posted 21 January 2005 11:33 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.

---

posted 21 January 2005 11:46 AM            

For example: The curliest and thickest form of hair, sometimes called 'peppercorn' is most commonly found among San, and some Twa diminuative type Africans. At the other extreme is 'east Asian' hair which tends to be completely straight and also thin.

This means that most Europeans hair which is wavy and not straight, thin but not as thin as East Asian is intermediate between the two hair texture extremes.

Also most Black African hair 'woolly-Afro but not peppercorn'... thick but not as thick as 'khoisan' also clusters in-between.

Interestingly Badarian hair samples cluster in between Nilotic African and Khosianoid!

European's also have the most highly variable hair which tends to be thinnest in the Nordic and Euroasian regions, and thickest and curliest in Southern Europe.

European hair is therefore both intermediate - between African and East Asian - and also highly variable, and so cannot lend circumstantical phenotypical evidence to a pure race hypothesis.

posted 21 January 2005 11:51 AM            

quote:

---

First Supercar, there was no damage

---

posted 21 January 2005 12:09 PM            

Good luck.

This forum offers a wealth of useful information and thoughtful interactions with intelligent discussants.

posted 21 January 2005 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First Supercar, there was no damage and secondly, it is not being corrected in thge manner you suggest.

---

Reactionary backward people can be in the midst of real events as we speak, and still deny it's happening. Hence, Horemheb reasoning with you, isn't the way to go about business.

quote:

---

Horemheb:
The field should be included in Mideastern Studies and not African for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with race.

---

posted 21 January 2005 01:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Lets first cut the kemetian crap, most people today use ancient Egypt. as an Empire Egypt looeked to the middle east. Nubia was the only aspect of its foreign poicy that looked south.
The United states borders on Mexico but we have little in common with Latin America past geography. The extention of the egyptian Empire to the north and its affect on middle eastern politics clearly puts it in that sphere. Additionally, After the Nubian period Egypt was conquored by assyria, Persia Greece and Rome demonstrating clearly that it was a basic part of the Med political system.

---

posted 21 January 2005 01:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
supercar...I did not answer the culture question because it is not relevant to the issue of why AE should be included in the middle east and not Africa. If you were not so ill informed you would know that we have many people with terminal degrees in African history who did not study Egypt at all in their degree plans. Conversely, everyone with a history degree in middle eastern studies has to do a major portion of their work in AE. I understand that that fact does not conform to the black crap you are hung up on and obsessed by but it is true all the same.

---

posted 21 January 2005 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Thats the only reason I am still here supercar, might be able to save at least one mind here. The info I gave you is not 'my view' it is 'the view.' Ancient Egypt is taught in every Westerv Civ class AS A PART OF THE MIDDLE EAST. I have taught that class at least 20 times myself. If you will kindly check the Glencoe-McGraw Hill Text on world history you will find your beloved AE taught in the section with mesopotamia.....NOT IN THE SECTION WITH AFRICA. This is just the way it is and the way it has to be. I'm not being ugly supercar...I honestly believe you have been brainwashed with incorrect information.
By the way , in the text I mentioned they do not call it Kemet.

---

posted 21 January 2005 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Horemheb:
The field should be included in Mideastern Studies and not African for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with race.

---

quote:

---

as an Empire Egypt looeked to the middle east.

---

quote:

---

Nubia was the only aspect of its foreign poicy that looked south.

---

Also, the Kemetian royal etymology literally reads as "He who comes from the South" Nsu Biti.

* Nubia (Ta Seti) played a role in the Foundation of Kemet.

* Nubia was a part of Kemet for centuries.
* Kemet was a part of Kush for nearly a century.

quote:

---

cut the Kemet crap

---

quote:

---

I did not answer the culture question because it is not relevant to the issue of why AE should be included in the middle east and not Africa. If you were not so ill informed you would know that we have many people with terminal degrees in African history who did not study Egypt at all in their degree plans. Conversely, everyone with a history degree in middle eastern studies has to do a major portion of their work in AE

---

posted 21 January 2005 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Check the text i mentioned....only an idiot cannot learn...don't put yourself in that catagory.

---

posted 21 January 2005 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Check the Glencoe text Supercar...it wasn't published in the 19th century but rather three years ago...the 21st...

---

So are the reactionary backward clowns, as the types in stormfront. They supposedly live in the 21st century, but their intelligence level goes back to where the Vikings left off, if the not pre-stone age era capacity of thinking.

posted 21 January 2005 02:34 PM            

This is all a matter of semantics of where ancient Egyptian history is taught. Let's compare and contrast what similarities there are between Egypt and other surrounding civlizations in the Near East:

1. ancestor veneration[found in all African soceities and especially in ancient Egyptian soceities]

2. City state urbanization vs. villages[most of mesopotamia and Greece were city states] Egyptian civlization is known as the civlization without cities. Most of Egypt was nothing more than village nomes.

3. Divine kingship and the rain maker king[almost absent in Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern civlizations]

4. Egyptians forbade their priests from wearing sheep skin garments[we find this in Middle eastern and Asiatic countries but not in Egypt] Sinhue in his very own tales of Sinuhe relates how he would not like to be buried in sheep skin.

5. The absence of mummification and mortuary rites associated with it[Sumerians buried their dead underneath houses] I can show you remains of a elaborate mummified remains from the Sahara older than anything in Egypt.

6. Treat of women and Matrilineal desent[the Semetic cultures are patrilineal] Women in mediterranean soceity were subdorant to men. In African cultures women are not. Ancient Egyptian was no exception.

posted 21 January 2005 02:35 PM            

This is all a matter of semantics of where ancient Egyptian history is taught. Let's compare and contrast what similarities there are between Egypt and other surrounding civlizations in the Near East:

1. ancestor veneration[found in all African soceities and especially in ancient Egyptian soceities]

2. City state urbanization vs. villages[most of mesopotamia and Greece were city states] Egyptian civlization is known as the civlization without cities. Most of Egypt was nothing more than village nomes.

3. Divine kingship and the rain maker king[almost absent in Mesopotamia and other Near-Eastern civlizations]

4. Egyptians forbade their priests from wearing sheep skin garments[we find this in Middle eastern and Asiatic countries but not in Egypt] Sinhue in his very own tales of Sinuhe relates how he would not like to be buried in sheep skin.

5. The absence of mummification and mortuary rites associated with it[Sumerians buried their dead underneath houses] I can show you remains of a elaborate mummified remains from the Sahara older than anything in Egypt.

6. Treat of women and Matrilineal desent[the Semetic cultures are patrilineal] Women in mediterranean soceity were subdorant to men. In African cultures women are not. Ancient Egyptian was no exception.

posted 21 January 2005 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
You cannot use school textbooks as proof of the AE. Not only is AE tuaght on a very small level, but it's still taught as a Middle Eatern civilization...ONLY because that's the status-quo. That doesn't make it right though. Now, you can learn the truth in numerous colleges where the curriculum is more open and free.

---

There is no such thing an ancient Middle Eastern history. Reactionary backward Eurocentric clowns come up with these terminologies. The problem with their mindset, is that they actually miss the fact that Middle East is just another geopolitical term that applies to both African and Asian countries. Mental hibernation has done more damage than good to these reactionary folks.

posted 21 January 2005 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

All of that is not the point of the argument

---

quote:

---

IF it were all true that would not change the fact that from a geo-political point of view AE is a middle eastern africa.

---

Here is something for you Professor. It comes from the Britanica, so you should find the source unobjectionable.

It is written at a very basic level, so you should understand it.

The Middle East -
The term was coined in 1900 and in its earliest uses designated the northern approaches to India from Iran to Tibet. The Middle East therefore occupied the area between the Near East, a term used to signify the Ottoman Empire and its successor states from Serbia to Iraq, and the Far East, consisting principally of China and Japan. Following the break up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I the term Near East declined in popularity (although it has never disappeared) and parts of its domain, namely the Arab Near East, came to be described in British official terminology as the Middle East. The Middle East thus began a journey westwards and was further enlarged during World War II when, in British political and military usage, the term came to signify more or less the area defined above. The Middle East was a wholly [European] strategic concept; countries and peoples were not grouped together because it was thought they had any cultural affinities one with another, but because outsiders, mainly the British, found it convenient to treat them as a bloc for their military and political purposes.

posted 21 January 2005 06:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
ITS ABOUT TIME, at least 'King' can read and is aware of what i was trying to say...here is the point
1. I don't care whether you think it is right or wrong...AE is taught with the near east in history text
2. It doesn't matter whether you think AE is populated by blacks or Martians, its is still taught as a neareast subject
3. I don't care if you think that fact that its taught that way is regressive or not...its still taught that way. It will continue to be taught that way.

---

Poor thing: your mind is not in tune with reality. You have no regard for reality, and so why should it matter to you? You could be rescued, you know; it doesn't have to be this way. You now have yourself believing that people criticizing you, are actually being hypnotize by all this logic-free ranting. Hence your reference to King_scorpian.

Horemheb: You being the type who will never get the concept of the terminology of Middle Eastern/Near Eastern, as Rasol appropriately pointed out (which rational people realize isn't a euphemism for 'outside of Africa'), here is what the real world is doing about the Nile Valley as part of African studies, but reationary-backward sections of Eurocentrics have missed it, like you pointed out somewhere.:

Columbia university :http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/africa/cuvl/AncEgypt.html

University of Pennsylvania:http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Country_Specific/Egypt.html

Berkley:http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/AfricanVid.html

University of Florida:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/aleslie/K_12Websites/K-12WebsiteList.html#EDUCATIONAL%20RESOURCES

Cornell University:http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/guides/ancient.html

Boston University:http://www.bu.edu/africa/outreach/materials/videos/vidlevel/adult.html

Fordham University:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html

HistoryTeacher.nethttp://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/1ancientcivilizations.htm

Ohio State University:http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/mmerryfield/global_resources/modules/AfHAncient.htm

BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section3.shtml...

I am sure the list would go on, but rational people will have already gotten the drift.

posted 22 January 2005 07:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
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.

---

With the exception of sickle cell, which I've already explained to you, none of those traits are "non-white" or "non-European". Mediterranean types are documented in Europe as far back as the Upper Paleolithic period, having adapted all of said traits in situ long before the arrival of "recent African genes". Jelinek describes a set of European skulls from 25,000 years ago as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean" (Current Anthropology, Vol. 10, No. 5., Dec. 1969, pp. 475-503).

For the last time, Negro, my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid. They -- and Europeans in general -- may be genetically mixed (different haplogroups) and subracially mixed (different phenotypes), but their descent is almost purely Caucasoid. This has been established using autosomal DNA (see this study), which happens to be the best kind of DNA to analyze -- but I wouldn't expect you to know that. What it all proves is not that Southern Europeans are "100% pure", but that they don't have enough non-Caucasoid admixture to affect them from a racial standpoint. Get it, monkey?

quote:

---

Well according to Arredi and other molecular geneticists...you only have to go back as far as the Moorish conquest of Spain, because that's where much of your African DNA comes from. But, let me guess....she's in idiot too?

---

No, the only idiot here is you. I don't know what exactly you're referring to (no doubt some study you didn't understand), but all of the material I've seen on the subject shows that Spain was minimally affected by the Moorish occupation. Do some real research before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself. I'll help you out:

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/spaniards.html

And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/phoen_moors.html

quote:

---

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

---

"Ethiopia: Located in northeastern Africa, in an area known as the Horn of Africa...." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

"Ethiopia, located in the 'Horn of Africa', is not usually considered as part of Sub-Saharan Africa...." (Source)

Map Centre: Northeastern Africa

quote:

---

One of the nice things about the best of Sicily website is that it shows that some folks are ready to move the game on: [URL]http://www.bestofsicily.com/genetics.htm [/URL]

---

I already dealt with the methodological flaws of that website in another thread. Posting the link again only confirms that you're a fool who knows nothing about the field of population genetics.

posted 22 January 2005 08:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
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.

---

quote:

---

With the exception of sickle cell, which I've already explained

---

quote:

---

in situ long before the arrival of "recent African genes".

---

quote:

---

Jelinek describes a set of European skulls from 25,000 years ago as "gracile dolichomorphic" and "practically typical Mediterranean"

---

quote:

---

my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid.

---

quote:

---

They -- and Europeans in general -- may be genetically mixed

---

quote:

---

Well according to Arredi and other molecular geneticists...you only have to go back as far as the Moorish conquest of Spain, because that's where much of your African DNA comes from. But, let me guess....she's in idiot too?

---

quote:

---

No, the only idiot here is you. I don't know what exactly you're referring to

---

quote:

---

but all of the material I've seen on the subject shows that Spain was minimally affected by the Moorish occupation.

---

the proportion of haplogroup E chromosomes of African origin (E[xE3b], E-M35*, and E-M81) was <5% in three Spanish locations; 10.0% and 14.2% in northern and southern Portugal, respectively; and >40% in the Pasiegos (table 1). A relatively high frequency of E-M81 in a different sample of Pasiegos (18%) and non-Pasiegos Cantabrians (17%) has also recently been reported (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003). Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression in different parts of the peninsula, as well as drift/founder effects for the small Pasiegos group.
Fulvio Cruciani,1 Roberta La Fratta, et al.

Imagine a EuroDisney reject, reading the above and concluding that the influence of the Moorish conquests in Southern Europe were 'minimal' and that Europeans therefore constitute a pure race.

EuroDisney: It's a small small (minded) 'world' (you live in), after all.

posted 22 January 2005 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
You know Evil, just from the simple fact that you're calling people Negro's and monkey's takes away all validity you MAY have had...which wasn't a lot anyway. Passionate beliefs can only go so far on this board. And you can stop with the Racial Real links too. That site supports some of the most out-dated and debunked nonsense on the internet. Aside from maybe Stormfront, but they probably get some of their info from there...like you. Evil, are you from the ol'Front? Why keep playing games with us, just come out and tell us your beliefs in the "Master Race."

---

racial reality is HIS website, he's the webmaster, no lie.

posted 22 January 2005 10:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
racial reality is HIS website, he's the webmaster, no lie.

---

Anyone who wants to try to convince people that Ethiopia is not in sub-saharan Africa is a 3rd rate distortion junkie of the most crude sort.

For such demagogues, fibbing is par for the course. Thus their approach to information is essentially - 'caveat emptor', let the buyer beware.

Perhaps he will next claim that Britain is 'often considered' part of the "Amazon Basin", therefore making the Inca civilisation Anglo Saxon Aryans.

How pathetic. I'm not impressed.

posted 22 January 2005 09:18 PM            

For those who need elementary school education on geography; here are three African maps-one is about political boundaries, and the others are geological:

(courtesy of worldatlas)

(courtesy of EnchantedLearning)

(courtesy of calacademy)

This one (below) is a bonus for folks like Horemheb, who are lost about what "Middle East" means (ps-not a continent):

It is really sad that this board has boiled down to this. One would think that participants here will have familiarized themselves with this basic stuff long ago, before taking on educated folks on the more serious stuff.

posted 22 January 2005 11:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Well, EuroDisney is a distortion junkie. He knows the geography but rearranges it to suit his ideology. In his next ridiculous post he will provide some lame excuse for his wild claims, complete with Arthor Kemp weblink showing Ethiopia and Egypt to be the location of Aryan Valhalla!

---

Well, I think Deniakes and his various websites are actually
a N. Med reaction to Aryans who bar them from Valhalla. Instead
of being proud of the distinctive mindset and history of the sunny
Mediterranean their idea is to outwhite the Aryans thus their
contrived exaggerated antiblack attitides.

This way of thinking is also displayed by the Mulatto Movement who
blame hypodescent on the blacks rather than the whites, and the Amazigh
Activists who take great pains to disconnect themselves from all
other Africans excepting Egypt and claim all culture in West Africa
was derived from Imazighen from the neolithic to the Songhai empire.

posted 22 January 2005 11:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Columbia university :http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/africa/cuvl/AncEgypt.html

University of Pennsylvania:http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Country_Specific/Egypt.html

Berkley:http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/AfricanVid.html

University of Florida:http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/aleslie/K_12Websites/K-12WebsiteList.html#EDUCATIONAL%20RESOURCES

Cornell University:http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/guides/ancient.html

Boston University:http://www.bu.edu/africa/outreach/materials/videos/vidlevel/adult.html

Fordham University:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/africa/africasbook.html

HistoryTeacher.nethttp://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/1ancientcivilizations.htm

Ohio State University:http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/mmerryfield/global_resources/modules/AfHAncient.htm

BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section3.shtml...

I am sure the list would go on, but rational people will have already gotten the drift.

---

I'm sorry LOL but ...

posted 23 January 2005 12:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Well, I think Deniakes and his various websites are actually
a N. Med reaction to Aryans who bar them from Valhalla. Instead
of being proud of the distinctive mindset and history of the sunny
Mediterranean their idea is to outwhite the Aryans thus their
contrived exaggerated antiblack attitides.[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 22 January 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

Bingo. Here is a "Nordicist" response to the "Meds". These "purity" debates are comedy:
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/7.html

"Also keep in mind, Greeks have 28% Near Eastern HG9 and 28% North African HG21. Much of this ancestry may date from the Neolithic, but it is curious that RM doesn't interpret this data to mean Greeks are 56% "Hamito-Semitic" and therefore very much less than "pure" European."

"The presence of Negroid or partially-Negroid types in Greece is confirmed by cranial evidence. J.L. Angel reports:

In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date."

"Considering the foregoing, it should come as no surprise that Richards et al. (2000) detected Ethiopian mtDNA haplogroup M1 in Greece. Additionally, sub-Saharan Y-chromosome haplogroup A (most common among Khoisians and Ethiopians) was found in an individual from Mitilini (Di Giacomo et al. in press). Other sub-Saharan haplogroups are found in Greece's neighbors. Note, Greece remains relatively little studied with respect to population genetics. The few relevant studies that have been done have fairly small sample sizes. It's too early to say much about levels of sub-Saharan mtDNA markers compared to other countries in Europe. In any event, exact levels of recent sub-Saharan mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers aren't all that relevant, since larger amounts of Negroid genes may have entered Greece via Negroid-admixed, E3b-carrying North African males.

E3b, the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Greece, "probably originated in eastern Africa" (Semino et al. 2004). It has been proposed that the most frequent E3b subclade in Greece, E-M78, which accounts for nearly half of Peloponnesian Y-chromosomes (Cruciani et al. 2004), originated in Somalia (Sanchez et al. 2003). Bearing in mind the above, it is perhaps not so surprising that the much maligned study "HLA Genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan Origin of the Greeks" independently reported a genetic connection between Ethiopians and Greeks (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001).

In addition to ancient admixture, some Negroid admixture may have accrued to Greece during Ottoman times. Buxton and Rice (1931) mention that "in Cyprus there is a greater proportion of platyrrhiny among the lower classes than in other social strata, but this is perhaps due to the importation of negro slaves by the Turks." Angel (1945) mentions a "Turkish period skeleton" from Athens, "which is unquestionably the remains of a Negroid individual, though possibly with very slight white admixture." Interestingly, 4.3% of Y-chromosomes in a sample of Turkish Cypriots are sub-Saharan (Cruciani et al. 2004; values for Greek Cypriots aren't reported)."

posted 23 January 2005 12:48 AM            

Modern Greeks are overwhelmingly dark-haired and rarely fair-skinned.

posted 23 January 2005 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
my contention is that Southern Europeans are close to racially pure. By that I mean that they're more than 95% Caucasoid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
A far fetched concept that is not supported by modern genetics

---

Um, yes it is. Learn how to click on links and then read and understand page content. It's a very useful skill:

http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000619.html

quote:

---

"Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression"

---

The operative words being "may" and "in part". Further, Pasiegos form an isolated Moorish refuge -- i.e. they're subject to drift/founder effect and not representative of Spaniards.

quote:

---

I doubt it. Self deluding xenophobes hear only what they want to hear and ignore the facts even when plainly stated

---

You're talking about yourself there. Again, read (under "Genetics") these plainly stated facts about ethnic Spaniards:

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/spaniards.html

And one more not to be missed:

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/08/iberian-y-chromosomes.html

quote:

---

Mediterranean is weasel word used to disguise the FACT of heterogenity in Europe.

---

posted 23 January 2005 08:54 AM            

quote:

---

Such differences in the relative African contribution to the male gene pool of different Iberian populations may reflect, at least in part, the different durations of Islamic influence and introgression"

---

quote:

---

EuroDisney writes:
"The operative words being "may" and "in part"

---

Actually the operative word for you is -> denial.

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

[re: caucasiod race purity] A far fetched concept that is not supported by modern genetics.

---

quote:

---

EuroDisney writes: Um, yes it is. Learn how to click on links and then read and understand page content

---

Uhm, no it isn't, and once again, you better read your links carefully before citing them.....

quote:

---

from dienekes.com: Dienekes writes: PS: Of course the authors do not use "racial" terminology

---

NO. They don't do they. Of course not, because most molecular geneticists have rejected such nonsense as.....far fetched concepts and that is why Dienekes - THE FRAUD - inserts racial classifications himself, in order to generate the hilarious debate that ensues. You miss that, because as usual...you hear only what you want to hear.

Such is the art of self-delusion.

And this is why Dienekes and his website are regarded by bioanthropologists as an internet freak show.

Then again, perhaps your Dienekes-links are really meant to illustrate:

Thought Writes:
These "purity" debates are comedy:

If so, point taken.

posted 23 January 2005 09:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No. Mediterranean describes a European/Caucasoid phenotype, like Alpine, Dinaric, Baltic, Nordic etc. Such phenotypes were produced by environmental pressures and intermixing among Caucasoids. For example, Nordics are a hybrid of Paleolithic brunet Mediterraneans from Central Europe and depigmented East Baltics from Northern Europe. Genetically, however, they're nearly pure Caucasoid, like all of the other subraces.

---

posted 23 January 2005 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.

---

Disinfecting Dienekes:

quote:

---

These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics

These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.

---

posted 23 January 2005 10:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Evil Euro:
The early Mediterraneans are not white, but instead black skinned people with straight hair. They may look "Caucasoid"-like, but they do NOT originate from Caucasus. Their ancestor did come from East Africa, just like everyone of us, but they did not have any Caucasian ancestry.

---

This would explain why, an old acquaintance of mine looks and appears the way he does.......

As you can see from the picture above, he is a model. But, when we first met, I noticed he had an accent.

So when I asked him where he was from, I was astonished at his reply. He said he was from Sicily, and migrated here to the states when he was 15.

He also told me, he gets mistaken for being black(African-American) all the time. He also stated to me that he does not like being referred to as black.

So when I asked him, what does he prefer to be referred to as? He simply replied back saying "Sicilian"

All I could say at the time was "Interesting to say the least!"

posted 23 January 2005 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
And this is why Dienekes and his website are regarded by bioanthropologists as an internet freak show.[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 January 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 23 January 2005 02:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

There goes that idiot once again calling genes Caucasoid aftwer it has been proven that genes aren't Caucasoid or Negroid.

---

Dispelling Fallacy:

"We know that some anthropologists tried to identify the Dravidians with what is known as “the Mediterranean race’. Such a general label which conceals gaps in our knowledge of anthropology is indeed confusing"

Truth:
"Consequently, it might have been less ambiguous, as some experts have done, to call that Mediterranean race the “Negroid race” , since its characteristics are precisely those of the blacks in general: an elongated skull, dark or brown skin, these two adjectives being quite often euphemisms for ‘black’. I refer you to [u]Alexander Moret’s[/u] description of the ancient Mediterraneans. This is the place to mention once again the fact that the ancient Greeks did not label as white the former inhabitants of North-West Africa, that is to say, of the present Magreb_Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia -- since they called the inhabitants Mauroi or ‘moors’, meaning men with ‘ a dark skin’. And Herodotus tells us that the Colchidians, a Middle East people, were as ‘Black as Egyptians”"

Dr. K.P. Aravanan
Vice Chancellor
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu

[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 23 January 2005).]