posted 23 January 2005 03:33 PM            

quote:

---

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.

---

posted 23 January 2005 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

Evil Euro:
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.

---

With this admission of non-racial purity, this argument should have been over long ago. Of course, the 95% “Caucasoid” bit is utter nonsense, since humans basically share the same genes, about 99.9%, with the remaining small percentage determining phenotypic characteristics.

This simple fact alone blows away any notion of racial purity…something for irrational folks to ponder. Or else, the irrational one would have to prove that Europeans are not humans...as is the rest of humanity.

Sickle cell presence in southern Europe, is just one but part of various indicators of sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. The E3b is another notorious one.

Any question on sickle cell...just check out this Constellation: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001404.html

quote:

---

Evil Euro:
E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic. It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the specific cluster that makes up the bulk of Southern European E3b actually originated in Southern Europe and is not found at all in Eastern or Southern Africa. It's found only at low frequencies in the Near East and Northern Egypt, no doubt representing Ancient Greek input.

---

Of course, this would be Evil Euro’s opportunity to show us a current genetic study by authoritative sources, that suggest absence of E3b in sub-Saharan east and southern Africa, and its origins elsewhere other than Africa.

Here is my take on that with this up-to-date genetic study:

• Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001). E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001).

• Two of the three branches of haplogroup E, the major clades E1 and E2, have been observed almost exclusively on the African continent, where their distribution has been analyzed in detail (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). The third branch, the clade E3, defined by the mutation P2, is the only one that has also been observed in Europe and in western Asia, where it has generally been found at frequencies <25% (Hammer et al. 2000, 2001; Semino et al. 2000; Scozzari et al. 2001; Cinniolu et al. 2004).

• “Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b, that is, it had :
  
  
  
  1. the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1),
     
     
  2. a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally,

  3. the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup.
     

posted 23 January 2005 07:20 PM            

The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup. Furthermore, the results are in agreement with a gene flow from Eastern to Northern Africa from a homeland in Somalia.

But...where do Somali come from? clue...NOT caucasia:

Conventional wisdom once held that Somali migrations followed a north-to-south route; the reverse of this now appears to be nearer the truth.

Increasingly, evidence places the Somalis within a wide family of peoples called Eastern Cushites by modern linguists.

In addition to the Somalis, the Cushites include the largely nomadic Afar (Danakil), who straddle the Great Rift Valley between Ethiopia and Djibouti; the Oromo, who have played such a large role in Ethiopian history and in the 1990s constituted roughly one-half of the Ethiopian population and were also numerous in northern Kenya; the Reendille (Rendilli) of Kenya; and the Aweera (Boni) along the Lamu coast in Kenya. The Somalis belong to a subbranch of the Cushites, the Omo-Tana group, whose languages are almost mutually intelligible. The original home of the Omo-Tana group appears to have been on the Omo and Tana rivers, in an area extending from Lake Turkana in present-day northern Kenya to the Indian Ocean coast.

The Somalis form a subgroup of the Omo-Tana called Sam. Having split from the main stream of Cushite peoples about the first half of the first millennium B.C., the proto-Sam appear to have spread to the grazing plains of northern Kenya, where protoSam communities seem to have followed the Tana River and to have reached the Indian Ocean coast well before the first century A.D. On the coast, the proto-Sam splintered further; one group (the Boni) remained on the Lamu Archipelago, and the other moved northward to populate southern Somalia.
The Samaale again moved farther north in search of water and pasturelands. They swept into the vast Ogaden (Ogaadeen) plains, reaching the southern shore of the Red Sea by the first century A.D. German scholar Bernd Heine, who wrote in the 1970s on early Somali history, observed that the Samaale had occupied the entire Horn of Africa by approximately 100 A.D.http://countrystudies.us/somalia/3.htm

Point of irony for the geographically impaired.

posted 24 January 2005 06:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Actually the operative word for you is -> denial.

---

And the operative word for you is -> illiterate.

"The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool.

"...the origins of the Iberian Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 5% recent NW African, 78% Upper Paleolithic and later local derivatives (group IX), and 10% Neolithic (H58, H71). No haplotype assumed to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa was found in our Iberian sample. It should be noted that H58 and H71 are not the only haplotypes present in the Middle East and that the Neolithic wave of advance could have brought other lineages to Iberia and NW Africa."

[Bosch et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2001]

quote:

---

"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

---

The denial of race by many modern scientists is the result of PC tyranny, not academic integrity. Thankfully, some responsible geneticists are starting to speak out against it:

"Frequently, it is erroneously contended that the high (85–95%) within-group variance of human populations is inconsistent with the existence of races because differences between individuals are greater than differences between groups."

[Bamshad et al. (2004) Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 598-609]

"Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories."

posted 24 January 2005 06:38 AM            

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.

---

From a recent genetic study:

"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."

posted 24 January 2005 06:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by EGyPT2005:

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.

---

Ha ha ha! That guy may be "from Sicily", but he's no Sicilian. The island has a large immigrant population, which includes many North and West Africans. If you seriously believe that an ethnic Sicilian could look like that, then Afrocentric ignorance runs even deeper than I thought.

These are real Sicilians:

posted 24 January 2005 07:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
From a recent genetic study:

"On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian [b]gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."

[Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998][/B]

---

Recent as in 7 years ago? Who the hell are you trying fool moron. That study says "Caucasoid" genes and "African" . If Caucasoid is taken to mean Yemenis, they're wrong, for the earliest Yemenis certainly were not "Caucasoids" phenotypically.

posted 24 January 2005 07:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Niger Tuaregs and Berbers. They sure look Caucasoid:

---

Berber-Negro hybrids from the southern Sahara have no bearing on the issue of the Moors:

"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."

[John Baker, Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]

quote:

---

Here is an example of a depiction of a Caucasoid Moorish Soldier, as would have appeared in Southern Europe.

---

His face is covered and the picture is too dark. No matter. Based on their own depictions, Moors looked like this:

quote:

---

...various indicators of sub-Saharan African admixture in southern Europeans. The E3b is another notorious one.

---

Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.

posted 24 January 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And anyway, the Moors were fully Caucasoid (Arab-Berber):

---

Caucasoid Moor:

posted 24 January 2005 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"In one sense the word 'Moor' means the Mohammedan Berbers and Arabs of north-western Africa, with some Syrians, who conquered most of Spain in the eighth century and dominated the country for hundreds of years, leaving behind some magnificent examples of their architecture as a lasting memorial of their presence. These so-called 'Moors' were far in advance of any of the peoples of northern Europe at that time, not only in architecture but also in literature, science, technology, industry, and agriculture; and their civilization had a permanent influence on Spain. They were Europids, unhybridized with members of any other race. The Berbers were (and are) Mediterranids, probably with some admixture from the Cromagnid subrace of ancient times. The Arabs were Orientalids, the Syrians probably of mixed Orientalid and Armenoid stock. The skin of Orientalids and of some Berbers darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, and many of them become quite dark in the exposed parts of the body. The association of dark skin with the name of 'Moors' resulted eventually in the same term being applied to Negrids."

[John Baker, Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974]

---

Crap

“In the Romance languages (Spanish, French and Italian) of Midieval Europe, Moor was translated as Moro, Moir and Mor. Derivatives of the word Moor may be found even today in these same languages. In Spanish, for example, the word for blackberry is mora-a noun which originally meant Moorish Women. Also in Spanish, the adjective for dark complexioned, which now means brunette, is moreno. We find a similar legacy in the French language. In French moricaud means dark skinned or blackamoor, while morillion means black grape. Again, as in Spanish, the Italian word mora means Negro or Moorish Female. Also in Italian, Mora means Blackberry, while moraiola means Black olive.”

Golden Age of the Moor, Brunson & Rashidi pg 36

"Moor" orginally meant black or dark skin people. "Moor" eventually became a generalization for anyone professing Islam. You're extremely jaded. It's rather scary.

Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."

posted 24 January 2005 08:04 AM            

Let's get this one in COLOR

posted 24 January 2005 08:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
This Euro Evil guy is a clown

Let's get this one in COLOR

Here's a bonus

---

posted 24 January 2005 09:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro: Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.

---

Evil Euro, I have a feeling you don't take time to "carefully" read the up-to-date genetic studies I provided herein. In that study, I am *certain*, nor do I know of any other that states otherwise, that Ethiopians don't originate in Caucasia. I am also aware that they never left the continent, except for some historic trade routes with southern Arabia, which doesn't imply the "entire" population had left the continent to justify that label. Your perspective is interesting indeed; any foreign admixture in African populations make them an exclusive member of the foreign race, but African admixture in southern Europeans have no bearing on their "purity" of European. If one actually takes the time to carefully learn about these African populations, I doubt that comments such as above will be forthcoming. I mean seriously, have you actually seen a typical Ethiopian, not to mention the majority section of that population? If you have, it is indeed interesting why any rational person would think they look Caucasoid.

posted 24 January 2005 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid according to numerous studies. Thus, their 50-70% E3b Y-chromosomes can't be affiliated with sub-Saharan Africans. It's statistically impossible.

---

posted 24 January 2005 09:51 AM            

Genetic variation atapolipoprotein E locus in Ethiopia: an E5 variant corresponds to two different mutant alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg).

Scacchi R, De Stefano GF, Ruggeri M, Corbo RM.

CNR Center of Evolutionary Genetics, Department of Genetics and Molecular Biology, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.

A previous investigation on apolipoprotein E polymorphism in the Ethiopian population highlighted the presence of a further variant allele named E*5 in addition to the three common alleles. The variant is considered rare elsewhere but has a frequency of more than 1% in this population. Now characterized by gene sequencing and restriction isotyping in many members of the families of the original carriers, the variant isoform has actually been found to be determined by two different gene mutations. Effectively rare in Ethiopians, one of the two, E5 (Gln204Lys, Cys 112Arg), has never been described before. The other, E5 (Glu212Lys), previously described in a subject of Turkish origin, is present at the polymorphic level only in the Ethiopian population. No subjects bearing these variants had anomalous lipid or apolipoprotein patterns. In the course of the present investigation both have been found to occur as rare variants in the southern Italian population as well. The occurrence of the two variants in the populations of Ethiopia and of the Mediterranean basin could be explained by taking into account the relevant Caucasoid contribution to the Ethiopian gene pool.

Now where in here does it say anything about Ethiopians being paternally Caucasoid?

Now this statement made my Evil Euro:

"Non sub-Saharan African samples are all grouped together...with...the Ethiopian Amharic sample [on the Y-chromosome]. Ethiopians are not statistically differentiated from the Egyptian and Tunisian samples, in agreement with their linguistic affiliation with the Afro-Asiatic family."

(Poloni et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1997)

I read the ENTIRE full study and nowhere does any of the conclusions Evil Euro reached matched with the study, he selectively took parts of that study, pieced them together and distorted them. Read the study http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v61n5/970152/970152.html and you'll see what I'm talking about. That study tries to say language and genes correspond which is false. Note that south African Lemba are grouped with Afro-Asiatic speakers based on their Semitic mixture, but linguistically they are Bantu speakers. The "Afro-Asiatic" samples are Sephardim(Near Eastern, North African), Lebanese, Algerian, Egyptians, Tunisians, and lastly, Ethiopians. Most of those "Afro-Asiatic speakers " speak Arabic and Hebrew, except for Ethiopians, the problem is, where are the Hausa, Omotic peoples, and Cushitic speaking peoples? Why aren't they included among Afro-Asiatic speakers, that study is clearly flawed. Evil Euro is too stupid to see that all his data he uses as sources are either outdated or conflict with one another, none say Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid. Furthermore, that study says this:

According to the first axis of the two-principal-coordinate analyses in figure 3, the Ethiopian sample is more differentiated, from other African samples, for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. This holds true when additional microsatellite markers on the Y chromosome are analyzed, and it has been attributed to unequal patterns of male and female gene flow between the Middle East and Ethiopia (G. Passarino, unpublished data).

The unpublished Passarino study is the same one Evil Euro has cited that says Ethiopians are 40% Caucasoid. Nowhere in that study did it say Ethiopians are paternally Caucasoid, Evil Euro is a liar and distorter of facts.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 24 January 2005).]

posted 24 January 2005 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Berber-Negro hybrids from the southern Sahara have no bearing on the issue of the Moors

---

Thought Writes:

Racial constructs such as this are outdated based upon the scientific model.

Thought Posts:

Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
Published online: 26 October 2004; | doi:10.1038/ng1455
Conceptualizing human variation
S O Y Keita1, 2, R A Kittles1, 3, C D M Royal1, G E Bonney1, P Furbert-Harris1, G M Dunston1 & C N Rotimi1
1 National Human Genome Center, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, USA.
2 Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
3 Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Correspondence should be addressed to R A Kittles kittles-1@medctr.osu.edu

What is the relationship between the patterns of biological and sociocultural variation in extant humans? Is this relationship accurately described, or best explained, by the term 'race' and the schema of 'racial' classification? What is the relationship between 'race', genetics and the demographic groups of society? Can extant humans be categorized into units that can scientifically be called 'races'? These questions underlie the discussions that address the explanations for the observed differences in many domains between named demographic groups across societies. These domains include disease incidence and prevalence and other variables studied by biologists and social scientists. Here, we offer a perspective on understanding human variation by exploring the meaning and use of the term 'race' and its relationship to a range of data. The quest is for a more useful approach with which to understand human biological variation, one that may provide better research designs and inform public policy.

'Race': semantics and confusion
The term 'race' engenders much discussion, with little agreement between those who claim that 'races' are real (meaning natural) biological entities and those who maintain that they are socially constructed1. The former group sometimes stresses empirical evidence for the existence of biological 'racial' differences, and the latter stresses the role that human agency has had in creating distinctions between people (on any level). Biologists also disagree about the meaning of 'race', and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation2, 3, 4, 5.

An examination of these discussions indicates that there is a problem with semantics. 'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'6, 7. In anthropology, the meaning of race became formalized for humans and restricted to units based on biological variation in keeping with general zoological practice8, 9. Classifications were based on somatic traits.

'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence11. Do any of the human groups called 'races', including those from traditional anthropology, meet this latter criterion?

We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.

Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.

'Race' and subspecies
Although the subspecies level is formally recognized in taxonomy, it has been criticized. Subspecies were primarily delimited by differences in selected observable morphological traits within a restricted geographical range. In practice, divisions were made based on a few prominent traits, with subsequent variation interpreted in terms of established units.

In the 1950s many zoological taxonomists became dissatisfied with the subspecies as a way to understand variation10, 12, 13. Criticisms included (i) the nonconcordance of traits, which made it possible to produce different classifications using the same individuals; (ii) the existence of polytopic populations, which are the product of parallel evolution; (iii) the existence of true breeding populations (demes) within previously delimited subspecies; and (iv) the arbitrariness of criteria used to recognized subspecies10. In addition, some traits were found to be clinally distributed, making the creation of divisions arbitrary.

Current systematic theory emphasizes that taxonomy at all levels should reflect evolutionary relationships11. For instance, the term 'Negro' was once a racial designation for numerous groups in tropical Africa and Pacific Oceania (Melanesians). These groups share a broadly similar external phenotype; this classification illustrates 'race' as type, defined by anatomical complexes. Although the actual relationship between African 'Negroes' and Oceanic 'Negroes' was sometimes questioned, these groups were placed in the same taxon. Molecular and genetic studies later showed that the Oceanic 'Negroes' were more closely related to mainland Asians.

Molecular systematics makes it possible to explore infraspecific variation to detect patterns that would reflect phylogenetic substructuring. Avise and Ball suggest a definition of 'subspecies' that is consistent with the goals of evolutionary taxonomy11: "Subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly the evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent, genetically based traits."

This definition is different from the previous one in that it emphasizes phylogenetics. It is, in theory, more objective and consistent with neodarwinian evolutionary theory and can be used as the basis for determining whether or not modern Homo sapiens can be structured into populations divergent enough to be called 'races'. We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees14?

'Race' and social construction
'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms.

Human races as human variation
Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

Human genome variation, demographic groups and disease
'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome22. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%)23. Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia24. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants25. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation15, 26.

Because substantial genetic variation may be localized to regions or populations, attention has been focused on how geographic origins may contribute to differential distribution of disease and mortality or 'health disparities'. In January of 2000, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched "Healthy People 2010," a program committed to eliminating 'ethnic' and 'racial' health disparities. Although there is considerable debate regarding the definition, measurement and causes of health disparities, there is increased focus on the potential role of the distribution of DNA sequence variation in contributing to observed differences in disease status among groups.

Several competing, but not necessarily exclusive, hypotheses exist to describe the genetic contribution to complex disease, including the common disease–common variant (CDCV) hypothesis and the multiple rare variants (MRV) hypothesis27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. If it turns out to be that much of the genetic variation contributing to disease is old and shared by most human populations, as implied by the CDCV hypothesis, then differences in the health status of population groups (health disparities) will be largely due to differences in exposure to cumulative environmental insults. If the MRV hypothesis turns out to be true, however, then more comprehensive sampling of multiple human populations will be necessary to adequately describe the extent to which a differential distribution of genes underlies the pathophysiology of disease susceptibility or resistance. Under this hypothesis, a substantial proportion of genetic polymorphisms will be rare and will probably be specific to groups that experienced similar evolutionary forces of selection or drift. In the end, both the CDCV and the MRV hypotheses may apply, depending on the phenotype under consideration. The etiologies of diseases such as lupus, diabetes and Alzheimer disease are examples that may require strategies derived from both hypotheses.

An important implication of the MRV model is that no one map of polymorphic markers (e.g., a SNP map such as that generated by the HapMap project) will probably be sufficient for understanding the complex interplay between multiple genetic variants and multiple environmental factors in the etiology of human diseases across all global populations. Therefore, it may be premature at this time to completely disregard all population (or group) identifiers in biomedical research, as some propose. Group identifiers are important for seeing group patterns in disparities. For example, African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic and degenerative diseases. African American males have a 60% greater risk of developing prostate cancer, twice the risk of developing its aggressive form and twice the mortality relative to European Americans33. Study designs should reflect efforts to partition the genetic, environmental and geographic variance for the diseases that contribute most to group disparity statistics, such as obesity and related disorders.

The finding that the demographic group called 'African American' has a higher prevalence of prostate cancer, obesity and hypertension is not to be denied. This does not mean, however, that this is a 'racial' phenomenon, as disease is probably due to gene-environment interaction and not linked to the physical traits assumed to covary with this population. This group has heterogeneous ancestral continental origins, predominantly West African and West Central African. They are heterogeneous in their African origins also. Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery. It is this history, and its constituent elements, that are specific to the group. The Middle Passage African descendants, whether in North America or South America, do have a particular biocultural history34. It may be necessary to craft specific group identifiers to facilitate good research design2. 'Racial' approaches to identity, as found in Office of Management and Budget directive 15, operate from the Platonic mold that groups so defined would necessarily be genetically the same, and this is false. The New World descendants of Middle Passage Africans, whether found in specifically labeled communities (e.g., African Argentinian, African Mexican, African Venezuelan or African Canadian) or in the 'majority' populations ('mestizos' or 'whites') cannot be lumped with newcomers from the continent under the label 'black' or 'African American'. Designations like 'Arab' are also fraught with biohistorical complexity because they often designate peoples who became acculturated. For example, Syrian and Shuwa Arabs illustrate the great biological and cultural variation that may be found under a single ethnolinguistic label.

The causes of health disparities among groups are not well understood, but genetic explanations are frequently the default position for a variety of reasons, including a tradition of biological determinism4. Although genes probably have a role, we must realize that some environmental influences can be so subtle and occur so early in life as to be missed, thereby facilitating acceptance of a genetic explanation that is probably false. The fetal programming and early childhood insult hypotheses for the origins of adult disease may have a role in explaining health disparities35, 36.

'Race' and research
Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications.

Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale. Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations. Generalizations that invoke 'genetic' explanations are to be avoided unless they are warranted. All of these have policy implications for health studies.

'Racial' thinking can still be found in scientific literature15. Evolutionary and other biohistorical studies should be model-based and should acknowledge the ongoing legacy of 'racial' thinking. Collaborations with experts in appropriate fields such as historical linguistics, archaeology, ethnology and recent history would improve the quality of multidisciplinary studies.

Received 9 September 2004; Accepted 23 September 2004; Published online 26 October 2004.

REFERENCES
Andreasen, R.O. Race: Biological reality or social construct. Philos. Sci. (Proc.) 67, S653–S666 (2000). | Article |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Boyce, A.J. "Race": Confusion about zoological and social taxonomies, and their places in science. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 13, 569–575 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Andreason, R.O. A new perspective on the race debate. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 49, 199–225 (1998).
Lewontin, R. Not In Our Genes (Pantheon, New York, 1984).
Livingstone, F. On the non-existence of human races. Curr. Anthropol. 3, 279–281 (1962). | Article | ISI |
Gordon, H. Genetics and race. S. Afr. Med. J. 39, 533–536 (1965). | PubMed | ChemPort |
Stepan, N. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960 (London and Basingstoke, 1982).
Deniker, J. The Races of Man (Walter Scott, London, 1900).
Garn, S. Human Races. (McGraw Hill, Springfield, 1961).
Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P. Principles of Systematic Zoology 2nd edn. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1991).
Avise, J.C. & Ball, R.M. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 45–67 (1990).
Wilson, E.O. & Brown, W.L. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst. Zool. 2, 97–111 (1953). | ISI |
Brown, W.L. & Wilson, E.O. The case against the Trinomen. Syst. Zool. 3, 174–176 (1953).
Ruvolo, M. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26, 515–540 (1997). | Article | ISI |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Kittles, R.A. The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence. Am. Anthropol. 99, 534–544 (1997). | ISI |
Latter, B.D. Genetic differences within and between populations of the major human groups. Am. Nat. 116, 220 (1980) | Article | ISI |
Lewontin, R.C. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. 6, 381–398 (1972).
Long, J.C. & Kittles, R.A. Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Hum. Biol. 75, 449–471 (2003). | PubMed | ISI |
Nei, M. & Roychoudhury, A.K. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927–943 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994).
Underhill, P.A. et al. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann. Hum. Genet. 65, 43–62 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Kruglyak, L. & Nickerson, D. Variation is the spice of life. Nat. Genet. 27, 234–236 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Additional SNPs and linkage-disequilibrium analyses are necessary for whole-genome association studies in humans. Nat. Genet. 33, 518–521 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Allen, M., Salden, T., Patterson, U. & Gyllensten, U. Genetic typing of HLA class II genes in Swedish populations: applications in forensic analyses. J. Forensic Sci. 38, 554–570 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Rosenberg, N. et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381–2385 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Serre, D. & Paabo, S. Evidence of gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14, 1679–1685 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Collins, F.S., Brooks, L.D. & Chakravarti, A. A DNA polymorphism discovery resource for research on human genetic variation. Genome Res. 8, 1229–1231 (1998). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Reich, D. et al. Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature 411, 199–204 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Weiss, K.M. & Clark, A.G. Linkage disequilibrium and the mapping of complex human traits. Trends Genet. 18, 19–24 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Pritchard, J.K. & Cox, N.J. The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant...or not? Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2417–2423 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Selecting a maximally informative set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for association analyses using linkage disequilibrium. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 106–120 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Neale, B. & Shan, P. The future of association studies: gene-based analysis and replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75, 353–362 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Stanford, J.L. et al. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995. SEER Program, National Cancer Institute NIH Pub No 99-4543. (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 1999).
Rout, L., The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).
Barker, D.J.P. In utero programming of chronic disease. Clin. Sci. 95, 115–128 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Sallout, B. & Walker, M. The fetal origin of adult diseases. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 23, 555–560 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |

posted 24 January 2005 10:23 PM            

quote:

---

---

Look at this 6 year old map by Hammer et al. Do you notice some
weird stuff? Look at the European cluster. Germans are closer to
Spaniards and Italians than they are to Brits or Austrians?

Look at the group having black squares or triangles. Saudi Arabians
are closer to Greeks than they are to Syrians or Palestinians?

And the craziest thing is that Sub Saharan African cluster that
stretches nearly the entire length of the Y range!

Yet when this report, based on genes that arose 1000s of
years before there were either Hebrews or Arabs, was issued
it was lauded because it showed Roman, Yemenite, Kurdish and
North African Jews to be close to the Palestinians.

Considering the flaws in this PC map alone, I am not sorry to
say that the report had an obvious political agenda behind it.

posted 25 January 2005 06:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
Let's get this one in COLOR

---

Re: the Afrocentric (mis)use of that image:

"The above picture of particularly dark-skinned Muslims is shown on various 'Afrocentric' web pages attempting to prove that Black Africans dominated Spanish society during the Muslim occupation. But further examination of more pictures from the same Book of Games reveals the same pattern as in the Cantigas: the component of the Muslim population that approached 'black African' in appearance seems to have been a small minority. If the pictures are any indication, then the bedrock of Islamic society in Spain consisted of people who resembled European or Middle Eastern types."

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

quote:

---

Here's a bonus

---

posted 25 January 2005 06:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Look at this 6 year old map by Hammer et al. Do you notice some
weird stuff? Look at the European cluster. Germans are closer to
Spaniards and Italians than they are to Brits or Austrians?

Look at the group having black squares or triangles. Saudi Arabians
are closer to Greeks than they are to Syrians or Palestinians?

And the craziest thing is that Sub Saharan African cluster that
stretches nearly the entire length of the Y range!

Yet when this report, based on genes that arose 1000s of
years before there were either Hebrews or Arabs, was issued
it was lauded because it showed Roman, Yemenite, Kurdish and
North African Jews to be close to the Palestinians.

---

What the hell are you babbling about? On one side of the plot, paternally Caucasoid Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans cluster together. Sub-Saharan Negroids all cluster on the opposite side of the plot because they're unrelated to the other groups. It's really not that complicated.

quote:

---

Considering the flaws in this PC map alone, I am not sorry to
say that the report had an obvious political agenda behind it.

---

The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.

posted 25 January 2005 07:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 25 January 2005).]

---

Moron, you cannot properly read that map and the only one with an agenda is your ass. The North Africans and Middle Easterners do NOT at all cluster together with Europeans. The North Africans are distant from Europeans, the Europeans are a cluster to themselves and you have NOT read that study. The position of Ethiopians in that study is for the simple the reason that they have uneven male-female geneflow from Middle Easterners, the study even said that moron, can't you read? The Ethiopian and Lemba position of the map is due to both having paternal Middle Eastern ancestry, but I don't hear your ass calling Lemba people paternal Caucasoids for the simple reason they come from central Africa and look very sub-Saharan. East Africans look very sub-Saharan because they are Elongated East Africans and NOT mixes "true Negroids"(bullshit term) and Midlle Easterners. Lemba are central Africans with paternal Middle Eastern ancestry, but you don't see the same features in them as you see in most Ethiopians(Amharas to be correct) and do you know why? They're of central African stock and Ethiopians are Elongated East Africans who were narrow noses, thin lipped, and narrow headed BEFORE mixture with Middle Easterners(Hiernaux,1975) . Now stay the hell out of Africa trying to claim people that don't belong to you as part of your shitty Mediterranean race, moron!

posted 25 January 2005 07:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, Ivan Van Sertima is not a reliable source. That's like citing Hitler to make a point about the race of the Jews.

---

What the hell do you know about Van Sertima moron? Hitler and Van Sertima have nothing even close in common, but shitty Carleton Coon, the moron you keep posting comes a helluva alot closer so who are you to say anything? Read this about your idol Coon.
http://comm.colorado.edu/jjackson/research/coon.pdf#search='Congoid'

Now who the hell is closer to Hitler you fool?

posted 25 January 2005 09:11 AM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

It is of interest that many of the most Liberal areas of the USA (New York, California, etc.) have the highest concentrations of Mediterranean derived Europeans. In that regard it is interesting to note the disassociation of Mediterranean lands and people (Jews, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish, etc) from Africa. Perhaps there is a fear in some Liberal circles that the recent revelations from linguistics (Afro-Asiatic) and genetics (PN2 Clade) will hinder their long sought inclusion into Anglo-Saxon society. Recall that Hitler implied that Jews were essentially “Mulattos” and anyone watching the Godfather carefully understands that it is really about the Anglo-Saxonization of Italians.

---

posted 25 January 2005 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Don't want to hijack your thread but there is no such thing as "African" genes and "European" genes. There are no genes in the human genome that could be called "African" or "European".

---

By that, I take it you mean "negroid, "caucasiod", or "mongloid". Orionix, this has been said time and again here. However, there is such a thing as "origins" of genes. That is the important aspect of genetics.

posted 25 January 2005 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

By that, I take it you mean "negroid, "caucasiod", or "mongloid". Orionix, this has been said time and again here. However, there is such a thing as "origins" of genes. That is the important aspect of genetics.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 25 January 2005).]

---

All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar.

There are very few genes found in Africans or people of African descent that're not found elsewhere - and all of those that I can think of are not discernable to the human eye, these are allelic variations. The point was, there are no "negroid" or "caucasoid" genes: there are only HUMAN genes. "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are culturally and politically constructed racial classifications, not objective or physically varifiable realities.

posted 25 January 2005 12:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar.

There are very few genes found in Africans or people of African descent that're not found elsewhere - and all of those that I can think of are not discernable to the human eye, these are allelic variations. The point was, there are no "negroid" or "caucasoid" genes: there are only HUMAN genes. "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" are culturally and politically constructed racial classifications, not objective or physically varifiable realities.

---

posted 25 January 2005 12:27 PM            

quote:

---

All genes originated in 'sub-Saharan' east Africa supercar. there is no such thing as "African" genes and "European" genes

---

Haplotypes, defined as closely linked alleles can be used to trace biological lineage back to distinct points of origin known as the mrca - most recent common ancester, the point at which haplotypes diverge.

Thus E3b2 diverges from E3b1 based on Common E3b ancester population at the an mrca date.

Cruciani et al give an estimate of 24-27 thousand years ago for the date of the most recent common ancestor of all E3b's and named eastern Africa as the probable place of origin

Points of origin and in cases, even prospective populations can sometimes be located. E3 happens to originate in Africa.
Pn2 (E3a and E3b) clade show direct line of descent.

This should not be taken as an synomym for 'race' however, which is a trickier, messier, notion, based upon certain presumptions [such as the myth of the Meditteranian race] that are easily shattered by genetics for instance.

posted 25 January 2005 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The only flaw is in your brain. And the only political agenda is your Afrocentric one.

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 25 January 2005).]

---

Dienekes
The immaturity of your response and the hatred explicit in your
aptly chosen username preclude me from ever replying to you except
this one time. I have time to consider opposing discussion of the
topic from anyone who understands civil academic behavior. Others may address your sophmoric pablum but
not I.

posted 25 January 2005 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

This is incorrect, and the logical fallacy is equivelant to beginning with the correct statement that 'all langauge begins in Africa', and deriving from this the [b]incorrect conclusion, that there is 'no such thing' as an African language.

---

Basically the first cultures began in Africa.

quote:

---

Haplotypes, defined as closely linked alleles can be used to trace biological lineage back to distinct points of origin known as the mrca - most recent common ancester, the point at which haplotypes diverge.

---

First of all, lineage is much more complex than racial theory can ever deal with. Also all haplotypes originated in Africa.

quote:

---

Thus E3b2 diverges from E3b1 based on Common E3b ancester population at the an mrca date.

---

The mrca for super-haplotype E3b is super-haplogroup E* which is largely located in Africa, where it originated in the first place.

Cruciani et al give an estimate of 24-27 thousand years ago for the date of the most recent common ancestor of all E3b's and named eastern Africa as the probable place of origin

No doubt. Haplogroup E* is entirely African.

quote:

---

This should not be taken as an synomym for 'race' however, which is a trickier, messier, notion, based upon certain presumptions [such as the myth of the Meditteranian race] that are easily shattered by genetics for instance.

---

Race is not supported by genetics or the treeness theory whatsoever.

posted 25 January 2005 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Race is not supported by genetics or the treeness theory whatsoever.

---

posted 25 January 2005 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Re: the Afrocentric (mis)use of that image:

"The above picture of particularly dark-skinned Muslims is shown on various 'Afrocentric' web pages attempting to prove that Black Africans dominated Spanish society during the Muslim occupation. But further examination of more pictures from the same Book of Games reveals the same pattern as in the Cantigas: the component of the Muslim population that approached 'black African' in appearance seems to have been a small minority. If the pictures are any indication, then the bedrock of Islamic society in Spain consisted of people who resembled European or Middle Eastern types."

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

Um, Ivan Van Sertima is not a reliable source. That's like citing Hitler to make a point about the race of the Jews.

---

Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."

posted 25 January 2005 01:40 PM            

It was not untill the invasions of the Almoravid and Almohad that black Moors began to move more into Spain. Almoravids were mostly Tuareg people. Some also came from the Anti-Atlas and Atlas mountains.

Most of the Greco-Roman literatture that Muslims in Spain reintroduced was already preserved by the Syriac Christians in monestaries. Moors just took technology already avaiable in China,India and Persia and introduced it back to Al-Andalusian Spain.

There were of course black Sultans in Al-Andulas,black scholars,and black people. It should be noted that one of the most prominent musical genius in Al-Andalas was named Zaryab. He revolutionized Arabic classical music and most Magrebian music and Arabian classical music continues to use his scales. Zaryab was originally an African slave probably from Zanj[the Arabic name from modern day Tanzania and Eastern Africa]

The quotes during Alfonso's time would have been relative to the Almoravid and Almohad people.

One thing that Mediterranean people might not like is the fact that African slaves were imported into the Iberian peninsula and in Reinassance Italy. In fact, most slaves were imported to these areas in the 1400's well before the advent of the trans-atlantic slave trade.

posted 25 January 2005 02:01 PM            

quote:

---

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

---

posted 25 January 2005 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Actually Evil Euro is right about the Moors in Spain. Most were Yemani and Syrian Arabs.

---

I've read this [and it registered] but Evil Euro is suggesting there were no true [black] Moors in medieval Spain and surrounding areas. The Almoravids [I know they neighbored Wagadu] and the Almohades immediately came to mind.

I've also read that even in these times the Arabs weren't fond of [black] Africans. I don't know if this was an issue but I'm sure the slaves coming in from the Sahel [I think] had something to do with these sentiments.

posted 25 January 2005 11:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Actually Evil Euro is right about the Moors in Spain. Most were Yemani and Syrian Arabs.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 26 January 2005 12:11 AM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

During what period? What are your sources? Were many of these Yemeni of East African (Aksumite) background?

---

My main source comes from the fact that most of the elite rulers in Cordova Spain were attached to the Umayyad Caliphate based mainly in Damascus Syria. In later times there were the Abbasid Caliphate that ruled from Bagdad.

Only the foot soliders were Northern Africans and Sahelian Africans.

Almoravids and Almohades did not rule untill the 1200's.

posted 26 January 2005 07:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Dienekes
The immaturity of your response and the hatred explicit in your
aptly chosen username preclude me from ever replying to you except
this one time. I have time to consider opposing discussion of the
topic from anyone who understands civil academic behavior. Others may address your sophmoric pablum but
not I.

---

posted 26 January 2005 07:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."

It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.

---

posted 26 January 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
Alfonso X (1252-1284): : "All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their black faces were like pitch and the most handsome of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flames; their horses fast as leopards...The vile people of Africa who were not used to kindness...are now exalted 'Poor Spain. Your death was so afflicted...."

It's pretty hard explaining this away isn't it? I've noticed eurocentrics like yourself (and the person you cited) don't mind discrediting their own scholars when it comes to ethnohistory.

---

quote:

---

"Black" didn't always have the meaning it does today. [Irish people with dark hair and complexions were once called "black Irish".

---

Black Irish are a red-herring.

The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".

posted 26 January 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
One thing that Mediterranean people might not like is the fact that African slaves were imported into the Iberian peninsula and in Reinassance Italy. In fact, most slaves were imported to these areas in the 1400's well before the advent of the trans-atlantic slave trade.[/B]

---

posted 26 January 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Black Irish are a red-herring.

The Moor: Light of Europe 's Dark Age," informs us that the English word "Moor" originally comes from the Greek adjective "Mauros," which literally means "black" or very dark in color. The Romans would later adopt the word as a reference for the black-skinned inhabitants they encountered in Africa. Again, we recall that it was the ancient Romans who called the entire region of northwestern Africa Mauretania. Needless to say, this translates from the Latin as "the land of the black-skinned people".

Moor is simply a European reference to Black Africans expanded to include Islamic(s) in Europe in general.

---

posted 26 January 2005 08:07 AM            

quote:

---

Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot.

---

quote:

---

"Mauros" simply means "dark".

---

North African, Berber," 1390, from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India - www.etymonline.com

quote:

---

it can refer to hair, eyes or skin

---

quote:

---

English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris"

---

posted 26 January 2005 08:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. "Mauros" simply means "dark". It can refer to hair, eyes or skin, and it's usually relative to the pigmentation of the people using it. English surnames such as "Moore" and "Morris" are derived from that word, and were originally applied to swarthy Englishmen.

---

You were proven an idiot in several discussions yet you decide to call others idiots. What a hypocrite.

Take a look at Dictionary.com:

"[Middle English More, from Old French, from Medieval Latin Mrus, from Latin Maurus, Mauritanian, from Greek Mauros.]"

posted 26 January 2005 08:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Ad hominem fallacies indicate intellectual bankruptcy.

---

Quotes from Afrocentric pseudo-scholars indicate intellectual bankruptcy.

quote:

---

Nope.

---

Yep. Look it up. "Mauros" = "dark" and it was applied to all sorts of people of varying complexions, as your own source indicates. What the hell are you trying to prove anyway? That everyone referred to as "Moor" was Negroid? That's just plain stupid.

posted 26 January 2005 09:51 AM            

quote:

---

Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later used indiscriminately for Muslims.

---

EuroDisney whines:

quote:

---

What the hell are you trying to prove anyway?

---

quote:

---

That everyone referred to as "Moor" was Negroid?

---

EuroDisney: Since you want to play dumb, why don't you write etymology online and ask them to use smaller words since you claim to not understand what they are saying?

posted 26 January 2005 10:12 AM            

BTW, it would truly be refreshing to see the opposing side of these discussions use up-to-date undebunked sources for once!

posted 26 January 2005 12:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop using Van Sertima as a source, you idiot. .

---

Rephrase:

Stop using Carleton Coon as a source, you idiot.