|
Post by preddinarid on Oct 27, 2012 22:22:05 GMT -5
pred or noah is you know of any good websites on Caucasoids or race in general feel free to post them here. Some though are bad, even if they are pretending to be "race realism" sites, as you can discover if you look up the troll who set up the forum Racialreality. A good expose now can be found here - Administrator: Link edited out per Terms of Service.The examples of Caucasoids on that website seem 100% accurate in the way they are described though. Did he forge all of those genetic studies or something? I'm talking about "Racial Reality.com".
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Oct 28, 2012 6:15:20 GMT -5
pred or noah is you know of any good websites on Caucasoids or race in general feel free to post them here. Some though are bad, even if they are pretending to be "race realism" sites, as you can discover if you look up the troll who set up the forum Racialreality. A good expose now can be found here - Administrator: Link edited out per Terms of Service.The examples of Caucasoids on that website seem 100% accurate in the way they are described though. Did he forge all of those genetic studies or something? I'm talking about "Racial Reality.com". I'll PM you about it.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 16:11:09 GMT -5
Unfortuantly I misread this thread entirely, and removed some of my posts. I ony just noted this:
I took the assumption this thread was discussing these subraces or intraspecific divisons in the past. As I raised in the Eastern Hamite vs. Aethiopid thread, very few Hamites today appear Caucasoid. Instead as Baker (1974) discussed they are interracial clinal types of a broad Negroid-Caucasoid spectrum.
I'm really confused here, and this has escaped me for months, but I tried to raise it in the other thread -
Is Hamiticunion's position that these modern "Beja, Galla, Somali, Danakil, and most Ethiopians" are Caucasoid?
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 16:28:16 GMT -5
^ I will take issue with this, as from a typological and taxonomic perspective this makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 16:46:51 GMT -5
The issue -
"Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race" (Baker, 1974)
From an old thread on another site where I was debating this:
"Those quotes support what I stated, that they are lumped with Europids (Caucasoids) for convenience, not taxonomically. This is shown in the appendix "Tables of Races and Subraces" (pp. 624-625). Look who is also lumped with Europids: Turanids. Yet throughout the work Baker (1974) labels the Turanid race a hybrid taxon. They are an interracial clinal of two crossed races Caucasoids with Mongoloids. You will also see the Hottentots (Khoids) are lumped by Baker (p. 625) for convenience under Khoisanids, yet they are a seperate hybrid taxon as he clarifies: "They are almost certainly themselves a hybrid taxon of Sanid and Negrid (Kafrid) ancestry". (p. 306)
As mostly a typologist (edit: he did though use some population genetics), Baker agrees with my position that the kontaktrasse/hybrid taxons do not cluster taxonomically with any primary race or subspecies, but are lumped sometimes with them for mere convenience:
"In the way what is sometimes called a Kontaktrasse or ‘hybrid race’ may originate. In such cases, the physical characters of one of the races usually predominate in the hybrid. If so, the hybrids are best regarded as forming a hybrid subrace of the race they more closely resemble. Thus the Aethiopids of Ethiopia are probably best regarded as a hybrid subrace of the Europid race." (Baker, 1977)
Note how Baker labels the Aethiopid type a hybrid Europid subrace. He's not clustering it as a Europid taxonomically, but lumping it with the Europids for convenience - hence its still considered "hybrid". If Baker (1974, 1977) had considered Aethiopids as an actual taxonomic subrace of the Europid he wouldn't call it a hybrid taxon. The above quotation from his 1977 article (found here) supports my early claim that.... (cut)"
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 6, 2013 18:55:19 GMT -5
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Baker describes the Aethiopid/Eastern Hamite taxon itself as a Caucasoid/Europid sub-race. Your interlocutor on that other forum is certainly right about that. "The Aethiopids ('Eastern Hamites' or 'Erythriotes') of Ethiopia and Somaliland are an essentially Europid subrace with some Negrid admixture. Typically these are slender people of medium stature, dolico- or mesocranial; the face is more or less of the Europid form, with rather narrow, prominent nose, there is no prognathism[...] It must be remarked that since the Negrid ancestors were presumably Nilotids, prognathism would not be expected in the hybrid taxon. It is not possible to state with confidence which Europid subrace was chiefly responsible for the non-Negrid contribution to this hybrid taxon, and indeed this may well have varied in different local forms. Some authorities lay stress on the predominance of one Europid subrace, others on another. It is probable that there were both Orientalid ('Arab') and Mediterranid (or Proto-Mediterranid) ancestors, and the Orientalid ancestors may perhaps have been hybridized with Armenids, as in so many places they are." The Hamitic Union's position on this issue is the same as Baker's and modern genome wide studies.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 22:28:17 GMT -5
^ They are lumped with Caucasoids only for convenience not taxonomically. "In the way what is sometimes called a Kontaktrasse or ‘hybrid race’ may originate. In such cases, the physical characters of one of the races usually predominate in the hybrid. If so, the hybrids are best regarded as forming a hybrid subrace of the race they more closely resemble. Thus the Aethiopids of Ethiopia are probably best regarded as a hybrid subrace of the Europid race." (Baker, 1977) If it was taxonomic, why does Baker call it a " hybrid taxon"/hybrid subrace"? Why not just subrace (singular)? And how does a hybrid type become a non-hybrid taxonomically? Its impossible. How Aethiopids should appear in a typological classification is as follows: A. Caucasoid A1. A2. etcetc (intra-types e.g. Lappid) Aethiopid B. Congoid A1. A2. etc Aethiopids should appear as composites/hybrids between Congoid/Negroid and Caucasoid. Under Hooton's system, this is what happens. Interracial hybrid types, are composites. It makes no sense to cluster them with the major racial divisions/macro types. Btw, doing so completely destroys the basis of classification. If you also note, it will make the divisions completely arbitrary. Afrocentrics through this fallacious reasoning claim the Aethiopid type is Negroid (''Black''). Of course its different when you have intraracial (not inter) types. As all of them fall under the macro-type or major racial division. However composite intra-types still need labels and seperate taxons. For example someone who is 50% Nordid, but 50% Alpine isn't going to be called a Nordid or Alpine. I believe in a Hamitic origin for ancient Egypt civilization. But many today who are called "Hamitic", aren't the original Hamites. They now show Negroid traits (even if they are minor). I thought this was also your position? Yet you believe certain modern people who show Negroid traits are Hamitic/Caucasoid. That is not a position I can agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 22:45:03 GMT -5
Also look at the other hybrids on Baker's list, such as Turanids. Here is a Turanid - So this is a Caucasoid? If so then i'm a Capoid... Caucasoid/Negroid etc become worthless taxonomically if we open them up to hybrid types.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 22:55:28 GMT -5
Your interlocutor on that other forum is certainly right about that. He's wrong. Notice he couldn't answer any of my questions. Secondly he posted he believed Baker was a populationist. Again wrong. Baker was both a typologist and populationist. That probably explains why the above is such a mess, along with Coon's comments about Negroid "tendencies" in Mediterraneans. Trying to mix typology with population genetics doesn't work. That's why Krantz as I posted to you, set up a dual system.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 7, 2013 8:48:40 GMT -5
"In the way what is sometimes called a Kontaktrasse or ‘hybrid race’ may originate. In such cases, the physical characters of one of the races usually predominate in the hybrid. If so, the hybrids are best regarded as forming a hybrid subrace of the race they more closely resemble. Thus the Aethiopids of Ethiopia are probably best regarded as a hybrid subrace of the Europid race." (Baker, 1977) If it was taxonomic, why does Baker call it a " hybrid taxon"/hybrid subrace"? Why not just subrace (singular)? Again, Baker taxonomically classifies Aethiopids as a "somewhat abberant" Europid/Caucasoid sub-race. This is because, despite varying degrees of Sub-Saharan admixture, that is where the preponderance of their ancestry lies. The taxonomic table above makes this clear. So does the highlighted part of the quote you just presented. Baker more fully addresses the issue elsewhere: "Hybrid populations may originate not only by intersubracial, but also by interracial miscegenation. An interracial hybrid population may give rise to a recognizable new ethnic taxon by intermarriage within itself, generation after generation. Such taxa generally (but not always) originate where the natural habitats of two races abut on one another, and therefore only two ancestral races are concerned. One of these has usually provided the majority of the ancestors, and if so it naturally has a predominant effect on the physique of the hybrids. As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it. Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race. The Turanids ('Turki'), for example, are Europid-Mongolid hybrids, among whom the physical characters of their Europid ancestors generally predominate over the Mongolid. Caspian Sea to the borders of Mongolia, and a narrow tongue of Turanid territory stretches north of the Caspian to the Black Sea coast. The Mongolid element in their features becomes progressively less towards the western limit of their territory.
The Aethiopids ('Eastern Hamites' or 'Erythriotes') of Ethiopia and Somaliland are an essentially Europid subrace with some Negrid admixture. Typically these are slender people of medium stature, dolico- or mesocranial; the face is more or less of the Europid form, with rather narrow, prominent nose, there is no prognathism[...] It must be remarked that since the Negrid ancestors were presumably Nilotids, prognathism would not be expected in the hybrid taxon. It is not possible to state with confidence which Europid subrace was chiefly responsible for the non-Negrid contribution to this hybrid taxon, and indeed this may well have varied in different local forms. Some authorities lay stress on the predominance of one Europid subrace, others on another. It is probable that there were both Orientalid ('Arab') and Mediterranid (or Proto-Mediterranid) ancestors, and the Orientalid ancestors may perhaps have been hybridized with Armenids, as in so many places they are." Under Hooton's system, this is what happens. Hooton never traveled to Africa (and most other continents) for in-field research on the populations he nonetheless profiled. His assumptions are therefore largely speculative, and it shows. His work is also superceded by that of his top student, Carleton Coon. Unlike Hooton, Coon not only traveled to most of the places that he described, he actually lived for a period in North Africa and wrote an entire novel on Ethiopia. Interracial hybrid types, are composites. It makes no sense to cluster them with the major racial divisions/macro types. Btw, doing so completely destroys the basis of classification. If you also note, it will make the divisions completely arbitrary. Had you perhaps been more familiar with genome wide and full sequencing data, you would already realize that all modern populations are mixed in varying degrees. They have a combination of components that are autochthonous to them as well as some foreign elements (some of which don't even belong to anatomically modern humans, by the way). The differences in these genetic components between groups within the major racial divisions is only clinal. If we follow your reasoning to its natural conclusion, no modern population can actually be considered Caucasoid since all modern Caucasoids have varying degrees of foreign components. For example, Northern Europeans have a higher frequency of the aboriginal European component than do Southern Europeans; that element has some built-in Siberian/Amerindian affinity due to ancestral admixture and/or divergence. They also possess higher percentages of Neanderthal admixture than do many West Asian Caucasoids. This is why we look at where the bulk of a given population's ancestry lies for broad classifications, as Baker does.
All members who have issues with the Hamitic reality are encouraged to reconsider their membership. The very premise of this board is to protect Hamitic interests, as stated in the Forum Rules. When this is in conflict with a user's personal beliefs, it's best to amicably part ways.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 7, 2013 16:21:41 GMT -5
Again, Baker taxonomically classifies Aethiopids as a "somewhat abberant" Europid/Caucasoid sub-race. This is because, despite varying degrees of Sub-Saharan admixture, that is where the preponderance of their ancestry lies. The taxonomic table above makes this clear. So does the highlighted part of the quote you just presented. Baker more fully addresses the issue elsewhere: "Hybrid populations may originate not only by intersubracial, but also by interracial miscegenation. An interracial hybrid population may give rise to a recognizable new ethnic taxon by intermarriage within itself, generation after generation. Such taxa generally (but not always) originate where the natural habitats of two races abut on one another, and therefore only two ancestral races are concerned. One of these has usually provided the majority of the ancestors, and if so it naturally has a predominant effect on the physique of the hybrids. As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it. Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race. The Turanids ('Turki'), for example, are Europid-Mongolid hybrids, among whom the physical characters of their Europid ancestors generally predominate over the Mongolid. Caspian Sea to the borders of Mongolia, and a narrow tongue of Turanid territory stretches north of the Caspian to the Black Sea coast. The Mongolid element in their features becomes progressively less towards the western limit of their territory. Note though he says "physique" and "physical characters". This is the main basis of Baker's classification. Where he went wrong was trying to match these with populations. That's the mess Baker and Coon got into. They were criticised for using the a priori fallacy of imposing (race) types onto the populations. Hooton founded the Harvard African Studies in 1917 and was editor of its journal from 1918 to 1954. The nearest he got to Africa was his study carried out on Guanche remains on the Canary Islands (so yes you are right he never reached Africa properly). However he edited the work of his students or colleagues who did extensive field work there such as Oric Bates. You may want to add Bates' work to the Library: The eastern Libyans, an essay (1914)archive.org/details/cu31924008200838Yep, Coon traveled to North Africa. As much as I like Coon for his theory on racial origins (1962), his work that followed had errors as he tried to impose population genetics onto the race types. Hooton never did this, which is why I prefer his data. At the other extreme, some of Hooton's Ph.d students abandoned typology entirely for population genetics such as Sherwood Washburn. The genes are irrelevant. Anthropologists as early as Topinard have known populations are not races. No population is a single type. That is why gene pools are completely irrelevant to races. If you go down the genetic approach you will end up with a classification very different to 'classical' racial types. Hence you will in fact have a dual system. Anyone who tries to impose the former onto the latter is using an a priori (note: this plays into the hands of race denialists). My view is that Caucasoid is a morphological type only. I also don't equate types/races to populations. I don't believe we have disagreement over Hamitic reality. We disagree with what races are, because we have a different approach to it.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 7, 2013 21:18:35 GMT -5
Note though he says "physique" and "physical characters". This is the main basis of Baker's classification. Where he went wrong was trying to match these with populations. That's the mess Baker and Coon got into. They were criticised for using the a priori fallacy of imposing (race) types onto the populations [...] As much as I like Coon for his theory on racial origins (1962), his work that followed had errors as he tried to impose population genetics onto the race types. Hooton never did this, which is why I prefer his data. At the other extreme, some of Hooton's Ph.d students abandoned typology entirely for population genetics such as Sherwood Washburn. Baker and Coon were criticized for believing in the reality of racial differences when it was going out of fashion to do so (remember, that was the era of student revolutions, hippie sit-ins and Abbie Hoffman). Their work, though, remains valuable. This is because Baker and Coon espoused neither the extreme of a) focusing exclusively on phenotype at the expense of genetics (like typologists), nor of b) attributing the bulk of phenotypic differences between human populations to environmental adaption, while minimizing the genetic contribution (like many 60s-80s era population geneticists). Baker and Coon understood that the two methodologies actually complement each other. I like Coon for his theory on racial origins (1962) The polygenic model is one of the weakest aspects of that work, imo. Hooton founded the Harvard African Studies in 1917 and was editor of its journal from 1918 to 1954. The nearest he got to Africa was his study carried out on Guanche remains on the Canary Islands (so yes you are right he never reached Africa properly). Yes, I know. That's the irony. Yep, Coon traveled to North Africa. Coon had first-hand, in-field experience with many of the populations he wrote about. Hooton, however, did not... a significant difference. When Coon traveled to North Africa and the Horn region, he was primarily collecting ethnographic data. His 1935 book Measuring Ethiopia recalls some of these experiences. Do you know when Coon first visited that continent? It was as a youngster, with his father. They went to Egypt. In fact, he taught himself to read hieroglyphics while still in secondary school. That's when his anthropological interest and in-the-trenches experience actually began. He would later add Arabic and Greek to his extensive professional qualifications. The man was no dilettante. Coon's colleague W.W. Howells wrote a decent biographical memoir of him. The genes are irrelevant. Anthropologists as early as Topinard have known populations are not races. No population is a single type. That is why gene pools are completely irrelevant to races. If you go down the genetic approach you will end up with a classification very different to 'classical' racial types. Hence you will in fact have a dual system. Anyone who tries to impose the former onto the latter is using an a priori (note: this plays into the hands of race denialists) [...] My view is that Caucasoid is a morphological type only. I realize that you once described yourself as a typologist. However, you are putting the cart before the horse. Genes largely determine phenotype, not vice versa. You are welcome to believe otherwise, though. I don't believe we have disagreement over Hamitic reality. We disagree with what races are, because we have a different approach to it. Ok, good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 7, 2013 23:40:50 GMT -5
Also look at the other hybrids on Baker's list, such as Turanids. Here is a Turanid - So this is a Caucasoid? If so then i'm a Capoid... Caucasoid/Negroid etc become worthless taxonomically if we open them up to hybrid types. The first thing that came to my mind looking at this picture was some sort of South-eastern Asian type. It has the Epicanthic fold/slanted eyes and different cheek-bones compared to a Caucasoid. This fold is absent in Caucasoids. The nose looks flattish as well.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 8, 2013 19:47:41 GMT -5
Baker and Coon understood that the two methodologies actually complement each other. Sorry, I have to disagree. They don't go together. If you want to use both, you have to use a dual system and accept you will come out with different results. This is what Krantz proved. Its not really polygenic. Coon (1962) accepted common ancestry among the races at 750,000 B. P (we now date some Erectus though up to a million years earlier). However in his later works, Coon pushed back slightly the date for racial divergences, and in his last posthumous published work was discussing the idea of a split during Australopithecus for two or three of the races. Yes, but Howells actually wrongly portrayed Coon's model. He made a straw man out of the whole thing likening it to a candle stick. In fact its part down to Howells that Coon's theories on racial origins never became more popular. Howells developed the Noah's Ark model, which is today the Out of Africa theory. Most of this is rooted in political correctness and egalitarianism. Check Amazon forums "science" (com) for a current discussion. You will see all the people who believe in Out of Africa are political orientated, and they question anyone in the slightest who questions the OOA model a "racist". I would support your position on genetics if we lived 50,000 or so years ago, when the races were allopatric. Hence races back then would = gene pools/populations. Since the Mesolithic/Neolithic however all the races have been migrating and mixing all over the place. This is largely down to domestication and technology. So this is why I reject populationism.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 9, 2013 18:48:20 GMT -5
Sorry, I have to disagree. They don't go together. If you want to use both, you have to use a dual system and accept you will come out with different results. This is what Krantz proved. No, that's what the Bigfoot researcher Krantz tried and, of course, failed to prove. You can safely make that argument the day that genes don't primarily determine phenotype/observable characteristics. Its not really polygenic. Coon (1962) accepted common ancestry among the races at 750,000 B. P (we now date some Erectus though up to a million years earlier). However in his later works, Coon pushed back slightly the date for racial divergences, and in his last posthumous published work was discussing the idea of a split during Australopithecus for two or three of the races. You didn't mention Coon's later works. You specifically mentioned his 1962 work i.e. The Origin of Races, which indeed features a (dubious) evolutionary polygenism theory. Yes, but Howells actually wrongly portrayed Coon's model. He made a straw man out of the whole thing likening it to a candle stick. In fact its part down to Howells that Coon's theories on racial origins never became more popular. Howells developed the Noah's Ark model, which is today the Out of Africa theory. Most of this is rooted in political correctness and egalitarianism. The Out-of-Africa model is too simplistic and probably bunk. But the alternatives aren't any better; maybe even worse. Check Amazon forums "science" (com) for a current discussion. You will see all the people who believe in Out of Africa are political orientated, and they question anyone in the slightest who questions the OOA model a "racist". Is there a forum you have not at some point been a member of? I would support your position on genetics if we lived 50,000 or so years ago, when the races were allopatric. Hence races back then would = gene pools/populations. Since the Mesolithic/Neolithic however all the races have been migrating and mixing all over the place. This is largely down to domestication and technology. So this is why I reject populationism. Read this. You could use it.
|
|