Subject: Re: that final statement you made(was a whole thing on egyption religion)
From: Xina
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:51:13 +0000
Knowmad wrote:
>
> >Ankh udja seneb em hotep!
> excuse me for being a complete newbie to all this, but I have always had
> an intrest in egyptology, but have never followeed through on it. What
> does that line that i have quoted mean?
It means "Life, health, strength in peace!"
> and one more question, it seems from reading your post that there is a
> great deal of disagreement among egyptologysts(as there is in any
> scientific field) and so i turn to you for a suggestion of what
> books/authors to believe/trust/start with?
Ok...the list is long yet illustrious...actually to save space Im going
to refer you to a really wonderful web page after I let you know a few
of my personal favorites, they have a wonderful reading list that is one
of the best assembled on line that I have seen.
Here goes:
*Anything* by Sir Alan Gardiner, he wrote Egyptian Grammar and Egpypt of
the Pharaohs. The latter is history but it reads like fiction, so its
really very interesting.
"The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" by Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson, edited
by the British Museum
"Religion in Ancient Egypt" by Shafer
"The Neteru of Kemet" By Tamara Siuda
Faulkner's translations of the "Egyptian Book of the Dead", "The Ancient
Egyptian Pyramid Texts" and the "Coffin Texts" (Vol 1-3)
And here are some not-so-popular with the purists and the scholars ,
*but* (Katherine, Tamara, Greg...hear me out, please) they deserve a
good peruse if only to give you an idea as to just how wide the schism
between Egyptology scholars can *really* be... Works by R.A. Schwaller
de Lubicz and his wife Isha, and step-daughter Lucy Lamy, John Anthony
West (Oh gods I can hear the hissing in the back!) Take anything written
by Llewlyn publishing with a grain of salt, (Robert Masters book on
Sekhmet should be taken with a truckload of salt)
Anyway....here is that URL for the best books on Egyptology that I have
found:
http://users.aol.com/hetnetjer/private/hetntr.html
AND...for the best pages on Egyptology in general, with some really
wonderful links:
http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU.HTML
http://weblifac.ens-cachan.fr/Portraits/S.ROSMORDUC.html/
http://pages.prodigy.com/G/U/N/guardian/egypt.htm
Those should keep you occupied for a while. The key to remember when
dealing with all the opinions regarding to Egyptology, is there is that
which is supported by history, and therefore accepted, and there are
those that have put forth theories that are not accepted because they
are not (what the Egyptological community feels are) substantiated
facts. Everybody has an opinion on the subject. Just remember to have
fun, and remember why it is that Egypt facinates you and you will be
ready for anything!
Happy hunting!
Xina
> thankyou
> later......
> knowmad
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: Xina
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:24:34 +0000
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> >Where have you seen any portraits of Narmer except on the Narmer Palette
> >where it is virtually impossible to see what sort of person this was
> >racially?
>
> There is a sculptured head of a First Dynasty pharoah that is thought
> by many to be Narmer. To see it point your web-browser to:
>
> http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/egypt3.htm
And this proves *what* essentially? Nothing other than the fact that
its a really BAD picture of a sculpture (how did you put it?) "believed
by many to be Narmer.." Who is the "many" and isnt the operative word
'beleived?'
>
> A number of paintings on A-culture tombs found in Upper Egypt are also very
> revealing, particularly the Tomb 100 mural. This mural shows a number
> of black-skinned figures at Hierakonpolis at war with red-skinned figures.
> Sir Flinders Petrie was the first to suggest this represented a victory
> of Nubians over indigenous Egyptians, who he thought came originally from
> the southeast (near the Red Sea). Petrie, by the way, was of the opinion that the Old Kingdom dynasties were founded by Nubians (he was the excavator of the Thebaid). It has been noted that a number of the black-skinned figures beared iconographic traits later reserved for pharoahs including (_Egypt
Fine. It still does NOT answer the age old question that I have asked,
yet *no one* can seem to answer it adequately....*what* difference does
what colour Narmer, or any other Pharaoh have to do with *anything*?
You seem to have this idea that we sit here in these newsgroups and
claim that the Ancient Egyptians were "white". Can you please tell me
where this assertion has *ever* been made here?
(snippage)
> Yurco's strategy of having people look at mummified remains reminds
> of how Heyerdahl did the same thing with South American mummies to
> prove their Caucasoid affinities. One cannot not determine the
> proper classification of hair from mummies that have been subjected
> to herbal and other treatment (smoking?), wrapped in bandages and
> dormant for thousands of years. Doesn't the curly or kinky hair tend
> to straighten out after people die anyway?
Wait a minute. You cannot be serious. The kink goes out of hair after
you die? Gee, what happened with the mummy of the "Elder Lady" who was
later postively identified through testing as Tutankhamun's Grandmother,
Queen Tiye, wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Amenhotep IV
(Akhenaten). As I remember correctly, the hair that was found on the
mummy of the Elder Lady, and that which was found in Tutankhamun's tomb
(See Pages 292 & 293 of "Egyptian Mummies" by Bob Brier, Figures
110-112) If you look closely there is NO difference between the hair
samples *except* that which was found on the mummy of the Elder
Lady/Tiye was greyer...not straighter.
> A scientific approach would analyze the hair via microscopic analysis.
> Studies of this kind have been made, one of the best being that of
> Strouhal, and they show that most Egyptians had a type of "mulatto"
> hair similar to that found among most modern Nubians and Southern
> Egyptians.
So, now that you comfort yourself with this information now what? I dont
doubt for one instant that some of the Ancient Egyptian Pharohs and
Queens *were* indeed black, and of Nubian decent etc. I dont doubt that
in the slightest, but what annoys me is the assertion that all Pharaohs
were indeed black African, and that 'race' was so much an issue for the
Egyptians as it seemingly is for our modern day minds. It simply
wasn't.
> The same thing can be said regarding facial features. These should
> be measured metrically. In fact, if you study some of the photos
> in _Egyptian Mummies_, a popular new book out on the subject, you
> can see profiles of a number of pharoahs. From the profiles, anyone
> with some anthropological knowledge can see many obvious "Negroid"
> traits like very long heads, bulging occiputs, high skull, prognathism,
> and low orbit.
If you dig up some of *my* ancestors, which are Native American, they
look alot like that too...in fact Tiye looks like my Grandmother....so
are we saying that there are only *two* races of people, Black and
White?
> >> I think the bubble that has been burst is the eurocentric
> >> LIE to which we have all been subjected, and continues to
> >> be depicted by Hollywood and the tv documentaries put on
> >> from time to time concerning ancient Egypt, namely that the
> >> ancient Egyptians were White. It is not so.
Look...they were't 100% black either. Are we to apply the same 'One
Drop Rule" that the white supremist society of America used in
determinging who was 'negroid' or 'indian'? Excuse my insolence or
ignorance, but the Egyptians didnt view Race as a distinction the way it
is being presented here.
> >> (It is, btw, revealing that some of those conquerors were
> >> sufficiently offended by the Black African nose on the
> >> sphinx to have blown it off with cannon fire.)
Oh please!! That is a myth! It wasnt shot off because of someone being
'offended by the black looking nose'!
>
> >> This is clearly false. Take a look at Cheikh Anta Diop,
> >> "The African Origin of Civilization", Lawrence Hill Books,
> >> 1974, in particular pages 1-22.
> >
> >Oh, yes, indeed, that would surely be an objective reference book!
What other sources are you willing to cite then? This author seems to
come up again and again.
> Come now. After some two centuries of rampant Eurocentrism, why would
> you expect anyone to trust any reference given by you or anyones else
> written by someone of Euroamerican descent?
Now that sounds pretty racist in itself! Rampant Eurocentrism? If you
arent black, you are part of the Eurocentrist consiracy? Is that your
train of thought? What happens to those of us who are *neither*? (If
*anyone* answers that one I will be incredibly surprised!) Im trying to
be objective here, but until I see some more proofand citations to other
pieces than Diop, and when the artistic cannons of Egyptian art are
taken into account by the afrocentric side, (Im sorry, they *did*
exist, they are inescapable) then we are basically at a gridlock.
Em Hotep!
Xina
Subject: Re: Absolutely The Last Word On King Arthur
From: james denning
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 20:36:43 -0700
Dominic Green wrote:
>
> Is the King dead, or does he live on? And if so, where? The sites of
> his most famous battles are themselves shrouded in Mystery. Where is
> the River Tribruit? Where is Fort Guinnion? Where is the Wood of
> Celidon? The location of Badon, at least, is known for certain to have
> been at Badbury in Dorset, whose ancient Saxon name is Baddanburg, known
> for its fluffy, pink and yellow cake confectioneries, in each section of
> which may be found the exact same Cross of Our Lord which Arthur is
> known to have humped sweating on his shoulders about the battlefield,
> preferring to whack his enemies with it in preference to using Sword and
> Shield like any Normal Romano-Briton. Can it be possible that this same
> cruciform symbol could be found in two separate places in Early
> Christian Europe entirely by coincidence?
>
> The Wood of Celidon, meanwhile, seems an impenetrable term at first
> perusal. However, upon returning to the subject after only a modicum of
> Nubian Black Ground Mummy Snuff, it becomes a reference to Celadon
> Pottery produced in China, indicating that Arthur's Knights rampaged
> across Central Asia in search of rapine, pillage and Delicate Pale Green
> Glazes before being heavily defeated at the Battle of Kowloon. The
> Battle of Guinnion, meanwhile, refers to a detour to attack pagan
> Crocodile Hunters in New Guinea, and the River Tribruit to Trivandrum in
> Southern India. Thus we may see that the majority of Arthurian battles
> were unwisely fought in a Land War in Asia, and must have ended with the
> evacuation of the Logrian Embassy in Kamchatka (the historical location
> of Camelot), by warhorse, from the roof.
>
> However, all modern Arthurian researches are hampered by the inaccuracy
> of currently accepted chronology. One example is that of the Arthurian
> King of Gwynedd, Maelgwyn, who was also indisputably the mistress of
> King Charles II of England. This is particularly interesting, for these
> two individuals are conventionally held to have lived in the Sixth and
> Seventeenth Centuries respectively. It is my belief that Welsh and
> English chronologies are currently misaligned, and that a more correct
> interpretation of history would place Wales in the middle of the Ninth
> Century. This begs the astounding conclusion that Wales is still an
> Independent Principality, and that our Leaders have Lied To Us when they
> claim to Own it. I myself have visited Wales, and was not obliged to
> show my Passport; however, this is not surprising, since Wales is a
> fellow member of the European Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere with which
> Britain has undergone Economic and Military Union. I was pleased to
> discover that Our Queen's face appears on the Welsh Five Ecu Note.
> Presumably, the Welsh Queen is too ugly to be allowed to appear on
> Money, and so Our Queen has been used instead. I have heard Windsor
> Davies referred to as 'That Welsh Queen' with great frequency by
> Sergeant Majors in the Army, and if this be so, the poor lady is indeed
> most ill-favoured, and is in addition not even in possession of a
> Wonderful Personality. However, her Moustache is most impressive, more
> so even than that of Our Dear Queen Mother.
>
> I trust that this settles the matter with Finality.
>
> Yours
>
> Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
> (Oklahoma) Well here goes
If you mean the historical character then yes but if you are talking
about the generic memory then now he lives.
I realize you will probably disagree but who cares. I believe the
british as part of the celts are the a tribe of israel. They have genetic
memories of the heritage they wished to forget. The Story of Arthur is
tied to the story of christ.As such they are intwined and both live on
today.
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:30:38 GMT
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:21:12 -0700, Satrap Szabo
wrote:
a great deal of rhetorical advice...for which i thank him, and which i
shall ignore...
>Do you really think that Egyptologists just said, "What the hell! Let's
>pretend they're tombs!"
the point is not how the original belief came into being, how long it
has held sway, nor even how widely it is held or elaborated upon...the
point is: is there or is there not direct evidence that the pyramids
were built and used as tombs??...
i trust that any, who've risen to the exaulted position of satrap,
have, at various times and on numerous occasions along the way, been
advised and taught to distinquish between evidence, on the one hand;
and interpretation, opinion and argument, on the other...
if you go back and read those reeder posts, about which you attempt to
advise me, you can determine for yourself into which of the above
categories they fit...
>This is what I'd say to Greg, or whomever, if I were in your shoes, "How
>does Egyptology explain the abundance of Snefru's tombs?" And then go
>from there.
an excellant example of why your rhetorical advice is best politely
ignored...in a single sentence, you not only beg and grant the begging
of the question, but further, both allow and encourage the sliving off
from facticity into theory..for your penance you are to spend three
hours a day for the next four months rereading the works of the
medieval logicians...
frank
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 96 22:42:01 GMT
In article <326D2D82.CE1@netins.net>, Xina wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
>> >Where have you seen any portraits of Narmer except on the Narmer Palette
>> >where it is virtually impossible to see what sort of person this was
>> >racially?
>>
>> There is a sculptured head of a First Dynasty pharoah that is thought
>> by many to be Narmer. To see it point your web-browser to:
>>
>> http://www.he.net/~skyeagle/egypt3.htm
>
>And this proves *what* essentially? Nothing other than the fact that
>its a really BAD picture of a sculpture (how did you put it?) "believed
>by many to be Narmer.." Who is the "many" and isnt the operative word
>'beleived?'
>
The suggestion that the head is Narmer's originated from Western
Egpytologists, not Afrocentrists. Obviously, you don't want it to
be Narmer because you can see it clearly represents a black physical
type (typical of many Egyptians).
>>
>> A number of paintings on A-culture tombs found in Upper Egypt are also very
>> revealing, particularly the Tomb 100 mural. This mural shows a number
>> of black-skinned figures at Hierakonpolis at war with red-skinned figures.
>> Sir Flinders Petrie was the first to suggest this represented a victory
>> of Nubians over indigenous Egyptians, who he thought came originally from
>> the southeast (near the Red Sea). Petrie, by the way, was of the opinion that the Old Kingdom dynasties were founded by Nubians (he was the excavator of the Thebaid). It has been noted that a number of the black-skinned figures beared iconographic traits later reserved for pharoahs including (_Egypt
>
>Fine. It still does NOT answer the age old question that I have asked,
>yet *no one* can seem to answer it adequately....*what* difference does
>what colour Narmer, or any other Pharaoh have to do with *anything*?
>You seem to have this idea that we sit here in these newsgroups and
>claim that the Ancient Egyptians were "white". Can you please tell me
>where this assertion has *ever* been made here?
>
Excuse me? You must be new to this group. In fact, just today someone
was claiming Egyptians (ancient?) were white.
>(snippage)
>
>> Yurco's strategy of having people look at mummified remains reminds
>> of how Heyerdahl did the same thing with South American mummies to
>> prove their Caucasoid affinities. One cannot not determine the
>> proper classification of hair from mummies that have been subjected
>> to herbal and other treatment (smoking?), wrapped in bandages and
>> dormant for thousands of years. Doesn't the curly or kinky hair tend
>> to straighten out after people die anyway?
>
>Wait a minute. You cannot be serious. The kink goes out of hair after
>you die?
Do you want a forensic reference? If I have time I'll try to post one.
>Gee, what happened with the mummy of the "Elder Lady" who was
>later postively identified through testing as Tutankhamun's Grandmother,
>Queen Tiye, wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Amenhotep IV
>(Akhenaten). As I remember correctly, the hair that was found on the
>mummy of the Elder Lady, and that which was found in Tutankhamun's tomb
>(See Pages 292 & 293 of "Egyptian Mummies" by Bob Brier, Figures
>110-112) If you look closely there is NO difference between the hair
>samples *except* that which was found on the mummy of the Elder
>Lady/Tiye was greyer...not straighter.
>
And exactly what does this prove??
>> A scientific approach would analyze the hair via microscopic analysis.
>> Studies of this kind have been made, one of the best being that of
>> Strouhal, and they show that most Egyptians had a type of "mulatto"
>> hair similar to that found among most modern Nubians and Southern
>> Egyptians.
>
>So, now that you comfort yourself with this information now what? I dont
>doubt for one instant that some of the Ancient Egyptian Pharohs and
>Queens *were* indeed black, and of Nubian decent etc. I dont doubt that
>in the slightest, but what annoys me is the assertion that all Pharaohs
>were indeed black African, and that 'race' was so much an issue for the
>Egyptians as it seemingly is for our modern day minds. It simply
>wasn't.
Nobody said all the Pharaohs were all black African. I certainly don't think
this was the case. Neither did Diop ever make this assertion. In fact,
he never assumes that any Pharaoh is black, but tries to prove the case in
every instance. In a number of his works he clearly discusses the presence
of "whites" in ancient Egypt.
>
>> The same thing can be said regarding facial features. These should
>> be measured metrically. In fact, if you study some of the photos
>> in _Egyptian Mummies_, a popular new book out on the subject, you
>> can see profiles of a number of pharoahs. From the profiles, anyone
>> with some anthropological knowledge can see many obvious "Negroid"
>> traits like very long heads, bulging occiputs, high skull, prognathism,
>> and low orbit.
>
>If you dig up some of *my* ancestors, which are Native American, they
>look alot like that too...in fact Tiye looks like my Grandmother....so
>are we saying that there are only *two* races of people, Black and
>White?
>
>
>> >> I think the bubble that has been burst is the eurocentric
>> >> LIE to which we have all been subjected, and continues to
>> >> be depicted by Hollywood and the tv documentaries put on
>> >> from time to time concerning ancient Egypt, namely that the
>> >> ancient Egyptians were White. It is not so.
>
>Look...they were't 100% black either. Are we to apply the same 'One
>Drop Rule" that the white supremist society of America used in
>determinging who was 'negroid' or 'indian'?
No, we simply need to recognize the Black African contribution to
Egyptian society and stop hiding behind the racial theories formulated
by Euroamericans.
>Excuse my insolence or
>ignorance, but the Egyptians didnt view Race as a distinction the way it
>is being presented here.
>
Your right, that distinction was made by Euroamericans, and because of this
we are discussing this issue today. If race is not such a problem, why are
you guys getting so worked up about it? This subject was being discussed
in another group, when some individuals (not normally participants in the ng)
rumbled in and, eventually, crossposted. I'm perfectly willing to discuss
this in a rational manner.
>
>> >> (It is, btw, revealing that some of those conquerors were
>> >> sufficiently offended by the Black African nose on the
>> >> sphinx to have blown it off with cannon fire.)
>
>Oh please!! That is a myth! It wasnt shot off because of someone being
>'offended by the black looking nose'!
>
>>
>> >> This is clearly false. Take a look at Cheikh Anta Diop,
>> >> "The African Origin of Civilization", Lawrence Hill Books,
>> >> 1974, in particular pages 1-22.
>> >
>> >Oh, yes, indeed, that would surely be an objective reference book!
>
>What other sources are you willing to cite then? This author seems to
>come up again and again.
>
>> Come now. After some two centuries of rampant Eurocentrism, why would
>> you expect anyone to trust any reference given by you or anyones else
>> written by someone of Euroamerican descent?
>
>Now that sounds pretty racist in itself! Rampant Eurocentrism? If you
>arent black, you are part of the Eurocentrist consiracy?
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Settle down. If you didn't get the
sin, why get all upset. However, the sins were committed.
>Is that your
>train of thought? What happens to those of us who are *neither*? (If
>*anyone* answers that one I will be incredibly surprised!) Im trying to
>be objective here, but until I see some more proofand citations to other
>pieces than Diop,
And until I see some cites other than Eurocentric whites, I will not be impressed.
Yours in the late great Cheikh Anta Diop,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: nettiquette Knight of the round table
From: August Matthusen
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:44:02 -0700
Richard Schiller wrote:
>August Matthusen wrote:
>> Eliyehowah yammered:
>> > This behavior is excusable, in fact quite commendable if in email.
>> > But as a post, it is this behavior which makes conventions and
>> > newsgroups nothing more than quibbling disputes. If you wish to know
>> > biblical alignment then ask before slamming with your own perspective.
>> Amazing. SpamKing Jr., Elija-whoever, having
>> the gall to lecture on netiquette. Spammed any prophecies that
>> came true lately, Dickie? How 'bout that slaughter of the kings
>> at the UN? Ya sure blew that one.
That isn't a direct quote of what I wrote.
What I wrote was:
[begin quote]
Amazing. SpamKing Jr., Richard Schiller (aka Elija-whoever), having
the gall to lecture on netiquette. Spammed any prophecies that
came true lately, Dickie? How 'bout that slaughter of the kings
at the UN? Ya sure blew that one.
[end quote]
Yo, Richard Schiller, if you are going to claim to quote me,
either quote everything or indicate what you've deleted. Bearing
false witness is against your religion, isn't it? Claiming that I
wrote something which is not a direct quote is bearing false
witness. Do you have something against your name,
Richard Schiller?
>Never said AT the UN but by the hand of the UN. Presented before or
>in the presence of does NOT mean on UN realestate.
True, semantically hairspitting and avoiding the question. You said
in a thread entitled "ONLY 8000 will go to heaven...read why...or dont
reply":
[begin quote]
The declaration on Sep 14 Rosh Hoshana brings their death on Sep 23 Yom
Kippur
in New York city. They face the United Nations whose Peace Keepers
follow suit
on Church accusations brought to them by Judas. For this to happen they
would
have to be gathered by air flight to New York just as Jesus could NOT
die
anywhere else but Jerusalem. Why? New York....because it is home of the
world government. Question...wasn't it Rome NOT Jerusalem in 33 AD? No.
Jerusalem represented God, Caesar's Rome didnt. New York is the home of
the true
world government who faces the inefficient one.
[end quote]
and in a post entitled "detailed prediction debated":
[begin quote]
I will be wrong if no significant number die on Yom Kippur in the New
City
by your United Nations peace keepers.
[end quote]
So what happened, why no slaughter in New york city (sic)
where they face the United Nations (but not AT the United
Nations) or in the New City by the United Nations peace keepers?
>Further, the poster
>Xtina admitted many wrongs jumping on me for things I didnt say,
>and she is far more humble than you will ever prove to be.
>Your post is out of topic. My words (you quote) are
>concerning the topic subject. I suggest you defend your own nettiquette
>and not those of others replies to others. But your nose out, you have others
>people shit on it from you sticking it up their cracks.
Nice language for a public newsgroup from a "christian". You've
got a bizarre way of turning the other cheek. When you start
lecturing on netiquette on the net it's an open topic; so don't try
backtracking now with a specious claim of what is on topic.
Is your crack now on topic that you've brought up the subject of
cracks? Perhaps you could tell us again about your herniated anus?
It was my favorite of your plethora of posts. It's funny, but
whenever I hear the phrase "prolapsed rectum," you come to mind.
Also you keep ignoring my request for a prophecy
for old times sake:
When will your computer goodies be repossessed?
From a review of a couple of your posts, I see that your
unemployment compensation *has* run out, so I can
stop asking about that. Gonna get another
job at Hardees? How long will you be able to continue
paying your ISP?
>Your postmaster is being emailed.
Kewl! For what, Richard Schiller? Do you want to get another
account? They may not accept you if they run a credit check.
Haven't you overcharged your credit cards enough, already?
How are you going to pay them? Isn't "thou shalt
not steal" one of your commandments? Or is there some
biblical injunction which allows people to not pay credit
card debt if they think the world is ending?
You aren't writing them trying to stifle my freedom of speech,
are you? That's not very "christian."
When are you going to answer my questions, Dickie? Wait, I feel
a prophecy coming on: March 24/25, no meteor will have struck. Let's
see who's a better prophet.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: pmv100@psu.edu (Peter van Rossum)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 06:36:45 GMT
Deletions throughout to condense an already too lengthy thread.
Mr. Szabo,
If after reading this post you still think I have misunderstood your
position, please supply what you think is an appropriate definition of
race and explain why you think objective, biological racial groups exist.
Also please name these objective racial groups and describe the
characteristics which separate them from other racial groups. Without
such an effort on your part, any continued miscommunication will be the
result of your unwillingness to articulate your position.
In article <326D6D1E.3EA3@iceonline.com> Satrap Szabo writes:
>God I hope there's an end to this one...
Amen to that brother!
>Yes it is true that I assert non-scientific opinions a lot, perhaps even
>ad nauseum. BUT! I would like to say in the strongest terms that I
>would never knowingly ignore the conclusions of scientific research.
>...
>Partly also, because strongly I felt that the
>research certainly would not disagree with my opinion (possible evidence
>of arrogance...), but that the problem was more a failure for us to
>communicate our positions effectively. Hopefully this will happen!
Mr. Szabo do you really believe that I have mis-represented the scientific
research on the topic of race? I have supplied you with a number of
references on the topic, yet if you still insist on assuming that I have
not accurately presented the state of the art I will post a list of
direct quotations which support my claim that most anthropologists
consider race to be a social, not a biological, concept. If you ask
I will do this but I then will also expect a public apology from you for
having wasted a substantial portion of my time to prove a point because you
were too lazy to get off your duff and check the references out for yourself.
>> The interpretation I reach from this is that you believe there are a
>> finite number of "pure" races. Individuals for whom classifications are
>> relatively secure are those closest to these "pure" races - those that
>> fall in the cracks are the result of mixtures. As Ernst Mayr said,
>> "to speak of pure races is sheer nonsense" (Mayr 1970:397).
>
>What we've got here... is a failure to communicate! Your interpretation
>here, regardless of whose fault, is WAY off.
>
>My position is moreso that there are, at the least, racial extremes.
>Whites in the north and northwest, blacks in the south, and Asians in
>the far east. At the very least I expect science to be able to fully
>identify in the near future, if not already, the difference between
>someone genetically evolved in isolation from another example.
Here we go again. We do still seem to have a failure to communicate
since I still read the above paragraph as indicating you believe in a
"pure" race concept. Please note I'm not asserting you believe in racial
superiority, but that you believe that there are "races" of people who
are completely genetically distinct from other human "races". The
problem comes down to the fact that there is no evidence that human groups
have "evolved..in isolation." Gene flow between human groups has been an
integral part of our evolutionary heritage. While genetic isolation
has occurred, it has only happened for periods that are too short for
genetic drift to have brought about effective racial groups.
>> Again race does exist but only in a socially constructed sense. The fact
>> is that about 80-90% of the time forensic scientists correctly identify
>> the racial identity of an individual. But that is the racial identity
>
>what about a mortician? Would he only identify a white person 80-90%
>of time? I doubt it, more like 100%
Please define the term "white" as it refers to race. Keep in mind many
who have been people classified as "black" by U.S. society (i.e. those with
even one drop of "black" blood) have "passed" for being "white".
Here's a couple of questions you should ask yourself:
1. A "black" adult and a "white" adult have a child. What race is the child?
2. A child has 2 "white" parents, 3 "white" grandparents and 1 "asian"
grandparent. What race is the child?
3. A child has 2 "native american" parents, 4 "native american" grandparents,
7 "native american" great-grandparents and 1 "black" great-grandparent.
What race is the child?
4. Two very dark skinned parents have an albino offspring. What race is
the child?
Still sure a mortician can identify a "white" or "black" or "asian" person
100% of the time? Please answer the question and admit to your mistake.
>> which would have been given to that individual by U.S. society, it is not
>> an objective biological classification. If you had read the Sauer article
>> I previously cited you would have seen:
>
>This shows me that there is *some* merit to racial divisions and that
>there is only a 10-20% unaccountability, which I attribute to mixed race
>genes.
Again if there are "mixed race genes" then there must also be "unmixed
(or pure) race genes" as well. Yet above you state that I have misinterpreted
your position - please explain. And again as I quoted from Sauer's article:
"my contention here is that such a practice [being able accurately predict
an individuals "race" 80-90% of the time] is not a vindication of the
traditional notion that there are four major human races, rather, it is
a prediction, based on skeletal morphology that a particular label [read
socially assigned label] would have been assigned to an individual when
that individual was alive."
Please try to understand a quote before you reject it.
>After all every race is a product of mixing and remixing, but
>that doesn't detract from the fact that there ARE differences between
>races. Real physical ones! Your point seems to be that there isn't.
My point is that if you like you can surely make a racial classification
scheme that anyone of a given skin color is "black", of another skin
color is "white", of another skin color is "asian", etc. but it would
be just as valid for me to define races based on blood type, or hair
texture, or foot length/width ratios, etc. All would be equally valid in
a logical sense yet all would produce conflicting "racial" categories but
all would also be the result of a social decision to use skin color, or
blood type, or hair type, or foot measurements as the definitive criteria.
>And that race classification is purely social, and not at all
>bio-physical. I say your wrong about this. I also say that a
>respectable scientist wouldn't dare say something so foolish. And the
>ones that do are probably motivated by some silly do-gooder ideal that
>all races are exactly the same... physically.
No one is asserting that all humans are exactly the same. The fact is,
however, that no matter how you define races you will find that there
is more variability within members of the same race than there is between
members of different races. In statistical terms the variance explained
by racial categories is miniscule in comparison to the unexplained
variance - this is demonstrated in the Lewontin article which you have
chosen not to read.
>Is that what your saying? Because your own citing of 80-90% ability to
>identify "race" proves that all races are not physically identical.
Again how you define these "races" is completely dependant on a subjective
judgement as to which features to emphasize - this is completely covered
in the Sauer article which you have chosen not to read.
>> Racial divisions surely do exist but as I've said before they exist as
>> social constructs with little basis in biological fact.
>
>With "little" basis in biological fact! We seem to have something here,
>folks! OK. So it is a question of relativity then? How *much*
>distinction is there? If there isn't much, there is still enough that
>our unprofessional eyes can detect a distinct colour differnce between a
>black person and a white one. Do you agree? Then we have to conclude
>that there are differences that our eyes can detect that scientists,
>genetically, cannot. Do you agree? Why not?
Again, I can definitely find individuals who have two very dark skinned
parents who are lighter skinned than some individuals who have light
skinned parents. Additionally in the winter I am very white, yet in
the summer I can become much browner, does this mean I am on my way to
being part of another race? I think you would agree that this does not
make me "black" any more than it makes an albino of dark skinned African
parents "white." The cutoff point is arbitrary, the feature is highly
subject to environmental influences, clear distinctions do not exist and
therefore the categorization is arbitrary - not a biological fact.
>I doesn't matter to this discussion if scientists are having trouble
>creating a "racial typology" or not. It's too chaotic a mix to try to
>categorize. Give up brave scientist, you have tried hard. If, say,
>100,000 years ago there were 20 roughly defined races, and every year
>they fight, conquer, migrate, diffuse, etc for the next 100,000 years
>until present, it should be bloody clear thet the racial variations
>resulting would be astronomical. As many as there are people! So just
>because scientists can't clearly categorize the races into a few
>neat categories doesn't mean that there are no physical differences
>between black and white humans, which is what this started from.
1. Again you seem to be clearly believing in the concept of pure races.
2. Even if we took your finite number of starting races followed by
mixture theory to be true (which it is not), it would seem that you
would have to conclude that the vast majority of humans now belong
to one race (the "mixed race"). You say yourself that there would
be as many races as there are people. So if every individual is
his/her own race how can the concept exist?
and more importantly
3. This discussion began with your parroting of a claim that the Columbia
skeleton finding meant that a "white man" was among the earliest New
World migrants. If still believe that this conclusion is valid you have
not understood a word which I have said. I state again, the Columbia
skeleton in no way proves that "white" men were among the earliest
New World inhabitants.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: AFRICAN monuments...Qustul
From: Troy Sagrillo
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 01:37:13 GMT
Dr. Yurko! It is a pleasure to speak with you!
Frank Joseph Yurco wrote:
>
> Dear Troy,
>
> You have analyzed the evidence regarding Qustul in depth, but you have
> missed two points that favor Bruce Williams' theory, and that no one has
> refuted. First, regarding the Qustul Incense burners, the one debated is
> not the only one found. It happens to be the best preserved one.
True enough, but the others are either blank or decorated with geometric
patterning, and do not have any pictorial iconography on them, hence my
discussion of this one in particular.
> Secondly,
> show me one single example of an inscribed, decorated incense burner from
> Egypt of the Naqada II-III era. There are none attested so far. Thus the
> inscribed, decorated incense burners are likely an A-Group tradition, and
> this supports Williams that Qustul had Egyptian style traditions in
> A-Group.
That there are no Egyptian examples known is true (and I am not holding
my breath that one will be found either). Some of the others are in fact
made of Nubian sandstone, and I am not disputing that these are A-Group
(and I have since read in the site report that none of them are
limestone (contrary to Seele & Bothmer), so my contention that they are
Egyptian in material at least, is unfounded). So yes indeed, this does
seem to be an A-Group tradition. But I have to admit that it continues
to bother me a great deal that the key part to this entire question, the
seated king wearing the white crown, is almost entirely in the artist's
reconstruction, with only a bare sliver of the presumed white crown in
the remaining (which could well be something else). I guess I am just
stubborn in wanting firmer evidence for such an extraordinary claim!
> Next, there is the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription. It
> was shown to be A-Group, by William J. Murnane's epigraphic analysis,
> published in JNES in 1987. It has an uninscribed serekh, not King Djer,
> as earlier observers posited. Thus, as all agree, since uninscribed
> serekhs are earliest, the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription is A-
> Group, and depicts a victory celebration, of the pharaonic cycle that
> Williams and Logan discussed in JNES, 1987. No amount of scholarly
> wriggling can make the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock inscription an import
> from Egypt.
I am in total agreement that the Jabal Shaykh Sulayman inscription is
*not* Djer's, but this does not, imho, *necessily* make it A-Group
either, despite their Lower Nubian location. The amount of Egyptian
ceramics and other materials found in A-Group contexts point to long
term contacts involving trade at the very least (the earliest evidence I
know of are Egyptian Naqqada Ic-IIb ceramics that were found by Reisner
at in Cemetery 17 Khawr Bahn). With Egyptian trade goods come the
Egyptians themselves, at least in small numbers, and possibly in a
military role. I see nothing to preclude that the Jabal Shaykh Sulayman
inscription is in fact Egyptian in origin. No one would suggest that a
similar insciption in the Sinai would mean that the Syro-Palestinians
had adopted Egyptian iconography; I see no good reason why we should
here.
> These points strongly support Williams contention that the
> A-Group indeed had the trappings of Egyptian tradition at least among the
> elite.
This statement I have no problem with. Nubians are well-known for
adopting Egyptian cultural traits both early and later. However, as I
read him, Williams has gone beyond this and contended that it is
*A-Group* Nubia that produces the earlest evidence for a pharaonic
culture, and that this *Nubian-derived* culture spread north into Egypt
(and why only this and not the ceramic tradition as well?). This notion
I strongly believe has little or no basis, particularly in light of
Dreyer's work at Abydos. What I do see is (trade-derived?) Egyptian
cultural influence working its way south.
Another problem that I see in Williams' contention is his reliance on
the so-called "Pe-Hor" inscription from Tomb L2. First of all there is
no reason to create a name of "Pe-Hor", imho, as the mark is nothing
more than a falcon on a blank serekh, the likes of which can be found in
Upper Egypt, including Abydos (yet Williams not only gives him a name,
but assigns him a place in a "Qustul royal chronology"). IMHO, this
greatly over-states its importance. Secondly, this serekh is found on an
*Egyptian* store jar, a point even Williams makes. While of course
interesting for what it says in terms of Predynastic trade, this again
does not mean that the A-Group chiefs were employing pharaonic
iconography any more than Palestinians in the Negev were (as similar
serekhs are known from there as well, albeit slightly later in date).
> While the Abydos evidence points to that royal cemetery being older
> that previously suspected, it may point to the Abydos-Naqada monarchy
> being far older than suspected. You may recall that Petrie recovered
> a black-top redware sherd from Naqada, ancient Nubt, that depicted the
> Red Crown. So, the Red Crown was associated originally with ancient
> Nubt-Naqada. That also indicates a deeper antiquity for the Nubt monarchy.
> Another point, there is an indisputably royal tomb at
> Nekhen-Hierakonpolis, the famous painted tomb. Also, Fairservice'
> expedition found there a monumental mud-brick serekh style entrance to
> a royal palace complex. Thus, here was yet another instance of a royal
> center in Upper Egypt with deep roots.
All of course is true. I have never disputed this. In fact it is one of
the reasons I find the new Abydos material so exciting (this and the
wealth of Syro-Palestinian material) -- a straight line of unbroken
tradition going back from the Early Dynastic right into Naqqadah II at
least. It will be interesting to see if further field seasons can push
this traditon back even further.
> What I consider as important, is
> that the later Naqada II-III periods were the stage at which chieftains
> began to emerge in the Naqada and A-Group sectors. Three power centers
> emerged, Nubt-Naqada, Nekhen-Hierakonpolis, and Ta-Seti-Qustul, with
> perhaps a secondary center at Sayala, where a wonderful macehead mounted
> on a gold covered decorated handle was recovered early in the century.
Yet the ceramic traditions between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia are quite
distinct, as is the type of burial architecture (cist tomb vs
brick-lined square chambers (often multi-chambered)). While likely
related at some earlier point in time, surely we are dealing with 2
distinct cultures at this stage, though with economic ties between them.
> The question is, how did these interact? There were incidents of war,
> as commemorated on decorated and inscribed palettes, knife handles,
> and in A-Group, the incense burners and the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman rock
> inscription and scene. Whatever the earlier jockeying, late in Naqada
> III, Nekhen seems to have triumphed, conquering Nubt, and later moving
> north to unify all Egypt under Nar-mer and Aha. They created the First
> Egyptian Dynasty, and assigned Nubt's Red Crown to the Delta, creating
> the unified Two Lands of the historic tradition. Why were the rulers
> of this line buried at Abydos? It was the royal cemetery of Nubt-Naqada.
> By being buried there, they signalled their royal presence in what was
> in effect, a conquered territory. Moving their capital to Memphis, and
> taking Nubt's Red Crown and assigning it to the Delta perhaps reduced
> Nubt Naqada in prestige to the point that it became restive. When Dynasty
> II shofted the royal tombs to Saqqara, eventually a rebellion broke
> out. Seth, with whom it was associated, was deity of Nubt-Naqada.
> Sekhemib-Peribsen was buried at Abydos, with Seth replacing Horus on
> his tomb stelae. Later, Khasekhem from Nekhen, broke the rebellion, but
> he too, built his tomb at Abydos, and on his serekh, Horus and Seth are
> depicted together, and the king's name form reads, "The two powers are
> content in him". That finally resolved the conflict, and Djoser went
> on to lead Dynasty III to new heights of achievement, that heralded the
> Pyramid Age. Seth was granted a role, as unifier alongside Horus, and
> thus Nubt-Naqada was pacified.
>
> What happened to Ta-Seti-Qustul? It seems that Aha first raided it,
> if a wooden label of his is so read correctly. Next, Khasekhemy probably
> built a fort at Buhen, if Emery was correct about the large Archaic
> style mudbricks in the earliest fort levels. Finally, as the Royal
> Annals attest, Sneferu mounted a major raid on Nubia, and brought back
> 7,000 captives and a huge number of pastoral animals. That crushed what-
> ever remained of A-Group Ta-Seti. Later levels of Buhen were unfortified,
> so thoroughly had Nubia been devastated. Only when C-Group peoples moved
> in, contemporary to Dynasty V-VI, did Lower Nubia start to recover.
> Sneferu's captives became the "pacified Nubians" of Old Kingdom texts.
> Meantime, real power in Nubia had shifted south to Napata-Kerma. As
> Bonnet's excavations have shown, that is where the next powerful Nubian
> state arose, beyond the reach of the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom.
Lastly, I just wanted to say I *do* think that the Upper Egyptians and
the A-Group had very close relations (at least within Lower Nubia), and
no doubt people were moving back and forth from one area to the other.
We certainly see this with the Lower Egyptian culture and the
Syro-Palestinians at this time, and there is every reason to expect the
same from Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt. I just have problems with
Williams claiming pharaonic culture originates at Qustul. THe evidence
was always, imho, very slim at best, and now, in light of Dreyer's
discoveries at Abydos, superceeded in that the older material is most
definately from Egypt. The Lower Nubian material can be accounted for by
trade imports or the adoption of Egyptian cultural traits.
> Most sincerely,
> Frank J. Yurco
> University of Chicago
With respect,
Troy Sagrillo
University of Toronto
Subject: Re: Caucasian on the Columbia c7300 BCE
From: Satrap Szabo
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 02:27:57 -0700
Enjoy.
Peter van Rossum wrote:
>
> Deletions throughout to condense an already too lengthy thread.
>
> Mr. Szabo,
> If after reading this post you still think I have misunderstood your
> position, please supply what you think is an appropriate definition of
> race and explain why you think objective, biological racial groups exist.
The gist of my post is still trying to show why there IE a basis in
racial classification. Even if not to the scientist.
Yes, you've still misunderstood my position.
Race, as a social construct, may not be at all appropriate for
classifying race. Perhaps a new, objective, scientific concept of race
will first be needed. I think this would be a BIG, big task to begin.
This classification would have to be based on geographical, cultural,
and incidental data to name just a few areas. This is not something I
intend to start doing right away...
> Also please name these objective racial groups and describe the
> characteristics which separate them from other racial groups. Without
> such an effort on your part, any continued miscommunication will be the
> result of your unwillingness to articulate your position.
O.K. Here's the problem. You seem to be thinking that I believe in
this pure race concept. Even though I clearly just said things showing
the opposite:
>I wrote:
>After all every race is a product of mixing and remixing, but
>that doesn't detract from the fact that there ARE differences between
>races. Real physical ones! Your point seems to be that there isn't.
So, you think I believe in this pure race concept. Well I don't.
And I was thinking that you were actually claiming that people of racial
extremes (a term that probably gets you quite confused) are physically
identical and one cannot tell them apart physically. Of course you
weren't saying that at all were you? You were merely saying that many
anthropologists feel that race is a social construct and not a physical
one. You're safe with that, I won't bother DejaNewsing to find out who
claimed what exactly, but you go ahead if you like. Perhaps we were
both too quick to extract opinions out of each other.
> Mr. Szabo do you really believe that I have mis-represented the scientific
> research on the topic of race?
O.K. I'll back off any accusations because I have no desire to start
DejaNewsing this all back up. Let's just say: I, Peter, have only just
realized exactly what you were saying. You were merely quoting exactly
what many anthropologists have posited. I wrongly thought that you were
making your own broad claim that race was a social construct and not a
physical one. It was to this that I objected, since that was certain
folly. But, in fact, this view was stated by anthropologists, which
infers that it would be true if you preceded the statement with the word
"scientifically", as in: Scientifically, race can not be a physical
classification, but it is a social classification. So fine. Scientists
can't find a way to clearly group races. that doesn't mean that it
can't be done to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Your citing of the
80-90% accuracy proves that it can prove accurate that much of the time.
Would you agree that it would have proved useful to determine if the
Columbia river skeleton was genetically Caucasian or not? To determine
if the skin were closer to white or black? Oops, I just made a
distinction between race! Call me unscientific!
If the anthropologists actually claim "race is a social construct and
not a physical one" or something similar, then I say that they are
saying this because they feel that "race" has no scientific position, no
exact boundaries, and thereby it has "no objective basis in fact".
Sure! I can dig this. But that surely doesn't magically make all the
races skins the same colour! They can still be grouped
(unscientifically however) in all sorts of different ways, up to the
discretion of the person doing the grouping.
How's about a concept like "relative-race". Perhaps this will be a
complex science in the 22nd century where scientists have worked out an
extremely elaborate, intertangled tree hierarchy that still is only 92%
accurate... But the point is that there IS a difference between black
and white, etc. and if were privy to the knowledge you could actually
look at how every race became what it is today. It would be a
complicated picture, but one exists. It is in the history book of
reality, that we don't usually get to see, but it exists I assure you.
And the fact that skin colours can be different, and whatever else,
shows that there ARE physical differences, no matter how difficult to
define.
Egad. What's going on here?
I have supplied you with a number of
> references on the topic, yet if you still insist on assuming that I have
> not accurately presented the state of the art I will post a list of
> direct quotations which support my claim that most anthropologists
> consider race to be a social, not a biological, concept. If you ask
> I will do this but I then will also expect a public apology from you for
> having wasted a substantial portion of my time to prove a point because you
> were too lazy to get off your duff and check the references out for yourself.
No contest. My apologies. I have since disseminated what you were
claiming and what you were not claiming.
> Here we go again. We do still seem to have a failure to communicate
> since I still read the above paragraph as indicating you believe in a
> "pure" race concept. Please note I'm not asserting you believe in racial
> superiority,
That's good to hear.
> but that you believe that there are "races" of people who
> are completely genetically distinct from other human "races".
Not "completely". Nowhere near. But without that word, that is exactly
what I am saying.
> The
> problem comes down to the fact that there is no evidence that human groups
> have "evolved..in isolation."
Substitute "relative isolation" if you need to.
> While genetic isolation
> has occurred, it has only happened for periods that are too short for
> genetic drift to have brought about effective racial groups.
This point at least seemed to be in the relevant ballpark.
The genes are able to affect colour of skin, eyes, and probably all
sorts of things. Otherwise these differences wouldn't appear. Just
because it may be too subtle for current science doesn't mean that the
evidence isn't there. (I will concede that my earlier prediction of
imminent scientific identification abilities was most probably Wrong.
Lucky you didn't hold your breath. :)
> Please define the term "white" as it refers to race. Keep in mind many
> who have been people classified as "black" by U.S. society (i.e. those with
> even one drop of "black" blood) have "passed" for being "white".
The are no distinct borders, but I would define the "white extreme" as
being somewhere in Northern Europe.
> Here's a couple of questions you should ask yourself:
> 1. A "black" adult and a "white" adult have a child. What race is the child?
A race that is half white and half black. I think eventually this will
be discernable scientifically. The more recently mixed, and the more
mixing that went on in a person's genetic past, the longer it will take
to find physical evidence of it. Or perhaps it won't be found, but it
is obviously still there, as humans tend to adapt to their surroundings
somewhat as they evolve.
> 2. A child has 2 "white" parents, 3 "white" grandparents and 1 "asian"
> grandparent. What race is the child?
A mix. As are all races. If you don't believe that societies ever stay
significantly within their own culture then I suggest you venture out of
whatever multicultural western nation you are in and see some examples
of nations that have distinctive features in the entirety of their race.
That is not to put too fine a point on it; I certainly respect your
statement that no race has no single trait that holds 100% of the time.
[I think its safe to snipo the next two questions.]
> Again if there are "mixed race genes" then there must also be "unmixed
> (or pure) race genes" as well. Yet above you state that I have misinterpreted
> your position - please explain.
A prime example of illogical deduction. If there are mixed race genes,
then there must also be unmixed genes? Wrong! I said previously that I
thought all races are mixed. (and mixed and mixed and mixed) If there
was ever a pure race example it would have to have been existing before
the emergence of complicated homonids. And probably LONG before that.
> And again as I quoted from Sauer's article:
> "my contention here is that such a practice [being able accurately predict
> an individuals "race" 80-90% of the time] is not a vindication of the
> traditional notion that there are four major human races, rather, it is
> a prediction, based on skeletal morphology that a particular label [read
> socially assigned label] would have been assigned to an individual when
> that individual was alive."
>
> Please try to understand a quote before you reject it.
I understand the quote perfectly and I never rejected it. I merely made
a jokingly rude comment toward your suggested reading. I agree that the
current racial model could be comletely redefined to be more complex and
objective. But that is a long way off. I think differentiating the
extremes should be enoughto demonstrate that differentiation is
naturally possible.
Let's say you picked out 1,000 indigenous South Africans at random,
1,000 indigenous Norwegions at random, and 1,000 Chinese at random.
Then you mixed them up randomly and lined them up for inspection. Do
you disagree that virtually anybody with both eyes open could easily
sort the people into their respective racial categories, even with an
accuracy that would round off to 100%? Now if scientists could do this
with bone samples or cell samples... Do you actually think that there
are distinctions that our eyes make, that don't exist physically?
> My point is that if you like you can surely make a racial classification
> scheme that anyone of a given skin color is "black", of another skin
> color is "white", of another skin color is "asian", etc. but it would
> be just as valid for me to define races based on blood type, or hair
> texture, or foot length/width ratios, etc. All would be equally valid in
> a logical sense yet all would produce conflicting "racial" categories but
> all would also be the result of a social decision to use skin color, or
> blood type, or hair type, or foot measurements as the definitive criteria.
You've hit the nail on the head here. The "conflicting racial
categories" resulting from "social decision to use skin color, or
blood type, or hair type, or foot measurements as definitive criteria"
is exactly why you have to start simple, ignoring the entire social
criteria and sticking with objective physical issues. It surely won't
be easy though.
> >And that race classification is purely social, and not at all
> >bio-physical. I say your wrong about this. I also say that a
> >respectable scientist wouldn't dare say something so foolish. And the
> >ones that do are probably motivated by some silly do-gooder ideal that
> >all races are exactly the same... physically.
>
> No one is asserting that all humans are exactly the same. The fact is,
Um. Pardon me. That was "asserting that all RACES are exactly the
same"... That's not a minor point that you just tried to fudge over.
> however, that no matter how you define races you will find that there
> is more variability within members of the same race than there is between
> members of different races. In statistical terms the variance explained
> by racial categories is miniscule in comparison to the unexplained
> variance - this is demonstrated in the Lewontin article which you have
> chosen not to read.
Careful with your statistics; they can tell you whatever you want to
hear. If you were looking at statistics of broader racial categories
would you still say "that no matter how you define races you will find
that there is more variability within members of the same race than
there is between members of different races"? That's easy prove wrong.
What about these statistics?
(Survey of 100,000 of each group)
SKIN-COLOUR[1] EYE COLOUR[2]
Indigenous Norwegion %??/%?? %??/%??
Indigenous South African %??/%?? %??/%??
[1] Percent that has dark/light skin
[2] Percent that has brown/blue eyes
If I "define races" this way will I still find that there is more
variability within members of the same race than there is between
members of different races? Obviously not.
The classifications will need to begin as quite broad and slowly become
more specific.
And we will have another discipline to draw from for corroboration when
tracing cultural backgrounds! (in a few centuries...)
> Again how you define these "races" is completely dependant on a subjective
> judgement as to which features to emphasize - this is completely covered
> in the Sauer article which you have chosen not to read.
I don't need to read it to see how obvious that is. This is precisely
what they have to puzzle through. It sounds as though Sauer gave up,
not even able to decide on which features to emphasize. I think that it
would have to be done in terms of many seperate studies of many
different "racial typologies" and eventually synthesizing all that data.
> Additionally in the winter I am very white, yet in
> the summer I can become much browner, does this mean I am on my way to
> being part of another race? I think you would agree that this does not
> make me "black" any more than it makes an albino of dark skinned African
> parents "white."
When we look at someone we take in a whole lot more than just their skin
colour. When/if we guess what race they are, it is from a complex
synthesis of features. You are trying to look at it one feature at a
time, which is typically scientific, and which will sabotage your effort
to predict the correct race.
> The cutoff point is arbitrary, the feature is highly
> subject to environmental influences, clear distinctions do not exist and
> therefore the categorization is arbitrary - not a biological fact.
True enough. But categorization has to be prioritized if it is to work.
The object is to be able to say roughly who mixed with who, when, and
where. It doesn't have to be completely precise to be of incredibly
high value to historians/anthropologists/archaeologists/etc. as
corroboration. The results WILL reflect biological fact, although maybe
not with the precision you might have liked.
> >I doesn't matter to this discussion if scientists are having trouble
> >creating a "racial typology" or not. It's too chaotic a mix to try to
> >categorize. Give up brave scientist, you have tried hard. If, say,
> >100,000 years ago there were 20 roughly defined races, and every year
> >they fight, conquer, migrate, diffuse, etc for the next 100,000 years
> >until present, it should be bloody clear thet the racial variations
> >resulting would be astronomical. As many as there are people! So just
> >because scientists can't clearly categorize the races into a few
> >neat categories doesn't mean that there are no physical differences
> >between black and white humans, which is what this started from.
>
> 1. Again you seem to be clearly believing in the concept of pure races.
Aaaaugh! Who am I talking to?!? I am horrified that you could SAY
that! Does THIS ring a bell?
> >..., it should be bloody clear thet the racial variations
> >resulting would be astronomical. As many as there are people!
Are you deaf!! Or blind?? I read your post and I think I'm talking to
someone sane, and then I see THAT...
> 2. Even if we took your finite number of starting races followed by
> mixture theory to be true (which it is not), it would seem that you
> would have to conclude that the vast majority of humans now belong
> to one race (the "mixed race"). You say yourself that there would
> be as many races as there are people. So if every individual is
> his/her own race how can the concept exist?
> and more importantly
Something is terribly wrong.
1) I was demonstrating the mixed nature of the races!!! You agree with
that remember!
2) The seemingly finite number was hypothetical, and I'm not so dim that
I would pretend that there is such thing as a finite number of races or
a pure race. Got it!
> to one race (the "mixed race"). You say yourself that there would
> be as many races as there are people. So if every individual is
> his/her own race how can the concept exist?
3) Because we can actually SEE distinct differences, however subtle they
may be, between certain races. This is physical proof! It exists!!!
It results from living in different geographical regions. There
actually IS a reality in which tribes and nations of people lived in
different landmasses and cultural areas. This has resulted in an actual
PHYSICALLY NOTICABLE, with simple eyesight, set of differences that can
be distinguished, often quite easily.
> 3. This discussion began with your parroting of a claim that the Columbia
> skeleton finding meant that a "white man" was among the earliest New
> World migrants. If still believe that this conclusion is valid you have
> not understood a word which I have said. I state again, the Columbia
> skeleton in no way proves that "white" men were among the earliest
> New World inhabitants.
I brought up the news article about the supposed Caucasian skeleton
found by the Columbia, yes. I *never* expressed belief that this
conclusion was valid, I was just asking about it (with a sort of humour
that didn't appeal to you), so I would appreciate you not saying I said
things that I didn't.
This discussion actually arose because of our sideshow :) arguement
about whether there is such a classification as race.
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (do not publish though)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/