posted
The primary discussions that occur in this forum are essentially related to the Origins of Race question. What typically is argued is a multiregional verses Out of Africa model. With the multiregional argument being based on facial features and the Out of Africa being based on genetic and cultural evidence.
Coon most famous point was that Caucasoid people are 200,000 years more evolved than Negroid people. The 5 distinct races being 500,000 years separated. Interestingly, Europeans are not pure Homo Sapians but rather a mixture of Mediteranean types and Neanderthal.
What does that have to do with Egypt?
Looks at the Coon map:
Note that the entire Nile Valley (Nubians included) are all considered Caucasoid.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ofcourse Coon wasn't right. There are no Homo Sapien-Neanderthal hybrid populations, The Out of Africa model is supported by most mainstream scholars and backed by genetic evidence which didn't exist during Coon's time. Europeans are not more highly evolved than Africans and there is no evidence whatsoever for Northeast Africans ever being Caucasoid or there even being a phylogenetic breeding population that warrants the term Caucasoid or Negroid.
Read these two studies for more detail:
quote:The concept and schema of race continue to exert a major influence on studies of human biology. The racial paradigm informs evolutionary studies in spite of evidence indicating that categories based on external phenotype are not valid. Racial thinking is especially prevalent in studies of Africa. It persists in defiance of genetic data that deconstruct such thinking, probably as a result of the sociocultural milieu, linger research traditions, and a lack of appreciation of the implications of modem genetic studies.
Source: The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence
quote: In the 19th century measurements of cranial capacity by Morton and others supported a "Caucasoid>Mongoloid>Negroid" hierarchy of intelligence. This continued through most of the 20th century but was challenged by a nonhierarchical view originating with Boas. Beginning in the 1980s Rushton correlated cranial and IQ measurements and presented a hierarchy with "Mongoloids" at the top. Each of these periods relates to its social context: the 19th-century hierarchy paralleled the height of European world domination; the nonhierarchy of the 20th century reflected world wars, worldwide depression, and the breakup of empires; the "Mongoloid>Caucasoid>Negroid" hierarchy followed the economic success of several Asian nations. Morton's cranial ranking was the result of his sampling error and his acceptance of the hierarchical thinking of his time. But how is it possible for Rushton to support the M>C>N ordering while using the data of several anthropologists who have rejected racial hierarchies on empirical grounds? The answer to this question involves a critique of Rushton's use of the race concept, his aggregation of diverse populations into three traditional races, his claim to explain differences in "cultural achievements" on the basis of variation in brain size, and a number of other problems. The study concludes by noting that the major consequence of these hierarchies is the apparent justification for the exploitation of those at the bottom.
Source: How "Caucasoids" got such big crania and why they shrank. From Morton to Rushton.
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Right about what?
The arguments that I hear in this forum are of 2 schools of thought:
Coon's racial theories and Out of Africa genetic theories.
That was my question. If you simply support one positions or the other then this debate on Egypt's origins is done.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The arguments that I hear in this forum are of 2 schools of thought:
Coon's racial theories and Out of Africa genetic theories.
That was my question. If you simply support one positions or the other then this debate on Egypt's origins is done.
Not everyone who supports the Out of Africa theory believes that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans and not everyone who believes the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians prescribes to Coon's theories or the Multiregional hypothesis.
Masreyya and Salsassin for instance believe that Ancient Egypt was phenotypically diverse including light-skinned Northern Egyptians who are a product of back migrations into Northern Africa or part of indigenious African variation.
People like Evil Euro and Kemp support the research of any scholar who believes the Ancient Egyptians were Mediterranean Caucasians.
Anyone who takes seriously Coon's belief that Europeans have a 200,000 year evolutionary advantage on Africans is a racist plain and simple.
If you want to see rebuttals to Racialism and Scientific Racism those studies I posted are a good place to start.
Books like Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould will give you more information.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the notion of a "Caucasian" North Africa advanced in Genes, Peoples, and Languages?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:not everyone who believes the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians prescribes to Coon's theories
who knows, he may have meant things the other way around;
Someone prescribing to the 3 seperate origins hypothesis (which is dead and gone now and flies in the face of current genetic and other evidence) might find it obvious that the AE were none other than Africoid.
Unless they're the type to limit racial Africanness only to khoisan and "pygmy" groups, holding other groups as hybridized.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not everyone who supports the Out of Africa theory believes that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans and not everyone who believes the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians prescribes to Coon's theories or the Multiregional hypothesis."
You are using absolutes which is a straw man. I was speaking about this forum. What I have heard are theories that support Coon and theories that support modern day genetic grouping of races.
Black African is a subjective term, however, genetic groupings of race put traditionally Black racial groups of Africa into the same group as NE African people. Combine that we ABO blood type of Haratins compared to AE and you have significant evidence of a Saharan African type that crosses traditional racial groups making a single phylum.
You clearly are in the latter group being a supporter of genetic clines rather than Coon theories. Black is probably a term you try to avoid being that adaptation is clinal and not discrete where as terms like Black and White are discrete and leave little area to be objective.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: "Not everyone who supports the Out of Africa theory believes that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans and not everyone who believes the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians prescribes to Coon's theories or the Multiregional hypothesis."
You are using absolutes which is a straw man. I was speaking about this forum. What I have heard are theories that support Coon and theories that support modern day genetic grouping of races.
Black African is a subjective term, however, genetic groupings of race put traditionally Black racial groups of Africa into the same group as NE African people. Combine that we ABO blood type of Haratins compared to AE and you have significant evidence of a Saharan African type that crosses traditional racial groups making a single phylum.
You clearly are in the latter group being a supporter of genetic clines rather than Coon theories. Black is probably a term you try to avoid being that adaptation is clinal and not discrete where as terms like Black and White are discrete and leave little area to be objective.
What I am saying is that you shouldn't generalize because there are multiple schools of thought on here not just two.
I recognize the subjective nature of terms like Black and White but still use them to make communication easier.
Modern scientific research from various disciplines support the conclusion that the Ancient Egyptians were of African descent with tropical adaptations and relationships to their African neighbors.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Black African is a subjective term, however, genetic groupings of race put traditionally Black racial groups of Africa into the same group as NE African people.
Not necessarily. Some genetic groupings try to separate out "North africans" and "blacks" using such categories as "Extra-European Caucasoid." But many peoples of "North Africa" which includes massive slices of Chad, Mali, parts of Nigeria, the Sudan, not to mention several local populations of places like Libya etc can themselves be easily classified as "black." Artificial separations of "North Africa" versus "blacks" by some writers are themselves highly subjective. If as you say that genetic data links them together, why do they persist in "racial" separation?
Combine that we ABO blood type of Haratins compared to AE and you have significant evidence of a Saharan African type that crosses traditional racial groups making a single phylum.
Perhaps, and there is still the PN2 clade linking numerous African peoples together, regardless of how they look.
You clearly are in the latter group being a supporter of genetic clines rather than Coon theories. Black is probably a term you try to avoid being that adaptation is clinal and not discrete where as terms like Black and White are discrete and leave little area to be objective.
It depends on the definition of "black." If by black one means tropically adapted peoples with dark and brown skin, then the overall classification of the AE's as black Africans is reasonable, and based on scientific data. -----------------------------------------------
----------
.
The primary discussions that occur in this forum are essentially related to the Origins of Race question. What typically is argued is a multiregional verses Out of Africa model. With the multiregional argument being based on facial features and the Out of Africa being based on genetic and cultural evidence.
True perhaps as to some arguments and models used. To be kept in mind also is that numerous FACIAL studies confirm the Out Of Africa Hypothesis. Hanihara 1996 for example, doing cranio-facial analysis, found early Middle Easterners looking like Africans, and his data directly contradicts that of Coons, whom he specifically references.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, according to Lieberman, Coon doesn't even list the cranial capacities for his racial hierarchies so his claims of European crania being 500,000 years more highly evolved than African crania should be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention the fact that humans migrated Out of Africa about 100,000 years ago.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: BTW may I add who in the Hell says that race is not mainstream in modern day Science?
You mean who says that the belief in biological human races is not the mainstream view in modern science?
Anthropologists and Geneticists.
Ashley Montagu (1941) challenged the 19th-century view of “race” partly on the basis of the Mendelian principle that traits are not transmitted as complexes of characters, and confirming data were developed in the decades that followed. Frank B. Livingstone (1958, 1962), using Julian Huxley’s (1938) cline concept, presented data on the gradual change in frequency of sickle-cell genes over a wide geographic area of Africa, the Mediterranean, and South Asia. Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area. C. Loring Brace (1964) made a persuasive case for studying human clinal variation one trait at a time.2 The new views were intensely debated in anthropology beginning in the 1960s, and by 1985 anthropology’s core concept of “race” had been rejected by 41%of physical anthropologists and 55% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman 1968; Lieberman, Stevenson, and Reynolds 1989:69). A similar survey in 1999 found that the concept of race was rejected by 69% of physical anthropologists and 80% of cultural anthropologists (Lieberman and Kirk n.d.). During the period 1975–79, twice as many university textbooks of introductory physical anthropology rejected the concept as accepted it (Littlefield, Lieberman, and Reynolds 1982:642), and during the period 1990–99 no text explicitly supported the concept (4 of 20 presented the topic as a debate, and 2 rejected typologies of race). Rushton does not discuss the weaknesses of the race concept. - Lieberman (2001)Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: BTW may I add who in the Hell says that race is not mainstream in modern day Science?
What is mainstream is the concept of clinal adaptation rather than discrete racial groups. Basically insitu environmental adaptation rather than Coon concepts of 5 discrete racial groups.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic