Setting The Record Staight on Race

These concepts are socially constructed and have been given much weight. What are your thoughts?
User avatar
Invincible
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2614
Joined: December 8th, 2003, 11:10 pm

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Invincible » August 14th, 2004, 9:49 pm


User avatar
TheReal
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1064
Joined: January 20th, 2004, 1:19 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Windsor Hills section)

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by TheReal » August 18th, 2004, 5:43 am



*This article in no way compromises the information that I've put forth, nor does it put the information that I've put forth in great peril. What I presented was a well-balanced look at the egypt of antiquity, while not catering to afrocentric, nor eurocentric interpretations.

The fact of the matter is, the ancient egyptians were a mixed race, which included negroid ancestry. I can care less what many modern day egyptians say today, who are descendants of arab interlopers during the 6th and especially 7th centuries: THEY WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THAT LAND!

Again, I wholeheartedly stand by the information that I posted up, and will challenge anyone, point-by-point, concerning the particulars.

User avatar
Storm
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: August 12th, 2004, 10:46 am
Location: England SW9

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Storm » August 18th, 2004, 6:05 am

To throw my 2 pence worth in

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

DNA can be used to understand the evolution of modern humans, trace migrations of people, identify individuals, and determine the origins of domestic plants and animals. DNA analysis, as one scholar put it, is "the greatest archaeological excavation of all time." Because ancient DNA molecules are normally so few and fragmented, and preserved soft tissues so rare, scientists had little hope of finding and analyzing it. But two breakthroughs have made this possible: the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method for copying any fragment of DNA, and the successful recovery of DNA from preserved hard tissues, bones and teeth, that are durable and relatively abundant.

DNA analysis traced human ancestry back to an African "Eve," setting off debate about how modern humans evolved. While there was general agreement that Homo erectus dispersed from Africa across Asia between 1 and 2 million years ago, what happened next remained a question. The "out-of-Africa" hypothesis contended that modern humans developed in Africa and migrated from there recently, driving H. erectus into extinction. Proponents of a "multiregional" hypothesis held that H. erectus populations evolved into modern humans in many regions, and that these groups later bred with each other and with groups that emigrated from Africa. The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. The researchers, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and the late Allan Wilson, estimated that the ancestor of all surviving mt DNA types lived between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago. When did the migrations from Africa take place? They dated the oldest cluster of mtDNA types with no modern African representation to between 90,000 and 180,000 years ago. These populations might have left Africa at about that time, but the mtDNA data could not determine exactly when.

Geneticist Alan Templeton pointed out statistical and sampling flaws in the study. Its results, he argued, were in part dictated by the order in which the data were fed into the computer. Others questioned the reliability of "molecular clocks" and the rate of mutation in the human mtDNA used in calculating Eve's date. The genetic diversity of African populations was confirmed by later studies and is now generally accepted, but, according to Templeton, proponents of the out-of-Africa hypothesis assumed that genetic diversity reflected only the age of a population rather than population size. He contends that Africa has greater genetic diversity because its prehistoric population was probably larger than elsewhere. Recently John Relethford and Henry Harpending have argued that differences in ancient population size could mimic a recent African origin of modern humans. The data reflect population dynamics, they say, and do not support one model of modern human origins over another.

Scientists are also studying DNA from the Y chromosome, which is passed only from father to son and is not recombined with the mother's genes. Because changes in the Y chromosome are caused only by mutations, as in mtDNA, it may be used as a clock. Assuming that all living humans share a common male ancestor, it should be possible to estimate when he lived. According to geneticist Robert Dorit, the first modern human male lived some 270,000 years ago. The most recent research on modern human origins, by John Armour, examined nuclear DNA of populations from around the world. Armour and his colleagues conclude that the evidence fits with the development of modern humans in Africa and an emigration by a small number of them that became the basis for non-African populations. These observations, they say, are more difficult to reconcile with a multiregional model for the origin of modern humans.

New DNA studies by Bryan Sykes have challeneged the leading theory about the spread of agriculture into Europe. In 1984 Albert Ammerman and geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford University proposed that it was people practicing agriculture who spread into Europe, rather than the idea of agriculture. They argued that agricultural productivity led to population growth, and that, as the population grew, early farmers gradually moved into new land inhabited by fewer hunter-gatherers. Thus the practitioners of agriculture spread from Anatolia, beginning about 7000 B.C., to Greece and across all of Europe, ending in Britain and Scandinavia about 4000 B.C. Using mtDNA analysis, Sykes claims that the ancestors of most modern Europeans arrived at least 20,000 years ago, long before the supposed arrival of Neolithic farmers. In analyzing mtDNA from more than 800 modern Europeans, Sykes and his colleagues identified at least five main groups. Four of the five groups date to well before the last glacial peak, with ages ranging from 35,000 to 25,000 years ago. The fifth group is much younger in Europe (6,000 to 10,000 years ago) and has clear affinities to Near Eastern mtDNA. Sykes and his colleagues accept this as the genetic echo of the spread of agriculture, but note that it is fairly weak. They conclude that, far from being overwhelmed by incoming farmers, the indigenous hunter-gatherer population remained intact and learned how to farm.

(not quoting the whole article here - but if you're interested in reading round it stick Mt Eve into Google or Mt DNA Eve )

At some point - based on current historic/archeological and genetic evidence - we were all African - it was only when we left Africa that the regional variations (and evolution) took over.

NYorker
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 299
Joined: April 17th, 2004, 6:34 am
Location: NY Strong Island recently moved to Va

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by NYorker » August 18th, 2004, 7:58 am

Storm wrote:To throw my 2 pence worth in

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

DNA can be used to understand the evolution of modern humans, trace migrations of people, identify individuals, and determine the origins of domestic plants and animals. DNA analysis, as one scholar put it, is "the greatest archaeological excavation of all time." Because ancient DNA molecules are normally so few and fragmented, and preserved soft tissues so rare, scientists had little hope of finding and analyzing it. But two breakthroughs have made this possible: the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method for copying any fragment of DNA, and the successful recovery of DNA from preserved hard tissues, bones and teeth, that are durable and relatively abundant.

DNA analysis traced human ancestry back to an African "Eve," setting off debate about how modern humans evolved. While there was general agreement that Homo erectus dispersed from Africa across Asia between 1 and 2 million years ago, what happened next remained a question. The "out-of-Africa" hypothesis contended that modern humans developed in Africa and migrated from there recently, driving H. erectus into extinction. Proponents of a "multiregional" hypothesis held that H. erectus populations evolved into modern humans in many regions, and that these groups later bred with each other and with groups that emigrated from Africa. The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. The researchers, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and the late Allan Wilson, estimated that the ancestor of all surviving mt DNA types lived between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago. When did the migrations from Africa take place? They dated the oldest cluster of mtDNA types with no modern African representation to between 90,000 and 180,000 years ago. These populations might have left Africa at about that time, but the mtDNA data could not determine exactly when.

Geneticist Alan Templeton pointed out statistical and sampling flaws in the study. Its results, he argued, were in part dictated by the order in which the data were fed into the computer. Others questioned the reliability of "molecular clocks" and the rate of mutation in the human mtDNA used in calculating Eve's date. The genetic diversity of African populations was confirmed by later studies and is now generally accepted, but, according to Templeton, proponents of the out-of-Africa hypothesis assumed that genetic diversity reflected only the age of a population rather than population size. He contends that Africa has greater genetic diversity because its prehistoric population was probably larger than elsewhere. Recently John Relethford and Henry Harpending have argued that differences in ancient population size could mimic a recent African origin of modern humans. The data reflect population dynamics, they say, and do not support one model of modern human origins over another.

Scientists are also studying DNA from the Y chromosome, which is passed only from father to son and is not recombined with the mother's genes. Because changes in the Y chromosome are caused only by mutations, as in mtDNA, it may be used as a clock. Assuming that all living humans share a common male ancestor, it should be possible to estimate when he lived. According to geneticist Robert Dorit, the first modern human male lived some 270,000 years ago. The most recent research on modern human origins, by John Armour, examined nuclear DNA of populations from around the world. Armour and his colleagues conclude that the evidence fits with the development of modern humans in Africa and an emigration by a small number of them that became the basis for non-African populations. These observations, they say, are more difficult to reconcile with a multiregional model for the origin of modern humans.

New DNA studies by Bryan Sykes have challeneged the leading theory about the spread of agriculture into Europe. In 1984 Albert Ammerman and geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford University proposed that it was people practicing agriculture who spread into Europe, rather than the idea of agriculture. They argued that agricultural productivity led to population growth, and that, as the population grew, early farmers gradually moved into new land inhabited by fewer hunter-gatherers. Thus the practitioners of agriculture spread from Anatolia, beginning about 7000 B.C., to Greece and across all of Europe, ending in Britain and Scandinavia about 4000 B.C. Using mtDNA analysis, Sykes claims that the ancestors of most modern Europeans arrived at least 20,000 years ago, long before the supposed arrival of Neolithic farmers. In analyzing mtDNA from more than 800 modern Europeans, Sykes and his colleagues identified at least five main groups. Four of the five groups date to well before the last glacial peak, with ages ranging from 35,000 to 25,000 years ago. The fifth group is much younger in Europe (6,000 to 10,000 years ago) and has clear affinities to Near Eastern mtDNA. Sykes and his colleagues accept this as the genetic echo of the spread of agriculture, but note that it is fairly weak. They conclude that, far from being overwhelmed by incoming farmers, the indigenous hunter-gatherer population remained intact and learned how to farm.

(not quoting the whole article here - but if you're interested in reading round it stick Mt Eve into Google or Mt DNA Eve )

At some point - based on current historic/archeological and genetic evidence - we were all African - it was only when we left Africa that the regional variations (and evolution) took over.

Nice reference!

User avatar
Invincible
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2614
Joined: December 8th, 2003, 11:10 pm

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Invincible » August 18th, 2004, 5:51 pm

If we're all African in origin, then doesn't it follow that attacking whites is attacking fellow Africans? You can't make an argument for racial superiority, then fall back on we're all the same because we're all African.

User avatar
Storm
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 34
Joined: August 12th, 2004, 10:46 am
Location: England SW9

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Storm » August 19th, 2004, 12:38 am

Invincible wrote:If we're all African in origin, then doesn't it follow that attacking whites is attacking fellow Africans? You can't make an argument for racial superiority, then fall back on we're all the same because we're all African.


Invincible - aren't gang feud's (often)attacking fellow Africans - as are the civil wars in Africa? The world's not perfect - we still have to live in it (and maybe make it better).

My take on the topic,and I hope NY and the others will correct me if I'm wrong, is there's a saying 'history is written by the winners' - which means history has a very 'European' spin.

Take religious art from the Dark ages onwards - it all shows Christ, and God as being white/caucasian. Now I apreciate God could/can and is all things to all people - but Jesus was from the Middle east - at the least he was Arabic......'cause I think it would have been commented on if he looked like the Romans who were running around, and seing as the Romans were of Mediterranean decent (and we have enough artwork surviving from that time to say that they didn't look that different from the way the Italians and Greeks do now) if he had actually looked as 'Northern European' as he is depicted I think it would have been commented on somewhere. (Especially as at this time the Northern Europeans were still running round in furs and painting themselves blue).

I appreciate I just tangented slightly #blushes# but as a student of History I can appreciate the point NY and the others have been making.

Anonymous20

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Anonymous20 » September 9th, 2004, 6:46 pm

show me the pix that "YOU" got. shut up. tit for tat. its all kid's play------

User avatar
BABYBRAZE
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1137
Joined: July 2nd, 2004, 4:51 am
Location: Badlands - TreOne & Lehigh
Contact:

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by BABYBRAZE » September 16th, 2004, 1:59 pm

i thought the dark ages ended when fuedalist nations brought ther serfs over to the holy land to fight in crusades n they saw ther wus a better way of life and took the knowledge home n brought thtier culture back to life n then the economy slowly rose to pull them out of the dark ages

User avatar
Invincible
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2614
Joined: December 8th, 2003, 11:10 pm

Re: Setting The Record Staight on Race

Unread post by Invincible » September 17th, 2004, 12:49 pm

so jews arent white?

Post Reply

Return to “Race and Ethnicity, Racial Relations & Racism”