| Revision as of 22:57, 14 December 2004 view sourceDeeceevoice (talk | contribs)20,714 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:20, 18 November 2024 view source Generalrelative (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,193 edits Per Doug and BonadeaTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
|
{{featured}} |
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=BP |
|
|
|action1link= |
|
|
|action1date=21 October 2003 |
|
|
|action1result=Promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=1482195 |
|
|
|action1note=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AFeatured_article_candidates&diff=1606559&oldid=1602138 |
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Race |
|
|
|action2date=13 August 2006 |
|
|
|action2result=Demoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=69175686 |
|
|
|maindate=October 26, 2004 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|political=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Race and intelligence talk page notice}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- commented out two former templates to save space, as renewed editing effort after August 2010 ArbCom decision should help with both formerly noted problems |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
|
{{calm talk}} |
|
|
{{Technical}} |
|
|
--> |
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 35 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Evolution of the Genus Homo== |
|
==Archives of previous discussions== |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California_Riverside/Evolution_of_the_Genus_Homo_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-03-29 | end_date = 2022-06-03 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Pseudoscientific (?) categorization == |
|
Previous discussion of this article are archived here: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the newest revision of this page (5 July 2024) someone changed "categorization..." to "pseudoscientific categorization..." in the beginning of the article, without changing the rest of the definition or adding references. In my opinion, that is a big claim and should at least be cited, if not removed completely, especially because it's the first thing users see after opening the article. Without proper expansion of that claim, I think it does not belong to this article ] (]) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
], ]<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In my opinion, Pseudoscience should be in the very part of Misplaced Pages where this article is best ordered in. And the historical part can, of course, stay pretty much unaltered. |
|
'''Please add new content at the end.''' If several threads develop, |
|
|
|
:In Germany, we - by law - have no concept of race. IMHO people mean ethnicity or phenotype when they say race. Racism does exist, but german law dictates that it stems from pseudoscience, mixing a correlation (not causation) of genotype/phenotype with stereotypes. Back on topic: every single "source" and claim in here should be even stronger scrutinized. ] (]) 13:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
they can later be moved to appropriate sections. |
|
|
|
::That is incorrect. German law states no such thing. ] (]) 18:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are both correct. In law (Grundgesetz), we have racism used as a term, and the term race was used in 1949, too. Which is obsolete. |
|
|
:::https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/ueber-diskriminierung/diskriminierungsmerkmale/ethnische-herkunft-rassismus/ethnische-herkunft-rassismus-node.html |
|
|
:::For years now, that concept has been disproven, but the full text of Grundgesetz is still to be revised. |
|
|
:::"Das AGG beinhaltet ein Verbot rassistischer Diskriminierung in Alltagsgeschäften sowie im Arbeitsleben. Der im AGG wie auch im Grundgesetz (GG) verwendete Begriff der „Rasse“ ist dabei hochumstritten. Die Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes setzt sich dafür ein, diesen durch die Formulierung "rassistische Diskriminierung“ oder „rassistische Zuschreibung“ zu ersetzen." ~~ ] (]) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Modern science regards...== |
|
|
{{hat|OP blocked as a sock. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
"Modern science regards race as a social construct", in the opening section. This is weasel wording. You have three American sources for this statement. Later in the article international surveys show such an idea is common *only* in America. It's my understanding that American bias should be avoided, especially when claiming to speak for modern science. This sentence should be changed to reflect the lack of international consensus. Something like "The status of race as a biological or social construct continues to be debated." ] (]) 09:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi. British guy here. And no. Just no. Race ''is'' socially constructed. Just ask anybody from any group who's perceived race depends on the context of who's asking and why. "Scientific" racism is pure pseudoscience. That's not just an American idea. That is the global consensus. By all means add another source that is not American if you like but we will not be bothsidesing racism with a statement like "The status of race as a biological or social construct continues to be debated". Those really would be weasel words which open the door to a spurious legitimisation of "scientific" racism. ] (]) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Excuse me but as I understand it Misplaced Pages is edited according to a range of published material, not your personal opinion. ] (]) 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I like the progress you have made on this! I wouldn't object to inclusion of the map as it is now. A few cocerns: |
|
|
|
:::It's not a personal opinion, it is the plain language of the cited sources. Misplaced Pages uses a range of published material, but that doesn't mean that it seeks a ] between the mainstream and the fringe. ] (]) 14:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::*it may still be copyvio (it's just a distorted and colour-modified version of the original map) |
|
|
|
::::Surveys in even America do not support the claim that it is remotely close to "fringe". The fact that the idea is entertained in academia, let alone held by significant numbers as shown in Ann Morning's survey, preclude such a claim. Please explain how you arrived at such an assessment. ] (]) 14:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::*let's find a less jarring colour for the 'empty dataset' region ;) |
|
|
|
:::::Nearly a quarter of the population believes in Astrology. Science isn't settled by opinion polling. ] (]) 14:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::*colours: I appreciate that some people have difficulties in making out the different shades. However, I think the map was intended to be in ''true-colour'', i.e. with the colours actually corresponding to the real hues of people's skin. If you change the palette, that will be lost of course, and we can as well paint the africans blue and the europeans purple... |
|
|
|
::::::I am not claiming anything is settled, merely that both sides of the issue are held in academia. How else can we establish whether an idea is fringe other than by polling experts in the relevant discipline? How have you established this? I have asked you this question, please answer it. ] (]) 14:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::the projection is certainly more 'politically correct' now. it's just not really any recognizable projection anymore. but well, we don't have to navigate by it. |
|
|
|
:::::::By following the best quality sources, which is what the article presently does. ] (]) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::] 09:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::And what are the criteria for best quality? Perhaps merely cherry picking those that match the personal opinion of editors rather than surveying the field? This is a gross violation of policy. ] (]) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If you can't discuss without throwing around ] I'm done here. ] (]) 14:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I simply asked a question. Is the answer no? If it is yes you should certainly be done here. ] (]) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I reject the premise of the question. ] (]) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::That you use "best sources" to write the article and it is unclear what this means? ] (]) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::An aspersion thinly disguised as a question is still an aspersion. I will not respond to this thread any further. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. ] (]) 14:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::It would behoove you to address the policy issue rather than stonewalling based on the fact you "don't like my tone". ] (]) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Rather than attribute to "modern science", we should just say "Race is a social construct ...". ] (] / ]) 15:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::So apparently we're at an impasse where editors here think their personal opinion trumps what is found in the range of academic sources. Of course this is the diametric opposite of Misplaced Pages policy. I will raise this issue at a noticeboard. ] (]) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please read ] before you do. --] (]) 14:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You are implying the admins are also corrupt? Quite possibly. How very sad. I used edit Misplaced Pages twenty years ago and it wasn't like this at all. But still, it's worth a try. ] (]) 15:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Do races even exist? == |
|
|
{{hat|]}} |
|
|
The POV of this article (and articles which rely on it) is that "race" doesn't really exist. Skin color, shape of facial features, straightness or curliness of hair, don't really divide humans at all. We're just making it up: it's a ''].'' I think this is an exaggeration, though well intentioned. I believe the purpose of this is to undermine the basis of ], particularly racial supremacy. "We are better than you, because you race makes you inherently inferior." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I applaud the effort to undermine racism (indeed, my mother and grandfather did a lot of civil rights work), the assertion that there are no inherited, readily apparent differences between large groups of people is simply one ] even it has become mainstream in the English-speaking West. |
|
Ok, here is what I mean: I manually copied the "isochromes" on a cylindrical proection. There should be no copyvio problems with this version, but obviously, the map is less accurate. I can still improve accuracy, though, if you think this is the way to go. ] 18:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should rather describe the evidence and reasoning of those who wish to destroy the concept of race, instead of tacitly agreeing with them. There are five basic skin colors: black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Whether or not any people of a certain color look down on others with darker or lighter skin doesn't change the fact that people are born with skin color that is inherited from their parents (the theory is that there is a genetic cause for this). |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People of a given race tend to have a similar ], and perhaps this is the cause of the difficulty in writing objectively about it (or at least in the NPOV style). No one wants to admit that their culture is responsible for producing unfavorable social outcomes like poverty, ignorance, and crime. Since it can't be race -- because race doesn't even exist! -- it must be ]. Perhaps so, but Misplaced Pages should not endorse or espouse this view. It should inform our readers about it. Who believes it, and why? --] (]) 14:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Yup. That looks pretty good, especially with a little touchup. Are the colors web safe? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems very much to be a ] post as it doesn't discuss sources, etc. ] ] 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:the colours are identical to the original ones. But I do not think it is meant to be "true colour" anyway, so we can change them. I will add Equator/Tropics and some legend to the image. I don't think the decrease in accuracy matters much. The original is not very accurate itself (and contains no information on e.g. Hawaii, and other islands) ] 08:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
::I can't see any difference among the first 4 or 5 levels on my Mac, and even on my IBM the colors are a little hard to see. The array of brown tones I worked out in the map above (with Greenland in purple, which people may not like any better than bright red), however, show up clearly on both systems. ] 09:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We have to use the map with caution anyway: ''The best known of these maps is that composed by the Italian geographer Renato Biasutti, which was based on the von Luschan skin color scale. This map has gained broad circulation in several widely distributed publications (Barsh 2003, Lewontin 1995, Roberts 1977, Walter 1971), despite the fact that, for areas with no data, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas'' . ] 09:14, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I just mean that if we are going to use this kind of image then we should have something that is clear enough to be seen. The colors of levels 1-4 are very faint even on the Windows system, and they are totally washed out when seen on a Mac. It is the '''colors''' used that I object to, not the accuracy or lack of accuracy of the map. ] 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
Anyway, I added labels now. Feel free to fiddle with the rgb curves of this version. My statement about accuracy was not in reply to your comment, I just wanted to state what's in the map I uploaded. Since the numbers seem to refer to a "Luschan scale" we can now change the colours to any colours of the rainbow (although I can see them well on my screen as they are). I suggest you leave the ocean in light blue, and the empty dataset in dark blue, and just pick a scale of browns for the eight colours of the scale. ] 09:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Are you maybe colourblind? it seems than your scale is based on brightness, while the original scale is based more on hue (different amounts of green). I am re-uploading with increased brightness contrast. how is it now? ] 09:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am not colorblind. The image does not show up properly on at least one group of computers and browsers. ] 23:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::sorry. I thought that may be a possible explanation, since the scale depends both on hue and on brightness. No, the colours are not "websafe", and would probably not display properly on a 1990 system (just like most of the photographs etc.). Feel free to fiddle with the colours of this new version; they are arbitrary: they give a rough impression (darker skins appear darker on the scale), but they are not truecolour. ] 08:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Spencer Wells, Y-chromosome, and India == |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Some time ago there was a discussion on the genetic history of the peoples of India. While looking for the general picture of human migrations presented by Spencer Well on Public TV a couple months ago I found a good summary: |
|
|
http://www.hindu.com/lr/2003/09/07/stories/2003090700330500.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
§ One of the things that this article points out, in discussing Wells's book, is that there seems to be evidence that the oldest population of India resulted from the first wave of migration out of Africa, around 60K years before the present, and very much later another wave of migrants came into India from the Central Asian region, at around 30K ybp. The newspaper article suggests that the second group came as conquorers. By the Spencer Wells figures, the Americas were being populated by immigrants from over the Bering Strait already 20,000 years ago, but Europe didn't get populated (again by a wave of migration out of Central Asia) until about 10K ybp. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Fearing to get a slug of job-related e-mails, I haven't yet turned on my IBM to see how the new maps look using that system. All I know so far is that reading the ones using the old color scheme is like trying to see cooked white rice sprinkled on new-fallen snow. ] 08:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I still haven't gotten around to reading the article on "race," so I haven't been keeping track of much of the discussion. (In glancing over it, I happened to see a bit about Affirmative Action, and decided I'd better save this thing for when I have a lot more patience. I keep telling myself I'll get around to it, but I keep getting distracted by other less lengthy enterprises.) Ironically, the very first link I provided in this discussion (appearing near the top of the current discussion page), if followed to the news article, provides much the same information. If I had known different information was being considered in certain models, I would have drawn a big, red arrow to it -- so as to throw a monkey wrench into things a little earlier. :-p But not for purposes of disruption; it might have gotten folks on this track a little sooner. ] 07:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For anyone interested, here's that link: "...didn't ANYONE see the Spencer Wells documentary on the "Journey of Man" that aired on PBS earlier this year (or last?) in which, using DNA evidence, he traced the earliest out-migration of the San bushmen to India and Australia -- and then to points beyond? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/photogalleries/journey_of_man/photo8.html deeceevoice 19:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) " ] 08:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It wasn't quite "to points beyond" the way I remember the program. He explained it as two waves of migration, the first wave followed (and populated) the areas adjacent to the oceans, and a second wave, thousands of years later, that moved in a single arc to a place in Central Asia from which it split in several directions. His following out of the genetic trail makes it very much more clear to me why the young lady from the Golden Triangle area at the right of the map below looks so much like the young man from Malawi on the bottom row. ] 16:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(Duh) Yes, there were successive waves of migration that took different routes. Just a quickie comment/preface that, yes, could be misconstrued -- but I take it for granted that most people involved in this discussion know that fairly widely known fact (about different waves of migrations taking place over time). My point/purpose was to repeat the information (apparently largely overlooked) and provide the particular link so that anyone interested could access it easily. ] 16:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, it was a complete revelation to me to see that people propagated themselves all the way to Australia '''before''' they populated the more northernly regions. If Wells is correct, then that explains a very great deal to me. For instance, if India and the rest of Eurasia had been populated by a diffusion process that would work the way that incense diffuses through a room, then India should have been fairly evenly populated throughout time and should have been relatively stable culturally. It should have looked more like China, where, even though there are some genetic differences north and south, most people look about the same and most people speak some version of Chinese. Religions, languages, and other cultural features can serve to keep intermixing infrequent. I wonder if there is any place on earth that is more diverse in these ways than India. Besides the incursion of conquor groups from the north, people probably populated the coastal areas of India relatively sparsely, moved to the interior and formed many centers of population and culture, and then grew apart in language, culture, and religion over the next several tens of thousands of years. ] 17:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think it would be imprudent to draw such socio-cultural/political conclusions based on presumed migration and population patterns. There are far too many variables affecting societal stability: climate, war and civil strife, leadership, fluctuations in availability of food sources and potable water, disease, natural and manmade disasters. And far too many holes in the presumption of relative homogeneity in other Asian populations -- most notably, China. Actually, there are traces of aboriginal and ancient "Negroid" peoples throughout China and Asia. There are so-called "black Thai" throughout Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, in parts of China, India, who look just like the San bushmen; but, by and large, with straight/straighter hair. Tibetans are quite dark and look very different, generally, from other Chinese. There are also notable differences -- physical, linguistic and cultural -- among other ethnicities in China. Furthermore, it is fairly widely known that Chinese dialects are very divergent from one another. Source material from SPICE, the Stanford Program on International and Cross-cultural Education, states: |
|
|
::"In China there are many different dialects. Dialects usually refer to 'regional forms of a language.' However, many of the regional variants which are commonly referred to as 'dialects' of the Chinese language are more different from one another than French is from Spanish or Norwegian is from Swedish!" |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's one of the primary reasons that many foreigners find doing business in mainland China so hellified. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Be that as it may, my bad for assuming. ] 19:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I'm not sure whether "DC" wrote all the paragraphs above. Anyway, of course there is some degree of diversity in China, just as there is some degree of diversity among First Nation peoples in the Americas. People got here from Asia 20,000 years or so ago, and in all that time they have evolved language, cultural, and even physical differences (the beginnings of which may have come with different groups during different migrations, who knows). Languages like Thai are believed by scholars such as Bernard Karlgren to have some traceable connections with the language(s) the Chinese now speak, and the Thai people are known to have lived in southern China before being forced farther south by the ethnic Han Chinese. And there are even groups such as the Taiwan aborigines who speak a polysyllabic language that has nothing to do with Chinese. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I don't know how one would evaluate such differences as do exist between the ethnic groups situation in India and that in China. However, there is, for instance, no social institution like the caste system in China. That's not to say that some speakers of one "dialect" of Chinese will not endeavor to prevent their kids from marrying out of their language group, and there are certain stereotypes that actually seem to be believed about people from the several provinces. But even given those rather human failings, the grand thrust of the Chinese civilization has been toward assimilation rather than toward segregation. The newspaper article for which I supplied a URL seemed to indicate that the author found explanations for some features of Indian social history in the research of Dr. Wells, so anyone who is interested in questions of why groups maintain enmities over the centuries might find some research leads in his ideas. Personally, I find his ideas fascinating but lack much of a background in ancient Indian history. ] 11:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==More Skin Tones== |
|
|
] |
|
|
§ Before somebody complains about the picture or lack of them, I am putting this image up as a suggestion and these are the least unattractive people I could find in my collection of scanned pictures. (Well, the Yeti probably should go, regardless.) They can be swapped out, or the entire idea of giving the most attractive examples of faces from around the world can go. On the other hand, probably lots of people have pictures of '''their''' favorite friends whom they would like to contribute. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Before somebody complains about the reddish tint, I can explain. It all started when I saved an ancestor of this thing as a gif image rather than as a png image. I'm not sure how that happened, but it was allegedly due to operator error. The cyber cop is coming in the morning to put me through the wringer. However, if I survive that ideal and if the map is acceptable, the colors can be changed with a wave of the magic wand. It's just that my magic wand is off duty at 3 a.m., and with no idea of whether it will be worth any further effort I'm not going to do anything about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ The good thing is that after cranking the gamma up on the original map I was able to clearly see several inclusions of lighter skin tone areas in large areas of darker skin tones. I'm not sure what software other people used to copy and manipulate these images but it evidently could not see the faint differences any more easily than I could. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Oh, yes. The strange white area. I'd like to know about that too. It shows up on the original map as though there were a population of mostly white folks in that part of Africa. I am not kidding. I think there must have been a mistake in the original map, or perhaps they simply did not have data for that area and left it blank. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ One last thing. No comments about my girlfriend. It's not that I am sensitive, but she is extremely capable with a blowgun, and, uh... she may look tough, but she's very easily hurt. ;-) |
|
|
] 08:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I really don't see the point of the faces surrounding the map. That is really pointless; even if we did have good pictures, we can give them as separate images. That said, I am glad for the equal area projection (although I think my map is more accurate:P) The white patch should have the same colour as central Europe: it's just a scale of isochromes, and the limit between the whitest and the second-whitest is "von Luschen scale 12", whatever that means. So we probably just have most of Maroc von Luschen 12.5, with southern Maroc von Luschen 11.5 (probably ]). Remember this is a map of "natives" collected in the 1930s. Who qualified as "native" was probably left to the discretion of whoever collected the data, or to the map's compilator. It certainly cannot be treated as objective reality. ] 10:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I'm not sure how a map that deletes or omits differences noted in the original map can be more accurate. And what is the objective basis for your statement that the missing (?) data should be "central Europe" skin shade? But I always like my own answers better, so here is what I found on p. 145 of Cavelli-Sforza's ''History and Geography of Human Genes'': They have the same map that was posted here in digital form. On that map the northern tip of Africa is in range 12-14, the missing band is 15-17 (not <12 as the digital form would have it), and the next band is 18-20. That is what one would expect, just as you would not be surprised to find average temperatures in June to be 60 degrees fahrenheit, July to be 70, August to be 75, and September to be 65. If you found in one year that August was 65 and September was 70 then you would wonder what happened to depress August temperatures and boost September temperatures in that atypical year. And that is why I looked for an explanation. (There is no place in east, central, or west Europe that has skin color values higher than 12-14, the same value as is found on the opposite side of the Straits of Gibraltar.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: What is the reason for your summary judgment against the researchers who collected the data and who compiled the data? You talk as though they were not careful researchers and did not know how to take a statistically valid sample and/or did not know how to compare skin tones of individuals to a standard scale. It is desirable to confront shoddy research with facts that show it to be false, but it is unfair and disrespectful to people who dedicate their lives to scientific endeavors if you begin by assuming that they do sloppy science. Cavelli-Sforza is a reputable scholar and he seems to have found no problem with the data. In any case, there should be no ''a priori'' rejection of anybody's observations as failing to reflect "objective reality." ] 17:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am only talking about this particular map. Biasutti's. 1930s? ]. I had no ambitions beyond representing the information in that image. And in this map, Morocco/Algeria is in the 0-12 range, ''not'' empty dataset. There ''is'' a difference in colour, you can certainly see it, if you adjust your monitor's contrast (or if you look at the map in an editor: 0-12 is light brown, empty dataset is ''gif transparent'', i.e. you see your WP background colour. If we start mixing different maps to arrive at a more accurate map, we would be doing ''original research''. I am catious about Biasuttis map because of the criticism I found relating to it, which I posted on the image page (have you seen it?) ''"Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas"''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If Cavalli-Sforza's map is better, by all means, reproduce that. It will then be CF's map, and not Biasutti's map anymore. We also need to come up with background on this "von Luschen scale" (what is it? what is it based on? how is it measured?) ] 18:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think if you look at the map you will see what I am questioning. It appears to be anomalous. Cavalli-Aforza draws his map "after Biasutti 1959, p. 192, table 4), but does not have 0-12. Instead he has it coded 15-17. When I can find the original map I will check it again. What I did in the beginning was explain (for anybody who might wonder) that I did not put a white patch there by mistake. ]] 11:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry, I thought you hadn't realized you put the patch there by mistake. I have looked at the map, believe me. Yes it is anomalous. Sure, if it is not on the original map, we'll change it. I do not know how accurate it is, but it is by no means unbelievable. You see, the '12-15' slice stretching from Asia across Northern Africa may be related to a migration, probably the expansion of Islam (the Iberian peninsula, Al-Andalus, is also in the 12-17 range, alone in western Europe). If you subtract that slice, the 1-12 range simply stretches from Europe to northern Africa. I do not have to come up with an explanation for this though. What we are doing here is, we are simply reporducing Biasutti's map (I realize no Italy is wrong on my map. my bad) ] 12:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I hope I am misunderstanding your first sentence. I certainly have not "realized put the patch there by mistake." That is what '''is there''' on the map that was provided on this Talk page by copying it from somebody else, presumably already in digital form on a website. Maybe Cavalli-Sforza went to Biasutti's book and copied the map wrong. Maybe the map in Biasutti's book was wrong and Cavalli-Sforza saw a possible problem, checked the data, and corrected the omission. Maybe our first digitized map is wrong. Who knows? ] 12:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:wait a minute. I think we do have a few misunderstandings. it's like this: |
|
|
*Biasutti made his map around 1940 |
|
|
*we found the digital image, and started copying this. |
|
|
*on the digital image, the patch in question is coloured 1-12. |
|
|
*you changed it to 'white' in your version, either by mistake, or because you were uncertain if it was correct, I don't know which |
|
|
*Cavalli-Sforza published a map "after Biasutti". I don't have access to this map. You say CS changed the patch in question, either |
|
|
**because it was never 1-12 on Biasuttis map, and our digital version was wrong |
|
|
**because it was on Biasuttis map, but wrongly, and CS ''improved'' the map |
|
|
I really don't know which map you want to copy. If you are copying CS's map, I cannot comment anyway, bacause I haven't seen it. ] 12:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ We are beginning to squabble. I think I have an axiological reaction to your manner of calling attention to differences of opinion. I will try to refrain from reacting to antagonistic- and critical-sounding statements that you make in the future. What I will say is that I agree with the recitation of facts given immediately above, disregarding the affect-laden parts. When I put in the white band (and white was an otherwise undefined color as "1-12" was colored a light tan in that version), I said: "I think there must have been a mistake in the original map, or perhaps they simply did not have data for that area and left it blank." In the way that I have been trained, calling attention to suspect data while working up any kind of a project is regarded as a normal part of doing a good job, and flagging something is not considered " the patch there by mistake. I have tentatively redrawn the map in that one regard, and I have also replaced certain regions (such as the one near the east coast of S. America at about 20 degrees south) that had fallen out along the way. The projection I have used is equal-area, and I was able to copy over small sectors of the original digitized map, size them to the approximate position on the new map, and then "stretch to fit". Since the original drafting was possibly not too accurate, I doubt that the overall accuracy of the map suffers a great deal. Anyway, nobody will try to navigate by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure what the ideal size to show this image may be. If reduced in size too much, the various colored areas become too small to be easily distinguished. Space on the hard drive is the same. Space on the computer screen is virtually free.] 02:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your map is very nice. I would remove the black oval, though. concerning the moroccan/algerian 1-12 strip, I do think you should leave it in (because it is too obvious an anomaly to have crept in by mistake) unless you cite a newer map (Cavalli Sforza?) where it has disappeared. ] 12:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Does anyone have software that is good for doing curves? The map with the projection I borrowed had very flaky lines, and all I can do is to try to fix them by hand. It would be good (if the color level in the skin shades part cold be kept nice by never saving the map into GIF format) to refine the lines, and especially the boundary lines around the whole map. (That is why I experimented with the black oval.) Having no sense of apodictic certainty regarding the existence or non-existence of a band of white people living in Africa, I will wait until I get to the library to check the original book. Hopefully the book will have tables as well as maps to provide an additional check. ] 19:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Meanwhile, I did find the following, which indicates that somebody else had the same doubts and did have access to the original book in Italian: |
|
|
|
|
|
:http://backintyme.com/Essay021215.htm |
|
|
:It may be of interest to know that the band of Berbers who appear as fairer than Spaniards in the above figure do not really exist. The light-colored intra-coastal stripe from Casablanca to Tunisia is merely an accidental artifact of the copying process from Biasutti. It appears in no other publication of this figure. Also, the reader should notice the small text note within the above figure from Jurmain. It says that: “these data are, unfortunately, the best available.” As it turns out, this complaint is not entirely accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
This site has some maps that reflect additional/later research. Unfortunately I didn't see this before I did so much work on the original map. ;-< ] 08:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:ok, so it turns out the stripe is indeed on Biasutti's map, but was a mistake (Biasutti's). We can of course still keep the map, for "history of the term", just like the (excellent) link you found does. But it would also desirable to have a version of the 1977 update of C. Loring Brace and Ashley Montagu (which has no data on the Americas, though). Very neat is also , but unfortunately, no source or context is given (?). ] 08:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ When the website says, "The light-colored intra-coastal stripe from Casablanca to Tunisia is merely an accidental artifact of the copying process from Biasutti. It appears in no other publication of this figure," it sounds like it was '''not''' on Biasutti's map, but was on some family of maps that resulted when somebody copied from his map. By calling this stripe an "artifact of the copying process" the author of the website is bending over backwards to avoid saying, "Somebody copied incorrectly from Biasutti." Cavelli-Sforza has a stripe there, but it is intermediate in color. The URL I quoted seems to promise a table of data, but I don't see it.The map that has no data for the Americas only gives 5 levels of difference (instead of 8), so it doesn't show whether the people next to the southern line of the northernmost color area in Africa are any darker than those right next to the ocean. I doubt that our library has many books in the sciences written in Italian, but I'll check. ] 12:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I'm just back from raiding the library. I checked a dozen books or so, but didn't find a notably better map than what was on the website. I did find one map that showed the improved values for Africa and also showed revisions for the Americas. The skin shades are divided into 5 groups rather than 8 groups, but that may more accurately reflect the true degree to which distinctions can be measured with accuracy. I can scan that image and try to stretch fit it to an equal-area projection. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ While I was there, I check out a book on dentition. One of the key identifiers of Chinese, shovel-shaped incisors, turns out to occur even in Europeans (at a very much lower rate) and to be even more prevalent in the Americas than it is in China. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I now have the book by Wells, and it has a fairly good map, with dates, of the migrations he has followed through his study of the y chromosome. It is intended to illustrate a more detailed verbal presentation, so it may be possible to improve on the somewhat impressionistic map. (I'm sure that the earliest wave of migration did not get to India via the open ocean, for instance. At least that's not what he said on the TV program. But that's the way the map is drawn to make room for drawing in the overland migrations to the north of the first wave migration path.) ] 00:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Actually the map in Wells' book '''is''' fairly reasonable since he suggests that the migration took place along the (now-submerged) coastal strip (of course I haven't actually compare it with sea level maps from 50-60k years ago). Of course the "first wave" must have eventually taken to the sea to get to Australia, but that's a slightly different matter. ] 17:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::§ Good point. Thanks. I would have missed it otherwise. But I think that people would have had to be terribly tall to walk through where he has drawn the line in question. Probably I will let them walk a little closer to where the shoreline is now. ;-) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
§ I got in touch with the owner of the website mentioned above, and he has offered to e-mail me a scanned copy of the map in the book illustration, which shows an intermediate band where the white band occurs near the northern tip of Africa. I had a closer look at the maps I found in the library, and none of them improves on what was in that website. The one major difference that a revised map probably ought to take account of is the division of Australia into two regions. I'll make overlays to check, but it looks like the only other changes involve reducing 8 zones to 5. If you check out the Cavelli-Sforza map (which I now think is a photo reproduction of the original map) you can easily understand why authors would decide to simplify the number of zones -- Cavelli-Sforza's map is o.k. for the lighter half of the shades of skin color, but the darker shades are practically indistinguishable. Sometimes, if you know where to look, you will see what looks like a little halftoning rather than straight black ink. But for practical purposes the map is pretty useless outside of the values that are shown in the Americas. |
|
|
|
|
|
§ In a way it was a good thing that the original map was so washed out. If I hadn't really looked carefully at it I'm pretty sure I'd have missed the white band. The uncorrected map has propagated so many places on the WWW that it's hard to believe the original maker of the digitized image has any objection to others using it. ] 03:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cleanup== |
|
|
We need to clean up the article. The sections should only treat what it says they do in the section title. For example, there shouldn't be a paragraph " |
|
|
:"In everyday speech, race is often used to describe populations that are better defined as ethnic groups..." |
|
|
at the end of "History of the term". Nor should the "Anthropology and genetics" section, being placed ''after'' the history section, i.e. we are through with the historical aspect now, begin with |
|
|
:"In the 19th century many natural scientists made three claims about race: ..." |
|
|
(i.e. this bit still belongs in the 'history' section). Also the case studies (USA, Brazil) should either be exported to special articles, or at least be placed ''after'' the more general phylogenetic subsection. Somebody should read the entire article and weed out repetitions, too. ] 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Von Luschan scale == |
|
|
|
|
|
§ The von Luschan scale was a manufactured set of standard tiles that were colored so that a researcher could in relatively rapid order sort through his/her tiles and find the one that came closest to matching a given subject's skin color. Essentially the same method is still used today, at least in this increasingly anti-scientific nation, by dentists who want to match ceramic material used for making fillings with the color of their patient's tooth. They have a little cabinet full of ceramic "teeth" on little spindles. Each specimen has a different combination of hue and brightness from the others. Although one could easily create an electronic device to measure these factors to tighter tolerances, the low-tech device seems to meet professional standards. Similarly, given the fact that a subject's skin color could vary considerably due to contingent factors such as season and weather patterns, the von Luchan tiles probably provide all the accuracy that is useful. ] 03:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] ] 11:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Interest in Egyptians in the ancient period == |
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall discussion a while back about the coloration of people in northern Africa during the ancient period. I just ran acrossthe article on Gallery_of_Fayum_mummy_portraits, which shows a fairly narrow range of skin colors, people mostly having proportionately large eyes, etc. Examination of the mummies themselves indicated that the people were depicted at an appropriate age. (Lots of people apparently died in their 20s and 30s.) Whether the eyes are realistic or are depicted they way they are because of esthetic preferences might be worth asking about. Anyway, DeeCee and some other may find these of interest. I find them quite attractive. ] 02:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting gallery of artwork. I wasn't aware of these. Thanks for the info. Keep in mind that "ancient" is a highly relative term when dealing with dynastic Egypt. These mummy portraits date from the first century BC during the Roman occupation of Egypt, after centuries of contact with outside cultures and centuries of intermarriage. Even so, it's obvious that the majority of portraits show indigenous African features, from nappy, curly/frizzy hair to broad cheekbones, broad noses and full lips. Many are what we today would call Afro-Semitic types -- or, in another context, Sicilians à la John Turturo, but darker. (There's a ''reason'' Italians commonly were considered nonwhite in this country up until the mid 19th century. :-p) Most, if they had lived in the American South during the middle of the last century, would be on the receiving end of Jim Crow discrimination and, today, would be considered (after centuries of miscegenation with Native Americans and Europeans) typical African Americans. Facinating to see the faces! Of the 53 separate images, I'd say ''perhaps'' nine might, by today's standards, be considered "Semitic," which is to say simply a mixture of European and indigenous African phenotypes. All others are clearly African, miscegenated African or Afro-Semitic phenotypes. Two of the portraits of fairly dark-skinned black men. |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/gallery%20of%20Fayum%20mummy%20portraits |
|
|
|
|
|
The following link is a discussion about King Menes/Nahmer, who unified Upper and Lower Egypt -- in ''3100 BCE'', roughly 3,000 years before these portraits were painted. There's a photo of his statue near the top of the page and, later on, a discussion about just how old dynastic Egypt and Egyptian civilization, in general, is. |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000982.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Next, a link to information regarding the melanin testing of early Eygptian royal mummies, which revealed that truly ancient Egyptian royalty were of the ''"black races"'' -- not Semitic, not Phoenician, not Caucasian, not cafe au lait; ''black'': |
|
|
|
|
|
*http://www.talkaboutculture.com/group/alt.culture.egyptian/messages/16384.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Then another discussion thread on the web regarding recent facial reconstructions from mummified remains, with photos: |
|
|
|
|
|
* http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000884.html. |
|
|
|
|
|
And, finally, once again, a link to a montage of photos from ancient dynastic Egypt of clearly black Africans, which I notice has been expanded since last I visisted the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
*http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm ] 15:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Had to return to add another link with better photos of ancient Egyptian figural images of royals Amenhotep and Queen Tye (mother of Akhenaten). The people here are clearly and incontestably black Africans: |
|
|
|
|
|
*http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tiye.html ] 18:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another photo gallery: |
|
|
|
|
|
*http://www.dogon-lobi.ch/egyptalbum.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Interesting! The image of Queen Tiye (18th Dynasty Egypt 1382-1344 BC) shows a band of lighter skin just below her brow band. I wonder whether there is an indication that people of that time may have decorated themselves by darkening their skins. If that would happening, it might give some insight into which groups had higher and which groups had lower status at that time. Many of the images show people who are considerably lighter than my friend from Malawi and maybe just a little darker than some of my Thai friends. I wonder how the colors have held up over the centuries. ] 23:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
POM, you're wa-aaay off-base on that one! lol There's no record of such practice. Besides, the light band is where part of her headdress is missing! ] 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You know, for ''years'' I've been coming across that head of Queen Tiye, and it's always seemed really, really familiar to me. No wonder. It just dawned on me why. Queen Tiye is a dead ringer for late Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Gwendolyn Brooks. ] 02:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
§ Well, as Hu Shi said, "Make bold hypotheses, but seek verification with all due vigilence. And as for Gwendolyn Brooks, I have to agree too. See http://www.websn.com/Pride/Pride/gwendolyn_brooks.htm ] 05:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another note about African phenotypes. In general, one of the distinctive characteristics of black African phenotypes is that a majority have a forward-slanting facial profile. There are exceptions, of course. (In my own immediate family, as a matter of fact -- but we're quite a jumble, of African from God knows where, but likely the Congo or Angola; Caddo; Cherokee and Irish that we know of.) Caucasians, on the other hand -- and, again, there are exceptions -- often have flat profiles, as do Asians. That is, a fairly straight line can be drawn from the bridge of the nose to the base of the upper lip just under the nose, to the base of the lower lip, just above the chin. The forward-slanting profiles of depictions of ancient Egyptians are often quite pronounced/obvious -- one of the most distinctive and striking characteristics of their wall art. ] 10:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html |
|
|
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/faq.htm#race |
|
|
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/social/race.html |
|
|
The thing is, Egyptians were not exclusively "black" (like someone similar to Michael Jordan) like what afrocentrists would tell you, nor were they nordic like what white supremacists would say. More or less they look like modern egyptians, certaintly not "white," but wouldnt be classified as "negroes" either. They were simply egyptians. ] 08:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wareware, I never said ''all'' Egyptians were black. And it's quite clear from the link to the mummy portraits, they were a mix in later centuries. But what I've maintained all along is that the ''earliest dynastic Egyptians'' were dark-skinned, black Africans -- without question. Seti dates back only to the 19th dynasty of the New Kingdom, approximately 1295 BCE. The first dynasty of the eary dynastic period was 2920 BCE -- and keep in mind that the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt didn't occur until 3100 BCE, centuries after civilizations along the Nile began to flourish. Indeed, the predynastic period in Egypt dates from 5,500 BCE. A hell of a lot can happen to a people ethnically over the course of 4,000+ years. Hell, take a look at African Americans in the U.S., for example. We're miscegenated beyond belief. All that in the span of only, say, 500 years -- and with segregation and laws against intermarriage on the books for a great part of that time. It's a safe bet that the people of Seti's Egypt very much resembled the present-day African American community. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I invite you to check the links I've provided throughout this discussion thread, including the link to the stone rendering of the head of King Menes, who can be considered typical of the early Egyptian phenotype -- clearly black African. The so-called "Scorpion King" didn't look like The Rock (more race-skewed, hysteriological crap); he looked more like Djimon Honsu or, perhaps, Samuel L. Jackson. The objective historical record bears this out without question. ] 09:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Further, Egyptian scholarship is ''riddled'' with hacks, liars, racists and the ill-informed. Always has been. Newer scholarship untainted by the need to shore up the dying doctrine of white supremacy, performed by whites as well as blacks, provides a completely new picture of ''truly'' ancient Egypt. Keep in mind that the modern day archaeological discovery of Egypt occurred at a time when the same powers involved in the excavations and the plundering of artifacts were also engaged in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. This nasty, but exceedingly profitable, enterprise that provided the underpinnings of world capitalism was justified, in part, by the contention that blacks were not only of inferior intellect and morality, but subhuman. As one southern "gentleman" put it in an infamous CBS white paper on racism years back, "We thought of them as superior pets." So, towering above their sunburned heads, carved from centuries-old stone, were the effigies of the very same people they kept in chains, worked like dogs, used as beasts of burden amd whipped like animals back home. |
|
|
|
|
|
:My, how inconvenient! How mortifying! They must have been ''beside'' themselves with shock and rage. :-p I'd have loved to have been a fly on the toe of one of those massive structures to listen to them come upon a temple flanked by allees of stone renderings of "a bunch of royal niggers." ROFLMBAO. |
|
|
|
|
|
:At least one of your sources points to artifacts found in Nubia in a period ] after the beginnings of earliest dynastic Egypt and even produces a fragment a pottery head that looks -- I don't know. It's got a prominent nose, a forward-slanting profile. What? It's not supposed to be black or at the very least Afro-Semitic? Hilarious. ''No one'' questions the fact that the Nubians were blue-black Africans. If this artifact was produced in Nubia, then what does that tell you? I'll answer for the cognitively challenged: it speaks volumes about miscegenation over the centuries. Yes, the earliest dynastic Egyptians were BLACK AFRICANS -- with nappy hair; big-hair, dreadlocked and braided wigs made of horse hair, human hair and, yes, ''lambs' wool''; broad noses and full, voluptuous lips. Two words fuyyah: forensic reconstruction. It doesn't lie. :-p ] 09:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, egyptian studies have been clouded by hacks. Not a lot by classical Egyptologists, but a lot by people like Molefi Asante, ben-Jochannan, and the likes. If you're talking about upper egypt then the earliest people there look like modern day north africans. The blacks were brought as slaves from south. Nobody gave a damn about what race the Egyptians were until the afrocentrists started saying Cleopatra was black, Egypt was black, Greek/Roman cultures stole from blacks, and other related nonsense. Associating archaelogical discoveries of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries with slavery is just cheap shot at muckracking genuine research. ] 11:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
First, Wareware, your ignorance is showing. Upper Egypt is south; Lower Egypt is north -- not the other way around. It is also clear that Upper Egypt was more advanced than Lower Egypt, with Upper Egypt conquering and unifying both lands under Menes (obviously, a black man with a big, broad nose lol). For the sake of argument, which Egypt do you suppose was whiter than the other? The one closer to NUBIA, as you claim (funny) or the one up North? (I'm having too much fun with you.) And, yes, folks ''always'' cared what color the builders of ancient Egyptian civilization were, which is why Europeans took such pains to manufacture and perpetuate the lies. You are clearly beyond the reach of reason if you contend that blacks in Egypt were all slaves; there is ample and sustained evidence to ''quite'' the contrary --monumental evidence, as a matter of fact. In short, Wareware, dang, bwoi. You a fool! :-D ] 16:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html Mary Lefkowitz in her book wrote that egytologist never cared about what race were they. They cared about history, literature, their heiroglyphs, and architecture. When Napoleon discovered the Rosetta Stone did you hear him pressuring the scholars to find more about their "race"? I think they had more important stuff, like actually deciphering a language. It's wrong to say that people always cared about color when talking about Egypt. True egyptian researchers don't, but white supremacists do. (google white history if you're too dumb to differentiate between the two). It's when afrocentrists realized that sub-saharan blacks didnt develop a written language or a wheel or whatnots and refused to delve more into genuine african civilizations, like the great zimbabwe, that they started to grab whatever they felt like and portrayed egyptians as blacks and greeks and romans as cheaters. And then everything that was done by "white" scholars were portrayed as as racist sham, and that's where the issue comes from. Anyway, I guess your favorite site is this http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/tablecontents.html Buddha, the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, and Beethoven were all "negroid". Must make your balls feel big :) ] 22:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Man, you better stop talkin' from up under my clothes! LOL! You're an ASIAN, and you wanna talk about the size of someone's balls? ROFLMBAO. (slappin' sides) However big they may be, it's a safe bet they're bigger than yours! I think you'd better leave THAT one alone, my misguided Asian brother. This "discussion" has reached a new low. I'mma do you a favor and pretend we never had this exchange. (Still slappin' sides) BWA-HA-HA-HAAA! ] 22:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cleanup of Grammar, etc.== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just gotten around to reading a single section of this article in its entirety -- on race and intelligence -- and found a number of grammatical problems. I don't have time right now to do the same thing with the rest of the piece. (I've been avoiding reading much of it, because I sense I likely will have some problems with substance -- and I have neither the time nor the disposition right now to deal with that sort of thing.) But because this is now a featured article (if it was before, I hadn't noticed), folks need to take the time and go over this piece with an eye toward such things. ] 12:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:it has been featured -- dubiously imho -- for a long time. It definitely needs cleanup, grammatical, stylistic, and for redundancy! ] <small>] 14:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought featured articles weren't supposed to still be "under construction" or still hotly contested. How did ''that'' happen? ] 10:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:''All'' Misplaced Pages articles are works in progress, forever -- that is the nature of Misplaced Pages. You are right, that a featured article must have some special merit. But the merit is not that it is "finished." ] |
|
In the newest revision of this page (5 July 2024) someone changed "categorization..." to "pseudoscientific categorization..." in the beginning of the article, without changing the rest of the definition or adding references. In my opinion, that is a big claim and should at least be cited, if not removed completely, especially because it's the first thing users see after opening the article. Without proper expansion of that claim, I think it does not belong to this article Wojtek703 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WordlyWaleed (article contribs).