EgyptSearch Forums: Post A Reply

...

»	EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » If the entire land mass of Europe can host a plural of races, then... » Post A Reply

T O P I C R E V I E W
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted Why is it hard for the nutcase Afrocentrists to conceive that the African continent can also host more than one race?
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454	posted quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Why is it hard for the nutcase Afrocentrists to conceive that the African continent can also host more than one race? What are these so called plural "races" in Europe?
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted Are you kidding me?
Djehuti. Member # 17581	posted quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Why is it hard for the nutcase Afrocentrists to conceive that the African continent can also host more than one race? Africa is the Second largest landmass on Earth and it should only be logical that it would hold a variety of people, who may or may not be related.
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted ^that is the whole pt. of the thread. Thank you.
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454	posted quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Are you kidding me? What is your point?
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454	posted quote: Originally posted by Djehuti.: quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Why is it hard for the nutcase Afrocentrists to conceive that the African continent can also host more than one race? Africa is the Second largest landmass on Earth and it should only be logical that it would hold a variety of people, who may or may not be related. Africa is the second largest continent, but the people have Africa, while varying are biologically related to each other. Northeast Africans, and Africans populations affiliated with these groups, are genetically intermediate between other Africans, in the exception of Northern Coastal-Saharo populations, and Western Asians who in large part possess a large African input, 1/3+ African; in large part due to the fact that these people are the local descendants of the Out of African migratory population and partially due to the part that these "Western Eurasians" are genetically close to Africans due to admixture. North Africans are a ancestrally East African population which sustained admixture bi-laterally while in North Africa. Southern populations via other Africans, specifically those not in direct descent from those earlier Out of African migrants, i.e. West Africans and northern populations being to an extent admixed with groups from Western Asia. In due case both sub-groups are genetically related to other biological Africans. Can you please list the various "races" of either Europe and Africa? You never answered the question!
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted ^On the land mass that you find Europe and Asia, you will find the caucasoid and Mongoloid races. While on the land mass where you find Africa, there are the Negroid and Caucasoid races, and the Afro-asiatique sub race.
lamin Member # 5777	posted quote: ^On the land mass that you find Europe and Asia, you will find the caucasoid and Mongoloid races. While on the land mass where you find Africa, there are the Negroid and Caucasoid races, and the Afro-asiatique sub race. Essentially nonsensical claim. First, where is your so-called "Afro-asiatique(sic) sub race" Sure there are recent settlers from Europe in parts of Africa--especially Southern Africa, and settlers from the Levant and Southern Europe(Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. in North Africa), but the point is that the tropical-subtropical environment of Africa has produced a specific variant of homo sapiens--with the type of hair(tightly curled to frizzy) and pigmentation(ranging from very dark to olive) being the most evident phenotypical markers. This has been the standard classifier dating all the way back to Herodotus and other ancient Greeks like Aristotle their descriptions of the AEs and their Kushitic/Nubian kin.
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454	posted quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: ^On the land mass that you find Europe and Asia, you will find the caucasoid and Mongoloid races. While on the land mass where you find Africa, there are the Negroid and Caucasoid races, and the Afro-asiatique sub race. Eurasia? which groups the political continent of "Europe" with that of Asia. Your thread says... " If the entire land mass of Europe can host a plural of races, then..." Don't is the concept of race false and universally debunked, your idea of Africa is even more grossly untrue. Other then the few white European peoples, i.e. white South Africans, on the continent... I have not come across any other "Caucasian" people. If your refering to North Africans as "Caucasian", your theory is deathly wrong. While coastal North Africans did indeed obtain non-African admixture historically, they remain dominantly African at best. Would you call a bi-racial person "white"? Saharan North Africans, i.e. Western Saharans, Tuareg, Siwa etc. populations remain predomiantly African in origin, their features are a consequence of their environment, and biologically they fall into the African variation. Saharan North Africans being the predominant descedents of both East African and West African populations. I have already discussed the biological origins of the Afrasan/Nilo-Saharan speaking East Africans... THEY ARE NOT A MULATTO OR SUB-RACE!!
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted Cau·ca·sian (kô-kzhn, -kzhn) adj. 1. a. Anthropology Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. See Usage Note at race1. Nice try though.
lamin Member # 5777	posted LOL! I mean does some English dictionary have monopoly on truth? The definition for caucasion is not only bogus but silly.
lamin Member # 5777	posted Oops! Typo above for "caucasian". Not that big a deal really for an overworked fairy tale term.
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted ^And what is the reference or authority to your definition? What or to whom do you appeal to for your definition, sir?
lamin Member # 5777	posted Definition of what? If you mean "caucasian" then that term is woefully imprecise and just too broad. For example, those dumb--and I am serious--German "anthropologists" who fellow-travelled with their colonising kin into Rwanda in the late 19th century never had the common sense to ask: "what do the Tutsis have to do with the far-away Caucasus mountains?--as they routinely sat Tutsis down to measure their skulls and noses with calipers.
Doctoris Scientia Member # 17454	posted quote: Originally posted by Recovering Afro-holic: Cau·ca·sian (kô-kzhn, -kzhn) adj. 1. a. Anthropology Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. See Usage Note at race1. Nice try though. LOL, you've debunked yourself, using outdated definitions.
Recovering Afro-holic Member # 17311	posted ^Sir, can you prove it is outdated? The term(s) is still used/valid in certain sub disciplines of anthropology. YOU LOSE BUDDY.
lamin Member # 5777	posted The point is not whether the term "caucasian" is used or not but whether it makes sense. Now that's the intelligent way to proceed.