posted 18 January 2005 05:16 PM            

Even today there remains a huge dark brown skinned population in the Near East. This includes nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Stop using the Turks of Turkey as the standard people in that region.

One Dravidian and native Arab groups have the money. Nordics, and even Southern Europeans will be out of picture because their ancestors do not belong in Sumeria, Indus Valley Civilization, etc.

PS: Next, you can try the Atlantis to prove that the Nords are the master race.

posted 19 January 2005 06:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If the the remains in question have affinity with Nubian and Gabonese series, it suggests that they are likely indigenous African variants.

---

I don't doubt that they're "indigenous African", but that doesn't reveal much since Africa is racially diverse, and Negroids were not widespread there until the Bantu expansion.

quote:

---

The term "mediteranian" that you are desparately clinging to is just a classic Coon-ian buzzward. [Coon applied to East Africans, others applied it to Australians, Dravidians, etc. which is ridiculous and why the concept is now defunct.

---

posted 19 January 2005 06:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Listen Eurofool, those same Type B have affinities with a series of crania from Gaboon, if sub-Saharan Africa is Negroid territory using your logic what the hell are Type B and Lower Nubians?

---

The suggestion is that Type B individuals migrated to West Africa from farther north. Supporting this, we have a quote where Briggs states explicitly that Type B crania are Mediterranean-like. Nowhere does he say that they're Negroid-like (otherwise you would have transcribed it). That's just a ridiculous assumption you're making.

quote:

---

if primitive traits are quasi-Negroid, what you're saying is that Negroids are primitive, a position not held moron.

---

Prognathism is considered a primitive trait. That doesn't mean inferior, it just means older. Traits like that are most common in Negroids, but occasionally they resurface in other races as throwbacks. Coon observed prognathous Irishmen, e.g.

quote:

---

The North isn't Caucasoid territory except in your whitewashing mind in order to keep southern Euros racially pure.

---

Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans:

posted 19 January 2005 06:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bullshit. Coon described East Africans as a mix of Mediterraneans and Negroids, which has since been genetically proven. Likewise, no one has claimed Australians or Dravidians as pure Mediterranean, though the latter probably contain a Mediterranean component.

---

To label Dravidians as mediterranean only proves that you're misleading yourself. The Dravidians and the Sumerians whom looked similar are not from Caucasia. They are indigenous people, whom happen to have features that can be labelled as "Caucasoid", but the fact is that these features originated from Africa, hence Africoid.

The Iranian/Central Asian/Caucasoid looking people are foreign, and do not share the same ancestry as the Sumerian, Elamites, or Dravidina. The mixed population are those found in Northern India. The homogenous population are found in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Southern Iraq, Southern Iran and Southern or Eastern parts of the Indian subcontinent.

posted 19 January 2005 06:44 AM            

quote:

---

Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans:

---

posted 19 January 2005 07:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Isn't this double standards? You claim that the Southern Europeans are racially pure despite their hetergenous characteristics, yet you claim that Africans with their heterogenous characteristics as multi-racial. Why is it that the Cacuasian race has such a vast range? It is pretty obvious that the Africans would have an even more wider range since humans originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

quote:

---

Southern Europeans are racially pure

---

posted 19 January 2005 07:11 AM            

quote:

---

I don't doubt that they're "indigenous African", but that doesn't reveal much

---

quote:

---

since Africa is racially diverse

---

posted 19 January 2005 09:33 AM            

quote:

---

You claim that the Southern Europeans are racially pure despite their hetergenous characteristics, yet you claim that Africans with their heterogenous characteristics as multi-racial.

---

posted 19 January 2005 11:57 PM            

quote:

---

The suggestion is that Type B individuals migrated to West Africa from farther north. Supporting this, we have a quote where Briggs states explicitly that Type B crania are Mediterranean-like. Nowhere does he say that they're Negroid-like (otherwise you would have transcribed it). That's just a ridiculous assumption you're making.

---

You are wrong again. Remember I have Briggs' book and nowhere does he say Type B people migrated into Gabon. He speaks about Hamites migrating into Gabon, but the Hamitic Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. I have his book and NO such claim of a migration of Type B people from Northwest Africa is made. In fact Briggs believes that the Negroid features found in Type B crania comes from the southern Sahara and headwaters of the Blue Nile. Please post the quote where Briggs states that Type B people from NW Africa migrated into Gabon. Don't smear the facts. Your post ins filled with utter denial of Negroid traits in Northwest Africans.

quote:

---

Prognathism is considered a primitive trait. That doesn't mean inferior, it just means older.

---

Prognathism when found in people that are 'non-Negroid' are all of the sudden primitive throwbacks traits, of course in the interest of keeping Europeans as pure races, but orthognathism found in sub-Saharans is proof of Caucasoid mixture?? What bull!

quote:

---

Traits like that are most common in Negroids, but occasionally they resurface in other races as throwbacks. Coon observed prognathous Irishmen, e.g.

---

Prognathism in Irishmen occurs at a very low frequency as most Europeans are NOT prognathous. And why keep quoting Coon? This is the same moron who said that Fulani, Tutsi, Bahima and Masai are all "Mediterraneans" with dark skin, who in the hell believes that nonsense today?

quote:

---

Southern Europeans are racially pure -- or close to it anyway. If Greeks had "Negroid affinities", their autosomal DNA wouldn't group them with Basques and Northern Europeans, far away from Africans

---

I saw that chart you used and the only African population used were the same Pygmies and deep central African populations, what about East African populations and E3b? E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?

posted 20 January 2005 12:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Bullshit. Coon described East Africans as a mix of Mediterraneans and Negroids, which has since been genetically proven. Likewise, no one has claimed Australians or Dravidians as pure Mediterranean, though the latter probably contain a Mediterranean component.

---

Bullshit to you, the only east African populations with mixture are Ethiopians, not all East Africans proper. Ethiopians are the most mixed GENETICALLY, but in terms of phenotype, their phenotype wasn't significantly affected by mixture with southern Arabians. Look at these anthropometric means of East African populations. NOTE: Tutsis and Masai are have no foreign or exotic genetic element in them:

Tutsi of Rwanda:

[color=green]

• Stature: 176 cm
  
• Head length: 198 mm
  
• Head breadth: 147 mm
  
• Face height: 125 mm
  
• Face breadth: 134 mm
  
• Nose height: 56 mm
  
• Nose breadth: 39 mm
  
• Relative trunk length: 49.7
  
• Cephalic Index: 74.5
  
• Facial Index: 92.8
  
• Nasal Index: 69.5[/color]

  
  Masai:

  [color=blue]

• Stature: 173 cm
  
• Head length: 194 mm
  
• Head Breadth: 140 mm
  
• Face Height: 121 mm
  
• Face Breadth: 137 mm
  
• Nose Height: 54 mm
  
• Nose Breadth: 39 mm
  
• Relative Trunk length: 47.7
  
• Cephalic Index: 72.8
  
• Facial Index: 89.0
  
• Nasal Index: 72.0[/color]

  
  Galla(Oromo):

  [color=red]

• Stature: 171 cm
  
• Head length: 190 mm
  
• Head Breadth: 147 mm
  
• Face Height: 122 mm
  
• Face Breadth: 133 mm
  
• Nose Height: 53 mm
  
• Nose Breadth: 37 mm
  
• Relative Trunk length: 50.3
  
• Cephalic Index: 77.6
  
• Facial Index: 91.5
  
• Nasal Index: 69.0[/color]

  Sab Somali:

  [color=gray]

• Stature: 173 cm
  
• Head length: 194 mm
  
• Head Breadth: 145 mm
  
• Face Height: 119 mm
  
• Face Breadth: 134 mm
  
• Nose Height: 49 mm
  
• Nose Breadth: 36 mm
  
• Relative Trunk length: 49.7
  
• Cephalic Index: 74.7
  
• Facial Index: 88.5
  
• Nasal Index: 72.8[/color]

  Warsingali Somali:

  [color=navy]

• Stature: 168 cm
  
• Head length: 192 mm
  
• Head Breadth: 143 mm
  
• Face Height: 123 mm
  
• Face Breadth: 131 mm
  
• Nose Height: 52 mm
  
• Nose Breadth: 34 mm
  
• Relative Trunk length: 50.7
  
• Cephalic Index: 74.5
  
• Facial Index: 94.1
  
• Nasal Index: 66.0[/color]
  

Source:

Jean Hiernaux

The People of Africa

pg 142

Galla(Oromo) are supposed to be "mixed" but look how close they are to the unmixed Tutsi, in short, you cannot say East Africans are anthropometrically a mix of so-called "true Negroes" and Mediterraneans. Thats utter nonsense, get your head out of sand and quit with the outdated racial thinking.

posted 20 January 2005 12:28 AM            

quote:

---

Even today there remains a huge dark brown skinned population in the Near East. This includes nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. Stop using the Turks of Turkey as the standard people in that region.

---

Very true.

The original inhabitants of Arabia, then, according to Sir Henry Keith, one of the world's greatest living anthropologists, who has made a study of Arab skeletal remains, ancient and modern, were not the familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt, by environmental and other evolutionary process, became in parts transformed, giving rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula.

Betram Thomas, The Arabs(Garden City: Doubleday, 1937) 339.

posted 20 January 2005 12:33 AM            

Euro-Disney is a good example of the 'no race' - 'mixed race' school of racism in vougue among some Eurocentric.

They need 'other races' to either be mongrel or simply not exist - so that they can be 'pure'. It's twisted, and sad when you think about it.

posted 20 January 2005 01:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Somatically some elongated types are even more 'distinct' from Europeans than broad types. For example extreme-tropical, 'super negroid' limb-ratios such as found among the Naqada pre-dynastic Kemetians.

---

True. Check this out:

The Tutsi and Hutu have intermixed to some degree but, as groups, they remain strikingly different. The Tutsi exhibit 'Hamitic' facial features to a marked degree. Do they systematically differ from the Hutu in the direction of Caucasoids?

The Tutsi are taller than the Hutu by nearly ten centimetres; the average male stature is 176 cm. Such tallness is by no means characteristic of North Africa or Western Asia: for example, the inhabitants of the central plateau of Yemen have an average stature of 164 cm. In skin colour, the Tutsi are darker than the Hutu, in the reverse direction to that leading to the Caucasoids. lip thickness provides a similar case: on an average the lips of the Tutsi are thicker than those of the Hutu. In most cases, however, they are not everted as in many West Africans. Like that of the Hutu, the hair of the Tutsi is spiralled(perhaps less tightly so, but this has not been quantified).

In detailed study, relative growth in the two groups and in Europeans has been compared. In the development of a number of body proportions with age, which appears to be largely determined by heredity, the Tutsi are more different from Europeans than the Hutu. In cephalic index, the Hutu are nearer to Yemenites than the Tutsi, whose long, narrow head makes their index lower than that of the other two groups..............

These comparisons do not lend support to the idea that the Tutsi are a mixture of Caucasoids and West Africans. If the West African element, introduced by mixing with the Hutu, were subtracted, their physique would differ even more from North Africans or Western Asians. Apparently, either 'Hamitic' facial features developed in the Tutsi's ancestral line independently of any exotic source or, if an exotic element was introduced, it was such a long time ago that selection has thoroughly remodelled the resulting gene pool. Even if the second hypothesis was correct, the physical appearance of the Tutsi would result from evolution which took place in sub-Saharan Africa.

Jean Hiernaux

The People of Africa

pg 61

posted 20 January 2005 06:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
In fact Briggs believes that the Negroid features found in Type B crania comes from the southern Sahara and headwaters of the Blue Nile.

---

Show me where Briggs claims that Type B has Negroid affinities. I've already shown you where he says it resembles the Classic Mediterranean type.

quote:

---

I saw that chart you used and the only African population used were the same Pygmies and deep central African populations

---

It doesn't matter. Greeks and Italians still place in the same branch as Northern Europeans and Basques.

quote:

---

E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?

---

posted 20 January 2005 06:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But southern Europe is racially pure(?)

---

You morons need to work on your reading skills. I said Southern Europeans are close to pure. No one is 100% pure.

quote:

---

the dark skin, curly hair, L2, E3b haplotypes, and sickle cll

---

posted 20 January 2005 07:41 AM            

We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture - most physical traits are - that does not prove the concept of racial 'purity' - it merely calls into question the concept of race.

Tropical African DNA in southern Europe:
the detection sub saharan African L sequences were found throughout the country [Portugal] in frequencies as high as 10% and are supportive of African admixture with the native portugese population -pereira, prata, et. all

Genetic haplotype is not classifiable by phenotype - caucasoid/negroid etc.. E3 and L were introduced into southern Europe from Africa making southern Europe genetically heterogeneous, and DISTINCT from Northern Europe and NOT racially pure.

Benin sickle cell originates in tropical Africa, it's presence in southern Europe proves tropicaL African intermixture:

“The presence of the sickle cell gene in Portugal "means that Portuguese and Africans have met and they've interbred"

"Haplotype analysis shows that the Hb S in Europe originated in Africa. The genes probably moved along ancient trading routes between wealthy kingdoms in western Africa and the trade centers in the Mediterranean basin."

"The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily,4 Northern Greece,10 Southern Turkey,11 and South West Saudi Arabia,6,7 suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa. "
Harvard U./Howard U., Graham R. Serjeant, MD http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/143/rev9239.html
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C08/C08Links/www.mcet.edu/genome/sicklecell/genesis.html
http://www.mcet.edu/genome/sicklecell/genesis.html

Racial purity in southern Europe is an oxymoron - a white race fantasy that no respected bioanthropologist will support.

Any questions?

posted 20 January 2005 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

E3b is very common in southern Europe, what do you say to this?

---

quote:

---

E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic.

---

quote:

---

It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

posted 20 January 2005 08:35 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol is correct about Caucasians beginning in northwest Africa, as far as we know.[/B]

---

Of course I didn't say that. However all people originate in East Africa.

E3b originates in tropical Black Africa circa 26kya. At this point in time the direct ancestors of Europeans lived in Eurasia having migrated out of Africa 10's of thousands of years earlier.

E3b is introduced into Europe from it's African point of origin along with the spread of agriculture ~6kya, and then subsequently in historical times by Nile Valley Africans and Northwest Africans.

This is why E3b is present in signficant frequency in Southern Eurasia and generally negligible in the North.

Thus Southern Europeans have multiple and highly divergent lines of descent -

* ancient haplotypes that originate among Eurasians.

* recently introduced haplotypes that originate in Africa.

* haplotypes from tropically adapted [Black] peoples...and haplotypes from pale skinned Eurasians.

* haplotypes separated by 10's of thousands of years.

This is completely incompatible with EuroDisney's race purity fantasy, and he knows it. However ideologically, and EMOTIONALLY he finds this truth unacceptable and has so become obsessed with proving that which is in point of fact - a non starter.

Southern Europeans are heterogeneous, and not 'racially pure'.

posted 20 January 2005 10:00 AM            

Where E3b originates:

Southern Europeans and E3b:
It has been suggested that recent geneflow may have brought e3b chromosomes from northwest africa into southern Europe as a consequence of Islamic occupation.

The relatively recent mrca estimated for E3b2 and the lack of differentiation support this view.

The degree of African contribution is highly variable across different populations. Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Fulvio Cruciani,1 Roberta La Fratta, et. al

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001383.html

posted 20 January 2005 02:09 PM            

....all the old outdated ones anyway.

Few current anthropologists still assert the hamite myth, at least not blatantly. And several, such as Jean Hiernaux [cited in this thread] and of course SOY Keita have fairly demolished it.

Trouble is, it keeps coming back in other disguised forms, because the underlying political need - to salvage aryanist anthropology - is greater than ever.

Witness EuroDisney's misguided dispair over the African origins of E3b, [let's just lie and call it near eastern] and Gabonese-Nubian-African skeletal affinities of Paleolithic NorthWest African remains. [let's just call'em medit caucasians with 'mystery' negroid features]

Greg Gordon offered an excellent analogy. Aryanist anthopology actually does remind one of the Nazi's searching for the Lost Ark in the Indiana Jones movies!

Dr. Jones...we HAVE you now! NO escaping...thees time!

posted 20 January 2005 02:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] Skin color is influenced by climate. Curly hair can be found in red-headed Irishmen. L haplotypes are negligible throughout Europe. E3b is not Negroid. And sickle cell is an adapted trait. Anything else?

---

posted 20 January 2005 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
[B] You are damn right that genes are not "negroid", or "caucasoid" for that matter.

---

Truth.

Haplotype or (dna) relate biological lineage - common ancestry.

"oid" as in caucas-oid relates physical appearance or phenotype.

Race as in Blumenbachs's outdated-misguided caucasoid-negroid-mongoloid theorise that that phenotype proves ancestry.

Modern molecular genetics has revealed this notion to be flawed.

To demonstrate the 'racial purity' of Southern Europeans one would need to show that they are identical to Nordics in phenotype, due to the fact that they are of identical genetic lineage.

In fact, Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in phenotype (the whole idea of medit. caucasian vs. Nordic aknowledges this), and in genotype, (PN2-clade revolution in genetics has proven this) with distinct lineages introduced from Africa, both directly & indirectly into Europe. In short southern Europeans are phenotypically distinct from predominently pale-blonde-blue-eyed Nordics, and are genetically distinct with infusions of African DNA since the Neolitchic and onwards.

A more intelligent tactic for EuroDisney would be to argue that NO ONE is racially pure. But, how can one be a member of a superior race if no one is racially pure?

EuroDisney stikes me as a 'bull' and not a 'matador'. He will keep charging at the red cape of racial purity until modern science puts him out of his misery once and for all. Poor thing.

posted 20 January 2005 05:22 PM            

quote:

---

Evil Euro:
And sickle cell is an adapted trait...

---

Evil, sickle cell is not simply an adaptive trait, but an inherited blood related health deficiency or blood disorder that has resistive capability against such diseases like malaria. The question is where or how, if not why, did southern Europeans inherit this trait, if not from African connections?

posted 20 January 2005 05:49 PM            

* Note, the Greeks also get Benin sickle cell from Africa, of course so the hot-potato deflection is inneffectual.

EuroDisney's intended counterpoint, that Benin sickle cell is not a reliable 'negroid' marker, but that is non-sequitor for the reasons already given: no gene is caucasoid or negroid, period.

Btw: Sickle cell condition is autosomatically recessive. This means that in order to be selected for two copies of the gene are required. A population that has Benin sickle cell has tropical African [black] ancestry....all excuses notwithstanding.

posted 21 January 2005 08:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture

---

Then don't cite it as evidence of African admixture, moron.

quote:

---

Tropical African DNA in southern Europe:

---

I already said that no one is 100% pure. Stop attacking straw men. Yes, Southern Europeans have negligible amounts of sub-Saharan DNA, with the Portuguese having the most (though not nearly as much as you think). But then Negroid (and Mongoloid) genes have also turned up in Northern Europeans. For example:

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/non-white-admixture-in-dutch-and.html http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/non-caucasoid-admixture-in-austria-and.html

quote:

---

Benin sickle cell originates in tropical Africa, it's presence in southern Europe proves tropicaL African intermixture:

---

I guess you missed this important qualification:

"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought."

Ragusa et al. (1992) Presence of an African Beta-globin Gene Cluster Haplotype in Normal Chromosomes in Sicily. Am J Hematol; 40:313-315

quote:

---

Wrong again. [E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea

---

That's not sub-Saharan Africa, stupid. It's Northeastern Africa, which was not remotely Negroid when E3b arose some 26,000 years ago. Hell, it's only between 5% and 60% Negroid today, and that's due to movements in historical times. More importantly, the sub-Saharan (Negroid) component in modern NE African populations is predominantly maternal, while the paternal side is composed almost entirely of Middle Eastern and North African (Caucasoid) lineages (see, e.g., Passarino et al. 1998 -- under "Discussion").

Furthermore, E3b has been shown to correlate with Caucasoid racial characteristics:

http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000578.html

quote:

---

Witness EuroDisney's misguided dispair over the African origins of E3b, [let's just lie and call it near eastern]

---

Ignoramus. E3b exited Africa beginning in the Upper Paleolithic and then spread out from the Near East 15-20,000 years later, taking the form of clusters with distinct origins (one of which -- E-M78a -- is specific to Europe). This has all been demonstrated by Luis et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004 and Cruciani et al. 2004. Get your sources up to date.

quote:

---

Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in...genotype, with distinct lineages introduced from Africa

---

So what? Everyone's non-European if you go back far enough. Are you aware that the most common haplogroups in Northern Europe (R1a and R1b) split from an ancestor in Northeast Asia about the same time E3b exited North Africa? So according to your reasoning, the "pure Nordics" you refer to should be considered Asiatic or Mongoloid, since you consider E3b carriers African/Negroid. Cleary, you're an idiot.

posted 21 January 2005 08:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture, moron

---

quote:

---

Then don't cite it as evidence of African admixture

---

quote:

---

We know that skin color is selective by forces other than admixture - most physical traits are - that does not prove the concept of racial 'purity', it merely calls into question the concept of race.

---

In order for you to assert race purity you assume the burdan of proof of the hypothesis that physical traits - skin color - skull shape - hair texture result from common lineage.

When said physical traits are divergant, your hypothesis is falsified.

Look back over this thread EuroDisney.

Your pure race caucasoids catagory now includes prognathesism, sickle cell anemia, dark skin, dark eyes, and curly black hair. Physical traits that falsify your hypothesis. Only a 'moron' as you put, would go on asserting a hypothesis that has been clearly disproven on its own terms.

posted 21 January 2005 08:51 AM            

Unlike other sub-Sahara African populations, Ethiopians display a high frequency of type 1, which is by far the most frequent type in Caucasoids and Asians. However, such a high frequency does not appear to be due to an explicit Caucasoid influence.

“Hell, it's only between 5% and 60% Negroid today, and that's due to movements in historical times.”

You’re wrong again. The 60% Negroid figure came from a study on Ethiopians, not all of North-East Africans, stop distorting the facts. That figure represents the most ‘Negroid’ mixture found in those Ethiopians who absorbed the Middle Eastern ancestry. Not all Ethiopians are have 40% Middle Eastern ancestry.

“More importantly, the sub-Saharan (Negroid) component in modern NE African populations is predominantly maternal, while the paternal side is composed almost entirely of Middle Eastern and North African (Caucasoid) lineages (see, e.g., Passarino et al. 1998 -- under "Discussion").
Furthermore, E3b has been shown to correlate with Caucasoid racial characteristics:” http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000578.html

posted 21 January 2005 08:57 AM            

quote:

---

Wrong again. [E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not sub-Saharan Africa, stupid. It's Northeastern Africa,

---

Stupid indeed! I see we are once again in the business of providing elementary education for the geographically impared rejects from EuroDisneyLand:

Sub Sahara Africa:
Region of Africa South of the Sahara desert.
Horn of Africa: NorthEastern Peninsula of Sub-Saharan Africa

List of Sub-Saharan African countries:

Republic of Angola (Angola).
Republic of Benin (Benin).
Republic of Botswana (Botswana).
Burkina Faso (Burkina).
Republic of Burundi (Burundi).
Republic of Cameroon (Cameroon).
Republic of Cape Verde (Cape Verde).
Central African Republic.
Republic of Chad (Chad).
Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros (Comoros).
Democratic Republic of Congo.
Republic of the Congo (Congo).
Republic of Co.AE3te d'Ivoire (CoAE3te d'Ivoire).
Republic of Djibouti (Djibouti).
Republic of Equatorial Guinea (Equatorial Guinea).
State of Eritrea (Eritrea).
Ethiopia.
Gabonese Republic (Gabon).
Republic of the Gambia (Gambia).
Republic of Ghana (Ghana).
Republic of Guinea (Guinea).
Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Guinea-Bissau).
Republic of Kenya (Kenya).
Kingdom of Lesotho (Lesotho).
Republic of Liberia (Liberia).
Republic of Madagascar (Madagascar).
Republic of Malawi (Malawi).
Republic of Mali (Mali).
Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania).
Republic of Mauritius (Mauritius).
Republic of Mozambique (Mozambique).
Republic of Namibia (Namibia).
Republic of Niger (Niger).
Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria).
Republic of Rwanda (Rwanda).
Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (Sao Tome and Principe).
Republic of Senegal (Senegal).
Republic of Seychelles (Seychelles).
Republic of Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone).
Somalia.
Republic of South Africa (South Africa).
Republic of Sudan (Sudan).
Kingdom of Swaziland (Swaziland).
United Republic of Tanzania (Tanzania).
Republic of Togo (Togo).
Republic of Uganda (Uganda).
Republic of Zambia (Zambia).
Republic of Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe).

posted 21 January 2005 09:12 AM            

History Lesson:

History shows that you are incapable of intelligent and topical discourse. At least EuroDisney stays on topic. You can't even do that.

posted 21 January 2005 09:23 AM            

quote:

---

Evil Euro:
Ignoramus. E3b exited Africa beginning in the Upper Paleolithic and then spread out from the Near East 15-20,000 years later, taking the form of clusters with distinct origins (one of which -- E-M78a -- is specific to Europe). This has all been demonstrated by Luis et al. 2004, Arredi et al. 2004 and Cruciani et al. 2004. Get your sources up to date.

---

I know that this was intended to be some kind of a counter argument reference to E3b origins in sub-Saharan Africa. The only problem with its use here though, is that it doesn't counter sub-Saharan origins of this gene group. It simply asserts how this branched out from Africa, and morphed into its new state in the given geographical region.

posted 21 January 2005 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

Southern Europeans proveably diverge from Nordics in...genotype, with distinct lineages introduced from Africa

---

quote:

---

So what? Everyone's non-European

---

Your pure race was invented by Johann Friedirch Blumenbach, whose primary assertation was that the European [white] race was the original race, from which all others are degenerate. By the logic of the inventor of the caucasian race; Europeans would be degenerate forms of African! You are a fool to continue asserting Blumenbach's theory, which modern genetics and anthropology have falsified.

Therefore you must stop trying to define -

* genes
* physical traits
* languages
* cultures
* civilisation and
race......
in terms of Europeans, where these elements do NOT in fact originate in Europe or necessarily especially relate to Europe, at all.

quote:

---

if you go back far enough

---

quote:

---

So according to your reasoning, the "pure Nordics" you refer to should be considered Asiatic or Mongoloid, since you consider E3b carriers African/Negroid

---

No way. I leave that 'pure' race fantasy to you. According to me 'pure race' is an oxymoron. For believing in it, you're just a plain old moron. Hope that helps.

posted 21 January 2005 10:56 AM            

rasol:
"No way. I leave that 'pure' race fantasy to you. According to me 'pure race' is an oxymoron. For believing in it, you're just a plain old moron. Hope that helps"

The idea that Europeans represent some kind of a homogeneous group, and racially pure has outlived its usefulness. It is from this primitive logic, comes the notion of a superior race, and the related antics associated with making up history along the way, in an attempt to explain off accomplishments of foreigners, however minimal the genetic and cultural lineage with Europeans.

posted 21 January 2005 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
rasol...The problem you have is one of trying to fight a big battle with a little stick. Its like a trained Parrot who has only been taught to say 'black' over and over again. By the way son, did you pinch yourself this morning to see if you were still black??? when pressed you avoid historical subjects and either call names are revert to the black thing again. I knew you were an idiot when you wanted to argue about the most basic tenets in the development of western civilization.

---

The problem with racialreality is that he's obsessed with racial and cultural purity. In other words, Middle Eastern ancestry in southern Europeans is Neolithic not Middle Eastern in the interest of keeping southern European cultural achievements purely European. However, Middle eastern ancestry in Ethiopians is proof of Caucasoids bringing culture to the once primitive Ethiopians, at least according to the logic used by racialreality aka Racial Myths.

posted 21 January 2005 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...you are simply making this stuff up. For one thing all races have elements within it who preach supremacy. That is just part of a community favoring ideas, features and attitudes that are simular to their own. Its part of human nature. You seem to have bought into this idea that racism is exclusive to the Europeans. You could make the case that this board is doing the same thing, all you guys talk about is race from a black and African perspective.
As long as you are blaming Europeans for everything from hurricanes to the common cold nobody is going to take you seriously.

---

Oh please man, give this nonsense a rest. Everytime someone makes a meaningful point about blacks in Egypt you come with the same meaningless talk about Afrocentrism. You never argue anything against the point being made so in essence you argue with your head in the sand.

posted 21 January 2005 11:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
OI see Bass, its OK for him to spout anti European racist dribble but I can't call him on it. If you can't confront the issues go crawl back into what ever hole you came out of.

---

Can you ever hold one debate without mentioning Afrocentrism and points not central to the discussion? Basically, you cannot call anyone out on anything if all you do is talk the same jazz. I his points were being made in reference to Evil Euro's posts, not anything in general.

posted 21 January 2005 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

The problem with racialreality is that he's obsessed with racial and cultural purity

---