Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:37, 19 March 2006

Traditional evolutionists have occasionally linked the Black race's similarities to apes to being at a 'lesser' evoultionary state or level than White people. At one point, museums even contained evolutionary charts in which it showed apes evolving to Homo erectus, to neanderthal, to blacks, to whites.

This is actually based on incorrect traditional beliefs about how humans evolved and came about.

The fact is, and this will be mainstream knowledge within the next 30 years, I would estimate, humans were originally blonde haired and blue eyes, with some red haired and green eyed people. This was actually in a totally different star system, which no longer exists, in the direction of Lyrae. They were not descended from apes. They contained dolphin DNA, and were upright semi-aquatic mammals.

The Black race were created much later on Earth by combining the upgraded genetics of apes, particularly chimpanzees and gorillas, with blonde-haired and red-haired white humans, as well as the genetics of their creators, an amphibian quasi-reptilian race called the Abbennakki. Loius Farrakhan has even talked about this, due to encounters with the Abbennakki in the mid 1990s.

In Sumer, because the original inhabitants of the region were a Negroid race that was conquered by a white race (The Aryans), the Negroids became slaves in the Sumerian caste hierarchy. These people, despite being slaves, had their own culture, system of writing, language, and long history. This same history is essentially recounted by Sub-Saharan tribes like the Zulu and Watutsi.

They called themselves the Sag-Gi-Ga, or the Black-Headed people. They spoke of how their creators were a group of gods called the Anunnaki (Abbennakki), that made them by combining the blood of apes and men (genetic engineering). This is partially where the story of Enkidu came from. Enki was said to be the chief geneticist of these gods. Zecharia Sitchin has mistranslated the tablets. They actually recount the creation of the Black race, the Sag-Gi-Ga, not the Sumerians, who were a mixture of white, semitic, and Elamo-Dravidian peoples.

They stated that the Abbennakki would one day return to avenge them, and take them to Nibiru, an artificial planetoid, where they would be saved from the tyranny of the Sum-Aryans.

Unfortunately, the Abbennakki have been deterred from the Earth by the United States government. This was in the summer of 2003, when Nibiru was visible in the night sky, as reported in Newsweek and the New York Times.

That's about the dumbest stuff I've heard in a while. W-aaay outside. deeceevoice 20:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this guy SERIOUS?????

Yeah, this takes a giant stab at wikipedia's credibility.... Damien Vryce 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So Jay Leno's Negroid?

This is bull. --Vehgah 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

Are you on drugs?

What the hell is this? Since when does this kind of bizzare stuff make it into an "encyclopedia". My kids use this website at school. Hardly quality academic reading!

How on earth did "prognathism" become defined here as pathological?

This article started out as something reasonable. It very clearly stated that prognathism is a tell-tale phenotypical trait of Africoid peoples. Now I return to find the flat profiles (of whites) defined as "normal" -- meaning, I suppose, that the majority of humankind (black people in Africa, Australia, New Guinea, the Indian subcontinent -- and a whole lot of Asians -- including a lot of Latinos) are abnormal. So, whites are "normal," and a good chunk of the majority of humankind is implicity "abnormal"? I have to believe this was deliberate, given the information already provided to the contrary. It stinks of racism. I've made the changes. It may not be perfect, but at least it's accurate. deeceevoice 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Prognathism is least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids

The article was wrong, prognathism should be least in Mongoloids, not Caucasoids. Caucasoids like in most biometric results lie between Negroids (Africoids) and Mongoloids. I added the classic human skull diagrams of all three races for comparison (appropriate considering the use of prognathism in determining race). Mongoloids are not stereotyped of having a "flat face" for nothing.

Yes, absolutely correct. I'm not sure which language you're referring to, but I realize that I may have referred to prognathism in "Mongoloids," while thinking "Asians" (as in Southeast Asians). Genetically more Asian than African, some blacks in Southeast Asia and, actually, nonblack ("Mongoloid"), but often dark-skinned, Asians of places like Indonesia and Cambodia, for example, do, indeed, have facial prognathisms). But, then, there are acknowledged faciocranial differences between these (sundadont) populations, who are more noticeably mixed with the aboriginal Negritos of the region, and the (sinodont) Asians of the Far East. If that was my error, sorry for my mental glitch.

Someone added that maxillary prognathism was common in Caucasians, when it most assuredly is not. The feature pointed to is not considered prognathism. In the Caucasoid rendering, a virtual plumb line can be drawn from the bridge of the nose through the root of the nose at the top of the upper lip, through to the chin (make an upward extension to the bridge of the nose of line a in the "zygomatics" a-b line). This is the flat Caucasoid aspect that does not evidence maxillary prognathism -- not the point where the upper teeth are. I've removed it from the sentence. Deeceevoice 08:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came across something on the web that says otherwise. I don't know if my earlier statement which was challenged was occasioned by something I actually already knew or, as I assumed above, a misspeak of sorts. But phenotypically in this regard, it appears that Mongoloids do have moderate prognathism, being an intermediate between Negroids and Caucasoids in this regard. In retrospect, I recall seeing one of those magazine-format shows on television in which the cranium of a murdered woman was found. I immediately noted a prognathism and, without noting any other characteristics thought, "black." But the talking head said the subject was either black or possibly Latino/Native American -- presumably also based on the alveolar prognathism. Deeceevoice 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Outdated racist pseudo-science

"The modern urge to describe humans on a new, explicitly scientific basis took many, often strange, forms in the nineteenth century. For example, the science of phrenology, whose heyday was between 1820 and 1850, and later racial anthropological physiognomy, attracted many followers. That man's physical and, by extension, moral, intellectual, and social development, could be determined by, and seen in, his physiognomy -- in, say, jaw structure and shape of the head-- were to many respected sciences that enjoyed wide currency. (When the archvillain, Moriarity, meets his adversary Sherlock Holmes for the first time, Moriarity's immediate comment was, "You have less frontal development that I should have expected.") After Darwin popularized the idea that humans are descended from apes, the prognathous (protruding) jaw became a sign of lower development and of a closer relationship to primitive man. It also became the basis of much racial stereotyping of the Irish, and racial anthropologists argued that working class people were more prognathous than their social superiors- who were- self-flatteringly described as also biologically superior.

In his very influential book, The Races of Man (1862), John Beddoe, the future president of the Anthropological Institute, emphasized the vast difference between the prognathous (protruding) and orthognathous (less prominent) jawed people of Britain. These were terms originally The Irish, Welsh, and significantly, the lower class people, were among the prognathous, whereas all men of genius were orthognathous. (Beddoe also developed an Index of Nigressence, from which he argued that the Irish were close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races!) These activities were reminiscent of Pieter Camper's theory of a 'facial angle'. One should emphasize, however, that such craniological and anthropometric studies "always represented a minority" of the papers presented at the Anthropological Institute, 1871-1899.

These late nineteenth-century anatomical and anthropological descriptions of 'races' and their characteristics, measurements etc. were later the inspiration for the sort of mid twentieth-century racial anthropology as promulgated in Nazi Germany."

See Lorimer, "Theoretical Racism in Late-Victorian Anthropology, 1870-1900 CoYep 19:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, racial phenotypes are those characteristics that most distinctively differentiate groups of like populations from one another. Prognathism is one of those characteristics. Argue with the anthropologists and the forensic scientists who still use prognathism to determine ethnicity in unidentified human remains. Certainly, the version of this article which defines prognathism as some sort of malformation or result of disease is far more racist than taking note of naturally occurring differences among human phenotypes. Deeceevoice 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any citations of anthropologists doing this in the modern era? Justforasecond 01:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Outdated, racist pseudo-science?"? Hardly.

• "Modern craniofacial anthropometrists (forensic anthropologists) give more importance to prognathism than to skin tone ...." - from "The Heredity of 'Racial' Traits: Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule by Frank W Sweet, December 15, 2004"

The above usage conflates two different meanings of the word "race." The sentence quoted out of context refers to the appearance-based endogamous groups of U.S. society. A forensic anthropologist can determine from a skull's craniofacial anthropometry whether the person would have been seen as "White" or "Black" by U.S. society. Such a determination is not possible in Puerto Rico, Brazil, Senegal, Chad, Ethiopia, or for that matter most places outside the U.S., because they lack appearance-based endogamous groups. It works in the U.S. because for four centuries U.S. society has succeeded in maintaining two endogamous groups on the basis of physical appearance. This social meaning of "race" should not be used to support the notion of biological "race" in the sense of breed, variety, or subspecies. No one has yet been able to categorize H. sapiens into groups such that inter-group variation (physical differences between groups) is greater than intra-group variation (differences between sub-groups within the groups). For an interesting discussion of this, see the exchange between William (another student of molecular anthropology) and myself starting at http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1337?start=6427#6427. Frank W Sweet 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• A manual for an online course in forensic anthropology (Note the table about a third of the way down the page.)
• "Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science"
• "Introduction to Biological Anthropology: Human Variation and Biological Classification"

From a quick search on the www. This stuff is common knowledge, widely known and widely used currently in a number of disciplines -- as demonstrated above. Deeceevoice 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Racism? This reads like the pot calling the kettle black.

The observation of naturally occurring differences among human populations is merely that. What one does with such perfectly factual information may or may not be racist. But the fact that such differences exist -- and that those differences are routinely and legitimately used in scientific and other disciplines -- is undeniable. I find it amusing -- not to mention curious -- that User: CoYep deliberately rewrote the language I had written which explained that the majority of the incidence of prognathism in human populations is perfectly natural. Coyep deliberately redefined prognathism as abnormal and the result of disease. He also produced inserted a schematic that pronounced the flat, Caucasoid profile "normal" which, by implication, meant that Negroid and Mongoloid profiles are somehow abnormal. I reverted his changes -- and you restored them. Yet you claim to be concerned about racism. Now, far be it for me to jump to conclusions about your motives, but there seems to be an incongruity here. I'd be very interested in hearing an explanation of Coyep and your edits. Would either of you care to address the rationalle behind your edits in this regard? Deeceevoice 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)