posted 27 February 2005 08:35 AM            

quote:

---

"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."

---

When Angel is describing the "apparent negroid" traits (like prognathism) of pre-historic Caucasoid skulls, he uses a lowercase 'n'. Later, when he refers to "clear Negroids" from historical times (no doubt slaves), he uses a capital 'N'. Two different terms with two different meanings. One is an adjective indicating an evolutionary tendency of primitive peoples and modern throwbacks, the other a proper adjective and noun referring to a racial type of sub-Saharan Africa.

Of course, prognathism and a broad nose alone do not a Negroid make, as anthropologists have observed these "negroid" traits in Neanderthals, Mongoloids, Paleolithic and Neolithic Northern Europeans, and living populations like the Irish.

The Afronuts have been aware of all this since I explained it to them in my first post here, but distortions of scholarship are the only shreds of evidence they've got, so they cling to them desperately no matter what. (Aryanists do the same thing.)

==========================

ADDENDUM:

Prognathism is a primitive trait most common today in Negroids (hence the reference to it as a "negroid trait"), but it certainly isn't limited to sub-Saharan populations or indicative of black admixture. It occurs in most archaic hominids, and re-emerges periodically in modern humans.

Hence, though still displaying a "mosaic of primitive traits," like thick bones, prognathism, and skull shape, H. erectus slowly continued and expanded the morphological trends initiated by H. habilus. [Nelson and Jurmain 1991: 490]

http://selenasol.com/selena/personal/prose/ascent_of_man.html

Another major difference in the morphology of the skulls is the "prognathism" of the Neanderthal skull. [...] For this reason, the prognathism in H. habilis is generally referred to as "sub-nasal" (below-the-nose) prognathism, and that in H. neanderthalensis is generally called "mid-facial" prognathism.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average.

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/Liujiang.html

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SURVIVALS IN IRELAND

An example of notable facial and alveolar prognathism in the case of a dark-haired, light-eyed Irishman. This feature is commoner with Irish of a tall Mediterranean type than with the Upper Palaeolithic strain proper. [NOTE: Irish Meds are of Paleolithic origin with no E3b]

http://web.archive.org/web/20030817073218/www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Paper s/p9.htm

posted 27 February 2005 08:48 AM            

quote:

---

to obscure the anthropological differentiation between "negroid" and "Negroid"

---

posted 27 February 2005 10:27 AM            

*When Angel is describing the "apparent negroid" traits (like prognathism) of pre-historic Caucasoid skulls, he uses a lowercase 'n'. Later, when he refers to "clear Negroids" from historical times (no doubt slaves), he uses a capital 'N'. Two different terms with two different meanings. One is an adjective indicating an evolutionary tendency of primitive peoples and modern throwbacks, the other a proper adjective and noun referring to a racial type of sub-Saharan Africa.*

Post a valid anthropological reference to concur with your arguments. Second, you are admitting pre-historic East Africans were Negroid. Looking through the threads, you tried the same logic with Briggs' use of the word 'negroid', but Briggs did in fact attribute 'Negroid' traits in Stone Age Northwest Africa to mixing with southern Saharans. You're great at tap-dancing.

posted 27 February 2005 12:15 PM            

All this guy does is talk around in circles and refuses to answer basic questions! There is no logic, no ryhme, or reason with trollers like him! So why bother!!

posted 27 February 2005 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Rasol, Thought, and others, why do you guys continue to engage this basketcase?!! It makes no sense!

All this guy does is talk around in circles and refuses to answer basic questions! There is no logic, no ryhme, or reason with trollers like him! So why bother!!

When are we going to get back to ancient Egypt and leave the race thing alone, at least for a while!!

---

I think Ausar ought to think about expanding this forum to include other topics, or perhaps having a different forum altogether.

posted 27 February 2005 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:they leave out the second half of it to obscure the anthropological differentiation between "negroid" and "Negroid"

---

posted 27 February 2005 05:31 PM            

HERODOTUS: THE FATHER OF LIES

=============================================

Introduction

Herodotus' Histories strike the modern reader as rather curious stuff: an odd blend of history, anecdote, folk tale, gossip, tall tales, travelogue, and National Geographic special. Marincola's introduction (in de Sélincourt) provides a brief assessment of the work from a modern historian's point of view: its structure and overall form, Herodotus' sources, his biases, his trustworthiness. Here our concern will be the background to Herodotus' account and (briefly) approaches to evaluating his aims in writing this curious work.

Today Herodotus is referred to (somewhat inaccurately) as the Father of History; in antiquity, by contrast, he was often called the Father of Lies. This evaluation is based in part on Herodotus' pro-Athenian biases (discussed below), but to a great degree it represents a reaction to the curious "tall tales" in which his work abounds:

stories, e.g., of gold-digging ants the size of foxes (3.102-05); of races of people bald from birth (4.23) or with the feet of goats (4.25) or with only one eye (4.26); [FN 1] of bizarre sexual practices (these you'll have to find for yourselves!); of plants which, when thrown on a fire, emit a smoke that makes people drunk "just as wine does the Greeks" (1.202 — surely a bizarre fiction of some sort!)

. [FN 2] This love of tall tales earned the censure, in particular, of Herodotus' younger contemporary, the historian Thucydides (as we'll see later in the course), who regards them as a sign that Herodotus is more interested in entertaining his audience and winning applause than in presenting a serious historical analysis.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
Aristotle and Plato are not only liars, but they are crackpots now. Then why do the Eurocentric education system of the West always focus on those two, along with others like Herodotus, etc. This must mean the West is on crack too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERODOTUS TO THE RESCUE OF AFRO-NUTS!!

[This message has been edited by ABAZA (edited 25 February 2005).]

posted 27 February 2005 05:39 PM            

Sir E A Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published prolifically during his lifetime. The standard biographical study of Egyptologists summarises his achievements as follows:

'in his text editions, Budge was too prolific for careful work, and many of them are inaccurate by modern standards; he persisted in the use of an old system of transcription, and did not utilise many of the grammatical discoveries of the Berlin School; nevertheless without his phenomenal energy and devotion, many hieratic, Coptic, and other texts would not have become known and been made available until a much later date' (Who was who in Egyptology, 1995, p. 72).

The usefulness of books by Sir Wallis Budge has been controversial. Budge ignored major developments made in the fields of transcription, grammar and lexicography, and was neglectful in matters of archaeology and provenance. Although he was an active collector, his publications fell behind contemporaneous scholarly standards and are now extremely outdated. Today, University students are strongly advised not to use them, because of their basic errors of fact and methodology.

For this same reason the Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan does not include any of Budge's books on its recommended reading list. Budge's works are still in print, but this is because they are out of copyright, and so the text can be cheaply reprinted. While they are well illustrated, full of information and extremely cheap, they are at best unreliable, and usually misleading.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wally:
Everyone should read this chapter, Budge explains all of this far better than I could. In fact, his analysis of African religious concepts removes a lot of the religious "abstractions"; makes it more real, more concrete...
(This title is widely available. Check the library or Borders or Barnes & Noble. It's a short chapter, there's no need to buy the whole book )

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

BUDGE TO RESCUE THE AFRO-NUTS!!

posted 27 February 2005 05:45 PM            

1. HERODOTUS - THE FATHER OF LIES!!

2. BUDGE - Discredited by his own people!!

3. THE BIBLE - Full of Errors!!

4. OTHER AFROCENTRISTS - Discredited Scholars

5. RACIST EUROPEANS - Irony in itself!!

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

The bottom line, is that these AFRO-NUTS are only good for ENTERTAINMENT VALUE and A FEW LAUGHS!!

Even AFRICAN AMERICAN SCHOLARS, discredit and explictly denounce their work as NONSENSE, as Mr. Clarence Walker does in his latest book!!

AFROCENTRISM = NONSENSE = AFRO-NUTS = RUBBISH

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rasol:
Err, why reinvent the wheel? http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001450.html
Quite a list of crackpots.

Personally, I think Horemheb is on crack and Abaza is smoking pot, but hey, to each his own.

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

posted 28 February 2005 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Assumedly a "negroid traits" would be phenotypical and /or genotypical traits

---

The concept of 'oid' (resembling) pre-dates and does not directly relate to genetics

It is a misnomer to refer to haplotypes as negroid or caucasoid, we can only discuss their point of origin, and the nature of the populations from which they originate.

For example: PN2 clade E3A and E3B originate in and among Black Africans, as does Benin Hbs, yet these genes are found in significant frequency in parts of Southern Europe. That is the purpose of EuroDisney's latest, and most laughable excercise in dissembling.

SOY Keita
Arethusa
26 (1993) pg 329

"Racialists models which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Professor Angel's work."
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001543.html

posted 28 February 2005 11:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

So is this guy now claiming that neolithic Northern Europeans were really lower case "negroids"? LOL!

---

Lower case "negroids", that is very funny

posted 28 February 2005 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Lower case "negroids", that is very funny

---

Thought is smart enough not to be baited by crude troll tactics.

quote:

---

Thought writes: Evil Euro, before we can take this debate to its logical conclusion we need you to define your terms. Please tell us specifically what a "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are in a scientific sense?

---

posted 28 February 2005 12:34 PM            

Hence haplotypes should correctly be referred to as East African, Southern African, North African, etc. rather than "sub-Saharan", "Black African", etc., if I read you correctly.

But then here's the question: how then should the phenotypical traits that the AE's and their Nubian kin portrayed themselves as having on their murals be described using the language of gross morphology?

posted 28 February 2005 12:59 PM            

The Caucasian race is a proposed race of Homo sapiens found in Europe, West and central Asia, North Africa, and in the Indian subcontinent.

The defining characteristics of the race were said to be "optimized" or ideally represented by the peoples of the Caucasus region of Eastern Europe; hence the name. The term Caucasian race has in time acquired somewhat different meanings in different contexts. It is popularly used in North America to describe whites of northern, eastern and western European descent, usually excluding southern Europeans (often called "Latins") and peoples of Asian, African, or Mediterranean origin. In North America, Caucasian is also used in the broader meaning of "white" especially in government and census forms; see Caucasian type. Others, especially in Eastern Europe, use the term to refer to various ethnic groups living in the Caucasus region; see Peoples of the Caucasus.

posted 28 February 2005 01:13 PM            

The United States Census Bureau uses the federal government's definitions of race when performing a census. These definitions have and may change between each census. For the 2000 census the census bureau considers race to be separate from Hispanic origin. Because of changes to definitions the census bureau warns the following:
The question on race for Census 2000 was different from the one for the 1990 census in several ways. Most significantly, respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identities. Because of these changes, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 1990 census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in the racial composition of the U.S. population over time.
Definitions
The following definitions apply to the 2000
census only.

White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as "White" or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanon, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American refers to people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as "Black, African Am., or Negro", or wrote in entries such as African American, Afro American, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who indicated their race or races by marking this category or writing in their principal or enrolled tribe, such as Rosebud Sioux, Ojibwa, or Navajo.

Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. It includes people who indicated their race or races as "Asian Indian", "Chinese", "Filipino", "Korean", "Japanese", "Vietnamese language ", or "Other Asian", or wrote in entries such as Burmese, Miao, Pakistani, or Thai. (See also: Asian American)

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicated their race or races as "Native Hawaiian", "Guamanian or Chamorro", "Samoan", or "Other Pacific Islander", or wrote in entries such as Tahitian, Mariana Islander, or Chuukese. (See also: American Pacific Islander)

Some other race was included in 2000 census for respondents who were unable to identify with the five Office of Management and Budget race categories. Respondents who provided write-in entries such as Moroccan, South African, Belizean, or a Hispanic origin (for example, Mexico, Puerto Rican, or Cuba) are included in the "Some other race" category.

Reference
*http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf
This article courtesy of Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license. GFDL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

posted 28 February 2005 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

To Rasol

Hence haplotypes should correctly be referred to as East African, Southern African, North African, etc. rather than "sub-Saharan", "Black African", etc., if I read you correctly.

---

posted 28 February 2005 01:51 PM            

quote:

---

But then here's the question: how then should the phenotypical traits that the AE's and their Nubian kin portrayed themselves as having on their murals be described using the language of gross morphology?

---

Phenotype: The physical characteristics of an organism, regardless of genotype.

Genotype: The genetic makeup, as distinguished from the physical appearance, of an organism.

Lineage: ancestry.

Phenotypical terms:

dolichocephalic - long headed
prognathous - portruding jaw
Orthognathous - perpendicular forehead
gracile - thin
robust - stocky
elongated - tall and thin
diminuative - short
black - dark skin color
white - pale skin color
albino - devoid of skin color
aquiline - pointed nose.
etc..

The ws.t concept of race is pre-genetic and based on a flawed supposition, namely that you can determine lineage by phenotype.

posted 28 February 2005 05:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
To Rasol

Hence haplotypes should correctly be referred to as East African, Southern African, North African, etc. rather than "sub-Saharan", "Black African", etc., if I read you correctly.

---

posted 28 February 2005 05:30 PM            

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted 28 February 2005 05:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
What is wrong with the usuage of "sub-Saharan", in terms of application to haplotypes? For instance, is there something wrong with "sub-saharan" East African origins of E3b?

---

No there isn't. Nor is there anything 'wrong' with the Black African origins of E3b.

However as you well know sub-sahara Africa is a mischievous term created by the ws.t.

It is weilded tactically and to great (bias) effect.

Africans must choose our terms with equal care and superior tactical precision.

My best advice is to use the terms tactically, always thinking about 'why' you are using them.

Technically Sahara is not geography...it is climate. 8,000 years ago much of what is now the central Sahara was fertile. It is from this region that many of Africa's current ethnic groups, east and west African originated.

You have to monitor ws.t scholars VERY CAREFULLY because they will attempt to fudge the definition of sub-saharan Africa to acheive an often twisted result.

I'm not referring to the howlingly daft geographically impaired aproaches of Disney or Orionix either, but rather the more subtle fudging of fact that is still to be found in supposedly 'serious' scholarship.

Black Africa, which per webster's is defined as sub saharan Africa, is much the same. Like sub saharan Africa this term was created by the west, and wielded selectively to acheive desired effect.

Too many African(s) in these discussions will simply 'repeat' whatever terminologies are handed to them by white racists, never forcing them to define their terms.

When you do this, you will lose an argument even if you are arguing that 2x2 = 4, against someone insisting that 2x2 = 5.
It isn't enough to be right if you don't really know 'why' you are right..

This thread exists because we forced EuroDisney to define his terms, thus revealing the despair and intellectual emptyness of his argument. Good work to all. But, don't let him off the hook, by entertaining what amounts to his excuse for being contradicted by his own sources and for being unable to define his own terms.

Disney is therefore quite fairly dismissed regardless of his daily dose of distortion with prerequisite troll bait.

posted 28 February 2005 05:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
Re sub-Sarahan Africa

The term "sub-Saharan Africa" has been become too politicised for it have any meaningful objective content. The point of origin of particular haplotypes
could easily be solved by naming the specific region or area it originates from. Furthermore, "sub-Saharan" Africa is such a vast area that nothing really specific could be said about it.

---

You may have a point there, but is it any less specific than "East Africa"?
However, if one uses the term "sub-Saharan East Africa", I think the description becomes even more specific in its application. What do you think?

BTW, some good points from rasol.

posted 01 March 2005 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Evil Euro wrote:

*When Angel is describing the "apparent negroid" traits (like prognathism) of pre-historic Caucasoid skulls, he uses a lowercase 'n'. Later, when he refers to "clear Negroids" from historical times (no doubt slaves), he uses a capital 'N'. Two different terms with two different meanings. One is an adjective indicating an evolutionary tendency of primitive peoples and modern throwbacks, the other a proper adjective and noun referring to a racial type of sub-Saharan Africa.*

Post a valid anthropological reference to concur with your arguments. Second, you are admitting pre-historic East Africans were Negroid. Looking through the threads, you tried the same logic with Briggs' use of the word 'negroid', but Briggs did in fact attribute 'Negroid' traits in Stone Age Northwest Africa to mixing with southern Saharans. You're great at tap-dancing.

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 27 February 2005).]

---

and of course the pre-historic east africans were varied like the west africans.
to euro he thinks that the dinka are white and some other east africans,of course he dead wrong,and i guess he likes to overlook or not mention the fact that the nubians and many egyptians came from the southwest.that would be the central african region making them in his sick view not lower case negriods,but we all the the other or most of the pre -historic east africans are negriod period.

posted 22 May 2005 10:11 AM            

Lets clarify something, there are two distintct phases of what some may term Egyptian influence on Greek culture.
As far as a physical connection, what people are referring to is the fact that many of the Earliest Greek cultures seemed to pattern themselves in the form of more well known cultures to the south, namely the Dynastic Egyptians. This is shown in the artwork, which seems to show a heavy Egyptian influence in both sculpture and painting. Likewise, many of the depictions of these early Greeks were painted in a shade of brown. Also, some find a basis for this in some Early Greek writings that say that Early Greece was a colony of Egypt. If you look at the movie Troy you will notice the fact that the Temple of Appollo (sic) has a strong Egyptian style to it. Either way, this early period of Greek culture was supplanted by hundreds of years of culture and history which produced the Greece of classical times.

This is when the second aspect of Egyptian influence occurred, mainly in the Greeks attempt to travel, learn and expand knowledge. It is widely accepted that the ancient Greeks were prolific writers and explorers with a deep desire to know and explain the world around them. They introduced the idea of the theoretical and rational pursuit of knowledge, outside the system of religion. During this time, the Greeks were known to have travelled to Egypt and produced some of their greatest works. Undoubtedly, SOME ancient Greek writers attributed the origins of many of the sciences that they would go on to greatly expand and document to the Egyptians. But that does not take anything away from the accomplishments of the Greeks. The whole problem surrounding the Greek period in Egypt, is that there is little or no evidence of Egyptian achievements in math and practical science, whereas the Greeks and their prolific writing have survived down to this day. It makes it hard to understand what ideas the Greeks may have gotten from the Egyptians versus those things that were purely based on Greek research and study.

posted 23 May 2005 12:49 AM            

By the way, to those that didn't get a high school diploma or a GED, and probably didn't make it past the 3rd grade, in English grammer you are suppose to capitilize Nouns, such as race; "Negroid"; however, you do not capitilize the same word when used as an adjective; "negroid nose". None of this nonsense about "throwback or primitive types".

Come on, you can make a better case for whatever your point is which I still don't quite follow. Actually, what is your whole point?

What I really fine entertaining is the idea that Somalians are Caucausian because they have "caucausian noses" but according to Erroneous, "Of course, prognathism and a broad nose alone do not a Negroid make".

My answer, "Of course, narrow noses with strong chins do not a cromagnoid make"!