PDA

View Full Version : Pushkin & what is "acceptable admixture"



Loki
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 08:36 PM
I saw this thread (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=106423) on Stormfront, and it intrigued me.



This is a recurrent topic in this forum...
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=79614
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=100061
Of course Alexander Pushkin was White, despite having an Ethiopian great-great-grandfather.

What do you guys/girls think of AlphaNumericus's statement (in bold)?

And here is an even more interesting one:



Having a great great grandfather means:

gggf -> ggf -> gf -> f -> Pushkin
1/16 -> 1/8-> 1/4->1/2-> 1/1

The comparison abofe shows just how "black" pushkin was if it was his great great grandfather, that adds up to 6%.
A mulatto like you sayd is typically 50% non-white, and demographic politics of Third Reich suggest that has over 75% aryan blood makes that man\woman an aryan.

Louky
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 08:46 PM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum in Pushkin's gggf's era-before the migration of the southern Sudanese as refugees in the seemingly endless Sudanese civil war. Come to think of it, Ethiopia is one of the few places outside of Europe, America, and Australia that's having a problem with immigrants displacing the nationals.

I'm not sure I'd be too quick to say his great-great grandfather was a Negro. Are there any descriptions of his African ancestor?

Nordhammer
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 03:36 AM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum

Care to show us a picture of these "Caucasian" Ethiopians?

Evolved
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 02:55 PM
The original Ethiopian East African types are considered caucasoid. They probably always had stiff crispy hair, but mixing with Negroids has made it more kinky. The differences are in the skull shape and especially the long, high-bridged nose. Also note they have more beard growth than typical Negroids.

HAMITIC RACES AND LANGUAGES (http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAMITIC_RACES_AND_LANGUAGES.htm)

ETHIOPIANS (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/ethiopians.html)

I attached some pictures of Haile Selassie and a picture of an Ethiopian actor from 1935. :)

Louky
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 03:06 PM
Thanks, Ladygoeth33, for your superior research skills.

Nordhammer: Don't worry, I'm not willing to share my land or family tree with any Ethiopian Caucasians.

Nordhammer
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 03:49 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.

Sigrun Christianson
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 06:06 PM
Acceptable admixture to me is based on what we're being mixed with as well as how much. I have a hierarchy of "acceptable" & "tolerable" admixture, as we all do, I'm sure. There isn't a single answer.

Razmig
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 07:37 PM
Well, there are Ethiopian Caucasians. In fact, Ethiopians were probably more to the Caucasian side of the race spectrum in Pushkin's gggf's era-before the migration of the southern Sudanese as refugees in the seemingly endless Sudanese civil war. Come to think of it, Ethiopia is one of the few places outside of Europe, America, and Australia that's having a problem with immigrants displacing the nationals.

I'm not sure I'd be too quick to say his great-great grandfather was a Negro. Are there any descriptions of his African ancestor?

Dont be rediculous, the Ethiopians were noted as being "dark, short, and frizzy" by the Byzantinians way before 1500. Perhaps there has been settlements by the missionaries to Ethiopia, but Ethiopians are BLACK. What rubbish is this. Since then, despite Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlements, many Arabs have settled in Ethiopia. Theyre alphabet is a copy of the Armenian, given by the Holy Catholicos of Armenia to the Ethiopian people, as well as their Orthodoxy. Arab influence is obvious by their culture (eating maza, preparing coffee in the Arab way, even tho it originated in Ethiopia etc).

Razmig
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 07:40 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.
The avergage African American has 25% or more caucasian/European admixture. Compare them to the pitch black peoples of Africa and notice that they were both bred to be taller, stronger etc, as well as lighter from being raped by white masters.

Louky
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 09:12 PM
Yes, I was looking forward to seeing Louky's superior research skills though. ;)

Sorry, they're rather shabby, but I'm learning


There is a big difference between claiming Ethiopians are Caucasian, and Ethiopians are a hybrid Negroid-Semitic race. Are you calling American Negroids, or perhaps a minority of American Negroids - Caucasian, Louky? Seems highly irregular to me to reference it like that.

No. Ethiopians were generally considered Caucasian on the basis of anthropological measurements before genetic analysis was available. I still have the encyclopedia where I learned that tidbit of trivia some 40 years ago. From Collier's, 1955:

Both the Semitic and Hamitic inhabitants of Ethiopia are usually classified with the Caucasian race on the basis of anthropological measurements, but their dark skin color has induced some observers to classify them with the negroid peoples of Africa with whom, undoubtedly, miscegenation has occurred.

It looks like the minority opinion turned out to be the right one.



The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

But with around 40% Caucasian gene pool (If you consider the same proportion circa 1660 when Pushkin's gggf was probably born) there would be less Negroid ancestry in Pushkin than if his gggf was 100% Negro. I guess around three or four per cent. instead of six. Is that too much? is the context of the thread.

I wouldn't want it. I don't think I would call myself White with that level of Negroid admixture, but there's no way to say what Pushkin's gggf's real contribution was to Pushkin's genetic makeup. Pushkin may have been clean. Do you see Negroid admixture evident in the attached picture?


I hear some people, like CI's, constantly refer to East American Indians as being purely Caucasian, and actually from Scotland! LOL In their dreams.

That's one of the reasons I ultimately rejected them while looking for a faith for my family.

There probably were settlers from Wales or Scotland 1500 years ago here in the Ohio valley, but they would have been submerged in a foreign gene pool if not totally exterminated. I have my mother's History of Kentucky textbook published around 1915 that relates the story of White pre-Columbian settlement here. There certainly exists evidence of a more advanced culture having existed here than what was observed in the Indians. Whoever they were, they died out because Kentucky was uninhabited, by treaty among the Indian tribes, when Kentucky was settled by Whites.

Evolved
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 02:47 AM
I think he looks a little weird.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/kiprensky-pushkin.jpg http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/classics/russian/russianlinks/tropinin-pushkin-compressed.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/art/f_push.gif (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pushkingenealogy.html)

Razmig
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 03:08 AM
I think he looks a little weird.

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/foreign/russian/art/kiprensky-pushkin.jpg http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/classics/russian/russianlinks/tropinin-pushkin-compressed.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/art/f_push.gif (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pushkingenealogy.html)

looks a lot like a metal head friend of mine, especially with that curly hair! strange

Nordhammer
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 04:18 AM
No. Ethiopians were generally considered Caucasian on the basis of anthropological measurements before genetic analysis was available. I still have the encyclopedia where I learned that tidbit of trivia some 40 years ago. From Collier's, 1955:

Both the Semitic and Hamitic inhabitants of Ethiopia are usually classified with the Caucasian race on the basis of anthropological measurements, but their dark skin color has induced some observers to classify them with the negroid peoples of Africa with whom, undoubtedly, miscegenation has occurred.

And they used to believe the world was flat too, but let's live in the present shall we? :)

The old classification of Caucas-oid must be taken in the context of only having a similarity to Caucasian... which has nothing to do with saying someone is purely Caucasian in ancestry. As I said, in the same manner many American Negroid or hapas could be classified as "Caucasians", but this is not in any useful context. We both know this so no sense to continue to argue about it.



But with around 40% Caucasian gene pool (If you consider the same proportion circa 1660 when Pushkin's gggf was probably born) there would be less Negroid ancestry in Pushkin than if his gggf was 100% Negro. I guess around three or four per cent. instead of six. Is that too much? is the context of the thread.

I would agree it's probable the Ethiopian wasn't fully Negroid, but we have no way to truly determine how much Negroid Pushkin was other than an estimated guess. Some say GGF rather, but in either case I think it is still observable in the phenotype, altering him in a way that most people think he looks different. Which I why I have a standard of 1/64th Negroid. Mongoloid isn't so severe and I put it at 1/16th.



I wouldn't want it. I don't think I would call myself White with that level of Negroid admixture, but there's no way to say what Pushkin's gggf's real contribution was to Pushkin's genetic makeup. Pushkin may have been clean. Do you see Negroid admixture evident in the attached picture

I'm really surprised Russia is so proud of him, considering his significant Negroid ancestry. I doubt this would fly in America. Despite the constant insults against America for racemixing, it appears Russia and perhaps other Europeans nations are more liberal than we are. It's only a matter of them not having the chance, being geographically distant... otherwise Russia and other European nations might very well be entirely mixed like South America.




That's one of the reasons I ultimately rejected them while looking for a faith for my family.

There probably were settlers from Wales or Scotland 1500 years ago here in the Ohio valley, but they would have been submerged in a foreign gene pool if not totally exterminated. I have my mother's History of Kentucky textbook published around 1915 that relates the story of White pre-Columbian settlement here. There certainly exists evidence of a more advanced culture having existed here than what was observed in the Indians. Whoever they were, they died out because Kentucky was uninhabited, by treaty among the Indian tribes, when Kentucky was settled by Whites.

Common sense and genetic studies do not show a fully European settlement as Indians anywhere in America. There are cases of blue eyes and such, like there is with some Eskimoes... but this is probably attributed to admixture. Like the point with the Ethiopians, white admixture doesn't make someone white. This is how blacks think. We shouldn't have a mongrel identity.

Evolved
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 10:16 AM
Dont be rediculous, the Ethiopians were noted as being "dark, short, and frizzy" by the Byzantinians way before 1500.

But by comparison to whom?


Perhaps there has been settlements by the missionaries to Ethiopia, but Ethiopians are BLACK.

I think so too. They are racially predominantly caucasoid 'black people', just as Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, etc are.


What rubbish is this. Since then, despite Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlements, many Arabs have settled in Ethiopia.

Racially, the East-African type looks to be the Caucasoid-Negroid counterpart to the Caucasoid-Mongoloid Turanid category. They are an older, more stable 'contact race' rather than Negroids mixed with Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlers. Their features tell the story, if they were blacks with Caucasoid admixture they would look like lighter pigmented Negroids (like American blacks). Instead, they look like brown skinned Caucasoids with Negroid hairform and different degrees of Negroid-influence on their facial features.

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:52 AM
But by comparison to whom?
by comparison to the Byzantinian Royalty and Missionaries, who were predominatly Greeks and Armenians.


I think so too. They are racially predominantly caucasoid 'black people', just as Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, etc are.

I dont think you can compare Indians and Pakistanis to Sri Lankans and Ethiopians...the INDIANS, or INDICS are caucasoid, as are the muslim indians (pakistanis), however they are dark like arabs, but they have not become full grow negroes like africans, or full grown australoids like those in sri lanka and southern india.




Racially, the East-African type looks to be the Caucasoid-Negroid counterpart to the Caucasoid-Mongoloid Turanid category. They are an older, more stable 'contact race' rather than Negroids mixed with Armenian, Greek, and Italian settlers. Their features tell the story, if they were blacks with Caucasoid admixture they would look like lighter pigmented Negroids (like American blacks). Instead, they look like brown skinned Caucasoids with Negroid hairform and different degrees of Negroid-influence on their facial features.
I am not familiar with the racial study of the area, however, I think blacks(africans)negroes, whatever you wan to call them, have the same racial categories as whites(europids)caucasians, whatever you want to call THEM. So in opinion, I think they are simply negroes who perhaps evolved into similar facial features as the caucasoids (despite settlements). The capitol of the country, I think, describes its history (ADIS BABA), a half Armenian ADIS, half native African BABA, name. Either way I really dont care, I just want them to stop claiming our alphabet as theirs, maybe write their own and build their own churches instead of using ours! hah

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:55 AM
BTW Ethiopians are the lightest of the Africans, not including mixed black egyptians and sudanese.....so thats also another reason I was mentioning settlements by caucasoids

Louky
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 09:23 PM
And they used to believe the world was flat too, but let's live in the present shall we? :)

Point well taken.


...I just want them to stop claiming our alphabet as theirs...

This seems ungenerous considering the Armenian alphabets (east and west) were derived from the Greek alphabet.

Origin of the Armenian Alphabet

In about 404 or 406 AD, a cleric at the Armenien royal court by the name of Mesrop-Mashtots (361-440 AD) invented the Armenian alphabet. He modelled [sic] the Armenian alphabet very losely [sic] on the Greek alphabet and was also possibly influenced by the Assyrian script.

The first attachment is the West Armenian alphabet, the second attachment, Ethiopian. It does look like the Ethiopian alphabet could be derived from the Armenian one, but I wouldn't call it a copy any more than I'd call the Armenian alphabet a copy of the Greek.

The last attachment is a synagogue (?) in the Falasha (Jew) settlement in Ethiopia.

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:35 PM
Point well taken.



This seems ungenerous considering the Armenian alphabets (east and west) were derived from the Greek alphabet.

Origin of the Armenian Alphabet

In about 404 or 406 AD, a cleric at the Armenien royal court by the name of Mesrop-Mashtots (361-440 AD) invented the Armenian alphabet. He modelled [sic] the Armenian alphabet very losely [sic] on the Greek alphabet and was also possibly influenced by the Assyrian script.

The first attachment is the West Armenian alphabet, the second attachment, Ethiopian. It does look like the Ethiopian alphabet could be derived from the Armenian one, but I wouldn't call it a copy any more than I'd call the Armenian alphabet a copy of the Greek.

The last attachment is a synagogue (?) in the Falasha (Jew) settlement in Ethiopia.

Armenians were not united untill the adoption of Christiniaty. Pontus, Capedocia, Cilicia, Galacia, Great Hayk, Odessena, Oronto, Gazaria, and Caucaus Armenia etc all had small principalities. The Armenians were not a seperate people from the Greeks. A lot of Eastern Turkish sites are credited to Greeks because they were all Hellenic at one point, and the Turks would never claim Hittites, Tojans etc as being the forefathers of the Armenians, because that would mean the Armenian request for land would be fulfilled.

Xenephone noted that the languages spoken by the tribes in eastern and central Anatolia were understandable by both him and his troops (pre-celtic and armen settlements). Mesrop Mashdodz was a priest...there are many theories to how the Armenian alphabet came about. It was said that God sent it to him in his dream while he locked himself in a whole determined to unite the Armenian languages into a single Alphabet. Below is the evolution of the Armenian alphabet. The Ethiopians did not have language/religion let alone civilization untill the arrival of the Byzantines. Aramaic perhaps influenced Armenian alphabet, but then again Greek alphabet was taken from Phoenician as was Assyrian. But all these people, the people of Hayk, Crete, Malta, Greece, Finikia, were all Hellenic people.

Razmig
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 11:37 PM
btw did you know the first cave drawrings and forms of hyrogliphics were found in present day Armenia? forget Turkish Armenia, theres probably more there hundreds of years older. i bet it spread from Anatolia into egypt, seeing as how the rulers of egypt were indo-european

Louky
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 02:48 PM
btw did you know the first cave drawrings and forms of hyrogliphics were found in present day Armenia? forget Turkish Armenia, theres probably more there hundreds of years older. i bet it spread from Anatolia into egypt, seeing as how the rulers of egypt were indo-european

I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

Razmig
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 11:00 PM
I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

I'm knew I had a site about metzamor (the first evolvement of drawings to writing) in armenia but I cant seem to find the link. I'll post it up when I get ahold of it, it displays all the different drawings and hyros. I also had a paleolithic pdf that dated 32,000 years old, really cool stuff. *HD CRASHED* I can PM it to you if your interested once I get another copy. Here's a couple sites I found, it's not much but if your interested:
http://www.tacentral.com/nature/trekking.asp?story_no=4
http://www.saintsarkis.org/Language.htm

As for Black claims to teaching the Egyptians of pottery, It's as much rubbish as Black claims to teaching Greeks about geometry. What I remember from reading about Egyptian history is that the southern egyptians were lighter, and seeked refuged south from sea people invasions (hyksos) and (hitties: men of 1000 gods) and becamse successful because of not being susceptible to raids. If the original Egyptians were black, why is it that there is a clear distinction between the lighter skinned rulers, and the black slaves? Perfectly clear in early egyptian art as well. Here's some info about Egypt, a land that isnt as acient as some claim it to be:

I didn't realize that and I'd appreciate some more information. I did know morphological changes occured preceding the Dynastic period in what was to become Egypt. Sometime in fourth millenium BC, the native Nile stock was replaced or altered by a wide-headed people which some anthropologists call Armenoid.

The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

I'm knew I had a site about metzamor (the first evolvement of drawings to writing) in armenia but I cant seem to find the link. I'll post it up when I get ahold of it, it displays all the different drawings and hyros. I also had a paleolithic pdf that dated 32,000 years old, really cool stuff. *HD CRASHED* I can PM it to you if your interested once I get another copy. Here's a couple sites I found, it's not much but if your interested:
http://www.tacentral.com/nature/trekking.asp?story_no=4
http://www.saintsarkis.org/Language.htm

As for Black claims to teaching the Egyptians of pottery, It's as much rubbish as Black claims to teaching Greeks about geometry. What I remember from reading about Egyptian history is that the southern egyptians were lighter, and seeked refuged south from sea people invasions (hyksos) and (hitties: men of 1000 gods) and becamse successful because of not being susceptible to raids. If the original Egyptians were black, why is it that there is a clear distinction between the lighter skinned rulers, and the black slaves? Perfectly clear in early egyptian art as well. Here's some info about Egypt, a land that isnt as acient as some claim it to be:
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/egyptciv.html
http://www.2020site.org/egypt/history.html

The original Egyptian nile dwellers were semite meds, however, there was heavy aryan ruling and african slavery, and then recent Arab conquest. It's hard to beleive pottery existed in Sudan before egypt considering the materials used to create such peices are more abundant in Egypt.

The original Egyptian nile dwellers were semite meds, however, there was heavy aryan ruling and african slavery, and then recent Arab conquest.

Nordhammer
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 09:02 PM
I dont think you can compare Indians and Pakistanis to Sri Lankans and Ethiopians...the INDIANS, or INDICS are caucasoid, as are the muslim indians (pakistanis), however they are dark like arabs, but they have not become full grow negroes like africans, or full grown australoids like those in sri lanka and southern india.

Indics are a hybrid population, mixed with Southern Asian Mongoloid. I don't know exactly how much could be divided into Mongoloid and Australoid genetically, but the female lineage is more related to other Mongoloid Asians than to Europeans. According to genetic studies the founding population comes from Eastern Europe, although they are not exclusively the male contributors.

Caucasoid and Caucasian used by many people, even anthropologists, does not mean purely European/white/Caucasian ancestry, but only resembling Europeans from some amount of admixture. For purposes of identifying pure white populations or preserving racial purity, those two terms are useless.

Nordhammer
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 09:06 PM
The Ethiopians claim they taught the Egyptians the arts of sculpting and painting, and I looked favorably on their claim considering: (1) the unification of Egypt was accomplished from a southern conquest of the north; (2) an advanced neolithic culture, characterized by fired pottery, existed in the Sudan prior to any known advances further north; (3) the ancient Egypians, themselves, claimed to have migrated from the southeast. However, nothing I've seen of either modern Ethiopia or the Sudan shows potential for creating civilization, or even maintaining it.

Do the Ethiopians make this claim or is it militant black Americans who claim this about the Ethiopians? :)

Razmig
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 10:20 PM
John R. Baker classifies the modern Ethopians as belonging predominantly to the homo sapiens europaeus, i. e. the white or Caucasian race, based on morphology, and this despite of their skin color.

In fact, the example (http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416) ladygoeth33 posted, is not unsimilar to the example Baker gives in his book Race.

Coloration is one of the most unsuitable criteria to distinguish between races (and sub-races).

- Thorburn

I don't think observing modern Ethiopians does any good in finding out who the real Ethiopians were. Why is it that half blacks look so similar to them and if so that the Ethiopians are "caucasoid", why is it they are genetically closer to all other africans?

Razmig
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 11:28 PM
Baker is talking about the Ethopian sub-race (Aethiopids; homo sapiens europaeus africanus), not the population of Ethopia.

See:
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2265
http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=2282

- Thorburn
In any case, that is Baker's theory. I don't think much of it, tho. Thanks for the info.

Agrippa
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 01:29 AM
Are all Armenians typical Armenids? So why should all Ethiopians be typical Aethiopids?
In fact they arent!
There is a difference between the race and the people of Ethiopia. F.e. some of the most typical Ethiopians live in Somalia and Eritraea today.



40 percent of them is a figure on average, but I'm quite sure, if you analyse autosomal genes from some single individuals which appear to be from the pure Aethiopid type, that they are more than 40 percent Europid.

I saw Ethiopians which were to about 75 percent Orientalid or Mediterranid and some which were pure Negrids.

There are big differences between tribes and individuals.

Honestly some years ago I believed that the Aethiopids are morphologically so close to the Europids that they could be called as such or are a contact race on its own with their own position between the major races.

In fact maybe even Khoisanid admixture is possible in many Ethiopians, especially in the south.

For sure Nilotids which are the biggest black part in Ethiopians are almost pure Negrids, but the most progressive ones.
Just look at the pictures from Leni Riefenstahl.

To talk to much about Pushkin is ridiculous, for sure he is an acceptable European.

I think the quality of the person should be considered as well, but in Pushkins case this is not necessary, because the Negroid part is such a minor one that you can forget it...

Razmig
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 03:10 AM
Are all Armenians typical Armenids? So why should all Ethiopians be typical Aethiopids?
In fact they arent!
There is a difference between the race and the people of Ethiopia. F.e. some of the most typical Ethiopians live in Somalia and Eritraea today.



40 percent of them is a figure on average, but I'm quite sure, if you analyse autosomal genes from some single individuals which appear to be from the pure Aethiopid type, that they are more than 40 percent Europid.

I saw Ethiopians which were to about 75 percent Orientalid or Mediterranid and some which were pure Negrids.

There are big differences between tribes and individuals.

Honestly some years ago I believed that the Aethiopids are morphologically so close to the Europids that they could be called as such or are a contact race on its own with their own position between the major races.

In fact maybe even Khoisanid admixture is possible in many Ethiopians, especially in the south.

For sure Nilotids which are the biggest black part in Ethiopians are almost pure Negrids, but the most progressive ones.
Just look at the pictures from Leni Riefenstahl.

To talk to much about Pushkin is ridiculous, for sure he is an acceptable European.

I think the quality of the person should be considered as well, but in Pushkins case this is not necessary, because the Negroid part is such a minor one that you can forget it...

You bring up valid points. I only assumed them originally being African because it was so heavily influenced by Roman monarchs and Arab settlers etc. But perhaps there was a people living there related to the Egyptians who have been replaced with blacks? I don't know much about Ethiopia, I should start reading up about it.

Louky
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Razmig: Thanks for the links. Fascinating material and I would like the info on Metzamor and on the evolution of writing when you get it. I would encourage anyone interested in the evolution of civilization to read the articles linked in Razmigs post #21.

Nordhammer: The Ethiopians consider themselves to be the true White race and Europeans to be the Pink race. I'm sure Afrocentrists have grabbed on to Ethiopian claims to be the originators of Egyptian civilization and there's a book titled The African Origin of Civilization, which despite the crudity of the artifacts supplying the evidence of Negro involvement in Egyptian high civilization, is often referenced by Afrocentrists.

My father used to say that if you gave a Negro a job sweeping the floors in a bank, he'd tell everyone he was the bank president.



Another way of looking at the racial position of the Ethiopians is to consider that the "Out of Africa" theory for the origins of modern Homo Sapiens could also, on the basis of current finds, be called the "Out of Ethiopia" theory. The oldest remains of modern HS have been found in Ethiopia and are dated 200,000 years old. Maybe Ethiopians represented a stock which later evolved into (or were absorbed into) the other races of the world. The results of genetic analysis don't support the "Out of Ethiopia" theory, but it's hard to separate the results of migrations from the underlying native gene pool.

Nordhammer
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 04:38 PM
John R. Baker classifies the modern Ethopians as belonging predominantly to the homo sapiens europaeus, i. e. the white or Caucasian race, based on morphology, and this despite of their skin color.

In fact, the example (http://www.forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=6416) ladygoeth33 posted, is not unsimilar to the example Baker gives in his book Race.

Coloration is one of the most unsuitable criteria to distinguish between races (and sub-races).

- Thorburn

Undoubtably Baker would also classify a large number of American blacks as belonging to the homo sapiens europeaus "race" as well. :D Apparently if the nose is straight the kinky hair is negated. How smart.

Nordhammer
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 04:44 PM
The Ethiopians consider themselves to be the true White race and Europeans to be the Pink race.

Yeah, well, they probably want to distinguish themselves from the darker Negroes around them. You see this mentality a lot with young blacks in America, who when given the census want to check white and not black. You see this in mongrelized populations like Brazil, the mulattos and quadroons don't want to be called black like their more African brethren.

I was just wondering if you came into contact with any Ethiopians yourself who expressed this?

Agrippa
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Yeah, well, they probably want to distinguish themselves from the darker Negroes around them. You see this mentality a lot with young blacks in America, who when given the census want to check white and not black. You see this in mongrelized populations like Brazil, the mulattos and quadroons don't want to be called black like their more African brethren.

I was just wondering if you came into contact with any Ethiopians yourself who expressed this?

They dont just want to be called "blacks", they are no one!

I mean you seriously want to call a quadroon "black"? I dont think thats logical or in any way justified. In fact its not useful too.

Just look in the US who are the most talented, intelligent and attractive/progressive coloured people with African heritage?

The pure Sudanids or Palaenegrids? ^^

The Mulattoes and Quadroons are the best of them!
Thats because the mixed tend often more to the positive side at least in the first generations.

Its something typical American and not very intelligent to say that Mullatoe or even a Quadroon is a "black" person.
You steal yourself what speaks against mixing with Negrids first of all in my opinion and that is that they are not adapted biologically to the Northern climate, are more primitve, less intelligent and got another personality/hormone status at least on the average!

The Quadroons and mixed persons like Haley Berry or Vin Diesel are the living examples that this is "not true" because they are "coloured" or "black" persons which are more or less intelligent and attractive to many Euros.

It is logical and necessary to differ between mixed persons and pure non-Euros.

Thats not just better for the mixed but for the Euros too!!!!!!!!!!

If Haley Berry calls herself "black" thats maybe politically correct for many Americans or even "true" but its pure nonsens!

No Negrid person looks like her and if Negrid = Black such definition just destroys the concept of races at all!

If coloured/mixed persons want to be Euros/White its a good sign, because that means that the standard/ideal is White!

BTW: Pigmentation is a way of DIRECT adaptation to environmental conditions, but morphology is usually something which is not under immediate selective pressure. (Only such exceptions like long legs, arms and fingers in extreme cold f.e.)
So usually morphology should be more important than pigmentation even if the pigmented person is fully black but has Europid features he is more Europid and more Europid looking than a Sudanid Albino, isnt he?

Nordhammer
Tuesday, January 6th, 2004, 02:24 AM
They dont just want to be called "blacks", they are no one!

I mean you seriously want to call a quadroon "black"? I dont think thats logical or in any way justified. In fact its not useful too.

Just look in the US who are the most talented, intelligent and attractive/progressive coloured people with African heritage?

The pure Sudanids or Palaenegrids? ^^

The Mulattoes and Quadroons are the best of them!
Thats because the mixed tend often more to the positive side at least in the first generations.

Its something typical American and not very intelligent to say that Mullatoe or even a Quadroon is a "black" person.


My apologies to you and your brethren if they have Negroid ancestry. I know how important it is for you and others to differentiate the levels of African ancestry. However, my statement was in the context of the 3 major racial groups and the American census... in such cases, between white/European/Caucasian, black/African/Negroid, and yellow/Asian/Mongoloid -- given the general rule of dominancy and also for purposes of white racial preservation -- white-nonwhite hybrids will fall to their respective nonwhite ancestral group unless of sufficient dilution.