, we can say that Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed strong biological affinites with sub-Saharan/East Africans and this is supported by archaeological and genetic evidence. So quit trolling about craniometry and race moron, you were the one calling Northwest Africans 'Caucasian Capsians'. STUPID ASS!

posted 27 December 2004 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

X4Dumbass, what don't you understand about what I posted? Craniometry itself isn't scientific racism, but the use of craniometry to prove inferiority or superiority of races is scientific racism in the same way people attempt to use IQ tests as proof that some races are inherently superior or inferior.

---

Mr. Toni Morello racism and racialism is the same if you didn't know that.

The belief that race exists in the biological world is racism in itself. The concept behind human races is offensive to the idea of human biodiversity and individualism.

quote:

---

S. Muhammad:

Thats what your thick skull fails to realize.

---

What exactly do i fail to realize you clown?

quote:

---

S.Muhammad:

Craniometry can be used to prove biological affinities, but not race, since race is arbitrarily determined and is social. Thus using the craniometric information that I posted from that book, we can say that Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed strong biological affinites with sub-Saharan/East Africans and this is supported by archaeological and genetic evidence.

---

Ok but sub-Saharan/east African doesn't mean black anyomore that European means white.

Mesolithic Northwest Africans possessed biological affinities both with Europeans, Middle Easterns and sub-Saharan Africans.

quote:

---

S.Mohammad:

So quit trolling about craniometry and race moron, you were the one calling Northwest Africans 'Caucasian Capsians'. STUPID ASS!

---

Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians you troll? I didn't write this.

The term Berber is cultural and
racially meaningless. So is the term Arab.

You should stop seeing everything through the racial lense all the time. You are annoying.

posted 27 December 2004 09:07 AM            

quote:

---

Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians. I didn't write this.

---

Orionix (aka Lyin-ix) wrote:

quote:

---

* Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times.

* Most Berber's could pass for caucasians.

* Berber's are never Black.

* The native Amazigh of coastal NW Africa were probably white

---

Of course, catching you in a lie with a search feature is a bit like harpooning a goldfish. Why bother? Let the backtracking begin!

posted 27 December 2004 09:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Of course, catching you in a lie with a search feature is a bit like harpooning a goldfish. Why bother? Let the backtracking begin!

---

Yes but i'm not the one who started these racial debated. You were so this doesn't count.

I just asked about the Siwa who are Sahalian in cultural origin.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001029.html

Also how did you use the search function when it is not even working?

posted 27 December 2004 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

Also how did you use the search function when it is not even working

---

posted 27 December 2004 09:55 AM            

quote:

---

rasol:

Easy. I just looked up 'moron', and all your remarks turned up.

---

Actually you are the mentally challenged one who thinks Africa is synonomous with black (aka African = black). I am very familar with your fascistic style.

posted 27 December 2004 10:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

What you should do, is familiarize yourself with your own prior remarks...then you wouldn't get caught lying about them so often.

---

posted 27 December 2004 10:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Funny thing is Brace is a Liberal and Richard Poe is a conservative. In my opinion Liberal racism is much more dangerous and insidious.

---

posted 27 December 2004 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

I didn't lie about anything

---

posted 27 December 2004 10:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]I didn't lie about anything

You need help.

---

No you are the one.

I think you are the same person posting under different screen names all the time.

posted 27 December 2004 10:27 AM            

quote:

---

I think you are the same person posting under different screen names all the time.

---

Repeat, you should seek help.

posted 27 December 2004 10:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The board moderators would know that I don't log on as different posters.

---

They cannot not know this in anyway. But it would be interesting to have your IP checked (by the board administrator).

quote:

---

rasol:

You use paranoia to rationalize your penchant for lying, plagiarism and making a fool of yourself on publich forums.

---

I don't usually post on public forums.

Listen dude i didn't lie about anything so get of my back.

quote:

---

rasol:

Hence, your need to lie to yourself to the effect that I, Supercar, Ausar, S. Mohammad are all the same person tormenting you, when it is really you that are tormenting yourself.

---

Yes you could be the same attention straving person.

I know how this message board systems works. Anyone can log in with multiple screen names and no one will know.

posted 27 December 2004 10:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
[B] Where did i write about northwest Africans being Caucasians you troll? I didn't write this.

The term Berber is cultural and
racially meaningless. So is the term Arab.

---

X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian and I proved your dumbass wring? It was in that same thread, so quit lying moron.

quote:

---

You should stop seeing everything through the racial lense all the time. You are annoying.

---

There was nothing racial, I was speaking about biological affinities, **** for brains.

posted 27 December 2004 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

But it would be interesting to have your IP checked.

---

posted 27 December 2004 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

That won't help you in any way. Better you should have your head examined. What a nutcase you are.

---

Yes it will help me very much because i will know your IP. You're a freak mutcase

posted 27 December 2004 11:14 AM            

quote:

---

X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian

---

Blackman wrote:

quote:

---

Hehehehe,
Orionix just pours on his comical show and confuses himself by lying to himsef.

---

posted 27 December 2004 11:29 AM            

quote:

---

The New York Times, which is considered a liberal news paper highly touted Leftkowitz's Not Out of Africa.

---

I have no clue why anyone would consider the New York Times a liberal paper. A look at the New York Times magazine -- particularly issues in the late '90s -- shows it to be pretty right-wing. (I stopped reading it -- or at least paying money to read it -- in the late 90s...)

The NYT magazine pushed The Bell Curve *hard* -- charles murray on the cover, plus mentions of the book's ideas in quite a few subsequent issues.

The American "liberal media" (which the right is always harping on) is a myth.

posted 27 December 2004 01:24 PM            

quote:

---

S. Mohammad:

X4Dumbass, you did write it and say it, remember when you told me that there was no Kenyan Capsian and I proved your dumbass wring? It was in that same thread, so quit lying moron.

---

There is no evidence that the Upper Kenya Capsian has any relationship to the North African Capsian of southern Tunisia.

In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda there were earlier cultural phrases such as the Kafuan and Oldowan.

There is no evidence for any relationship.

quote:

---

S.Mohammad:

There was nothing racial, I was speaking about biological affinities, **** for brains.

---

Northwest Africans show clinal degrees of biological affinities with Europeans, Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans Why the hell is it so hard for you to grasp?

posted 27 December 2004 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Northwest Africans show clinal degrees of biological affinities with Europeans, Middle Easterners and sub-Saharan Africans Why the hell is it so hard for you to grasp?

---

I know that and I never said all Mesolithic Northwest Africans are biologically akin to sub-Saharans, I only mentioned Types A and B. Learn to read what I post and quit knocking down cheap strawman arguments.

quote:

---

Also there is no certitude about the Haratin. Some say they are indigenous to the Saharan zone and other say they are the descendants of imported slaves.

---

Who mentioned anything about the Haratin? There is some certitude because Haratin are biologically the closest to ancient Egyptians on the basis of blood groups, so it isn't to far fetched

I never said the Kenyan Capsian and North African Capsian were the same. I said there was a such thing as the Kenyan Capsian(though it was wrongfully named). Don't words in my mouth.

posted 27 December 2004 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda there were earlier cultural phrases such as the Kafuan and Oldowan. There is no evidence for any relationship.

---

Not that you have the foggiest clue about Capsian, since....when we first educated you on the Kenyan Capsian you repeatedly denied that it even existed.

Your 'non-racial' racial agenda was to somehow 'prove' the 'causasian' basis of Capsian, which you failed to do then, and are pitiably reduced to denying even having tried to do now.

And...actually yes, there are some scholars who link Paleolithic Black Africans of the Maghreb to those of other parts of Africa including Kenya...both in terms of anatomy and culture. But how would you know? After all, according to Lyin-ix and I quote:

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a Kenyan Capsian

---

Now, havin given up on that stupidity, he want's to 'debate' its nature, and in so doing have us further 'supply' him with information.

But the problem for Lyin-ix is that he does not seek knowledge, but rather seeks ignorance. Information for him is only a means to a perverse ends. So, I will continue to laugh at you, and certainly will provide you with no further information.

Lyin-ix should zip his fibbing mouth and listen to S. Mohammad, who is infinitely wiser than he:

S. Mohammad schools Lyin-ix with:

quote:

---

Capsian refers to a tool industry, NOT a group of early white North Africans.

---