PDA

View Full Version : Progressive African Types?



Evolved
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 03:13 AM
By progressive I mean tall & long heads; less sloping foreheads; high-bridged, long noses, etc. Where did they come from? Are they mixed with Mediterranean Caucasoids or are the Caucasoid-like features evolved?

morfrain_encilgar
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 03:45 AM
By progressive I mean tall & long heads; less sloping foreheads; high-bridged, long noses, etc. Where did they come from? Are they mixed with Mediterranean Caucasoids or are the Caucasoid-like features evolved?

Their appearence is because of Eurafrican descent and later hybridisation with Caucasoid immigrants.

Newgrange
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 03:49 AM
are they are Ethiopians, Ethiopia is where mankind originates, so we (caucasians)should look somewhat alike, african-americans are from west sub-saharan african. Ethiopians look more evolved than west sub-saharan africans , even in studies that I have seen on pbs tv tell us caucasians are more closely related to some africans then certain africans are to each other , but they don't mention which groups are more closely related, I think it's out of political correctness.

Frans_Jozef
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 04:11 PM
By progressive I mean tall & long heads; less sloping foreheads; high-bridged, long noses, etc. Where did they come from? Are they mixed with Mediterranean Caucasoids or are the Caucasoid-like features evolved?

Racial progression is a complicated matter; I deal it later in a special entry on the main points of characteristical departure of older stock compared to the neolithic forms...
Anyway, there is indeed lengthening of the head from anthropoids to neanderthalers and the latter and archaic moderns virtually match, till from the the last stages of the Paleoliticum there's a gradual decrease.
The biggest divergence whereby the skull contour makes for a discontinuity is with the appearance of modern man: the vault gets higher and curved....however this is also relative and debateable, while in relation to the excessive head lenght, the ratio expressed by it drops; some Neanderthalids were as good as high-headed from basion to bregma as Nordics, like the La FerrassieI specimen.
This is also true for the Aurignician Combe Capelle who reaches an orthocephalic mean, notwitstanding achieving an impressive height of 139mm.
The vertical development of the skull/head must be reckoned as neotenious; after all, when we grow up first the head lenght becomes established, later the vault height.

Frans_Jozef
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Where did they come from? Are they mixed with Mediterranean Caucasoids or are the Caucasoid-like features evolved?

Been there, done that..during your prolonged absence :P

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=9388

pantocrator
Monday, April 12th, 2004, 11:04 PM
They are ethiopid, a contact race resulting from an old and stabilized mixing of congoid and eastern mediterraneans. A famous and recent study showed that genetically they are 60/100 blacks and 40/100 meds.

Agrippa
Thursday, April 15th, 2004, 04:39 PM
Progressive implies to me that features are NEW and ADVANTAGEOUS or at least not disadvantageous.

In that sence Aethiopids are more progressive than other strong pigmented African types, especially compared with Palaenegrids.

Features which I would describe as infantile, paedomorphic or foetalized can be progressive if they are in more than one (sexual) way advantageous.
If not, than this features might be new but not progressive in my scheme.
Than maybe the older and more "primitive" features are more progressive because progression means anagenese, means higher/increasing development, higher potential and not just "new".
Because especially after the higher technology levels reached about 10.000 years ago, especially after Neolithization and in tropical regions "new" can mean just degeneration oftentimes.

Eohwine
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 11:39 AM
All of this is nonsense. Think of the Fulani, they are black, too. These features are a result of mixture and have no effect on intelligence.

Agrippa
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 01:35 PM
All of this is nonsense. Think of the Fulani, they are black, too. These features are a result of mixture and have no effect on intelligence.

Yes its just admixture, but I doubt that it has no influence on the mental abilities.
Of course if the admixture is small a big difference in intelligence etc. is not very likely.

Nomad
Friday, June 30th, 2006, 08:10 PM
By progressive I mean tall & long heads; less sloping foreheads; high-bridged, long noses, etc. Where did they come from? Are they mixed with Mediterranean Caucasoids or are the Caucasoid-like features evolved?

Old thread, but I can't just let misinformation like this be spread.

1. The negroid is among the most dolichocephalic of human races. Africans are longer-headed than any European type.

2. Sloping forehead is a "mongolid" trait. Africans have the steepest foreheads. Europeans are somewhere in between.

Agrippa
Friday, June 30th, 2006, 08:19 PM
Old thread, but I can't just let misinformation like this be spread.

1. The negroid is among the most dolichocephalic of human races. Africans are longer-headed than any European type.

2. Sloping forehead is a "mongolid" trait. Africans have the steepest foreheads. Europeans are somewhere in between.

In fact it depends on the exact type, Sudanids have a rather steep forehead, Tungid a very sloping one, but Kafrids can have quite sloping ones as do many Sinid-Palaemongolid forms have steep ones...

Bridie
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Okay, with all the yee-ha going on about black/white couplings and Asian/white couplings I've been looking at a few pics of Negroid men on the net that I wouldn't normally, and it occurs to me that many of them do seem progressive.(??) (Elongated faces, chiselled features, high foreheads, tall stature, some high bridged noses etc) Would this only be due to admixture with Europids? Or could this result from admixture with other racial types also? Mongoloid?

http://www.asianamag.com/images/articles/standard/59.jpg

http://www.pitt.edu/~dpbrowne/bilingual/kodje.jpg

http://www.itsablackthang.com/images/2005-calendars/Spirit-of-Black-Men-calendar-2005.jpg

http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/isaiahwashington.jpg

http://images.google.com.au/url?q=http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/01/31/inside-howard.jpg&sig=__FhDKdBK4QMSRuhHURSe7oNKcTck=

http://www.bupipedream.com/020315/sports/s3.jpg

http://www.thebody.com/african_american/images/roden.jpg

Agrippa
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 09:18 PM
Those presented are more progressive than the average Negrid, but still not that progressive. There are more or less progressive tendencies inside of all larger racial spectrums, thats clear too. Nilotids are more progressive than the other typical Negrids. Other more progressive forms are usually mixed or deviate in a Europiform direction like Aethiopids.

Jäger
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 09:28 PM
Plus that many american negros are actually mixed to some degree.

nätdeutsch
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 09:31 PM
Plus that many american negros are actually mixed to some degree.

correct. American blacks are around 10-20% "white" or Europoid genetically.

usual for a population of slaves to have a portion of their master's genes in them

Hohenheim
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 09:38 PM
http://images.google.com.au/url?q=http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/01/31/inside-howard.jpg&sig=__FhDKdBK4QMSRuhHURSe7oNKcTck=

He looks to me some kind unusual. His eyes at least. How would you classify him?

Agrippa
Thursday, October 19th, 2006, 09:55 PM
Plus that many american negros are actually mixed to some degree.

Compare on that:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=68567

Bridie
Friday, October 20th, 2006, 03:57 AM
Those presented are more progressive than the average Negrid, but still not that progressive.
How are they any less progressive than some of those Asians you've called progressive before? The first 4 pics that I posted in particular show very guys with very long faces, high foreheads, strong positive chins, tall, strong body types... all in all they look far more progressive to me than....

\
http://psclasses.ucdavis.edu/POL148A/POL%20148A/Villager%20Images/Old%20couple.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8144/duweify5.jpg (http://imageshack.us/?x=my6&myref=http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=78593&page=7)


And you stated these Asians are progressive!! (You also stated that they have narrow noses!)

I think you are biased Agrippa. You don't want Negroid men to be progressive.... but you want Mongoloids to be. This way a justification can be presented for miscegenation with Asians, but not with Negroids. Why? Because Negroid men are a sexual thread, and Asian men currently aren't. It won't be long before the media starts presenting good looking, masculine examples of Asian men though, propagating the notion of sexual desirability, and then Asian men will be desired by white women too....

Then, I'm sure, Asians will no longer be considered "progressive".

nätdeutsch
Friday, October 20th, 2006, 04:35 AM
How are they any less progressive than some of those Asians you've called progressive before? .......strong body types... all in all they look far more progressive to me than....


great musculature is not progressive, leptomorphosity is.

Fred
Saturday, October 21st, 2006, 05:19 AM
How are they any less progressive than some of those Asians you've called progressive before?
Their hair. They don't have the straight asian/european hair, quite the contrary, to the extend they systematically shave it, and I guess it's one of the prime factor of "progressiveness".

I think you are biased Agrippa. You don't want Negroid men to be progressive.... but you want Mongoloids to be. Why? Because Negroid men are a sexual thread
I don't think this is an issue: any other male is a sexual threat. For exemple, Mediteranean men are a much greater sexual threat than Negroid men could ever be, but I guess no one would deny their (mediteraneans) eventual progressivity. Now, the unfair promotion of Negroid men may create frustration indeed, which is justified since it ends up expending undesired traits within the population, once cultural influence wears off.

It won't be long before the media starts presenting good looking, masculine examples of Asian men though, propagating the notion of sexual desirability, and then Asian men will be desired by white women too...
The fact that being "desired by white women" is such of deal for minorities implies by itself a racial hierarchy subconciously accepted by those so-called "egalitarian one-worlder".

sql-vul
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 05:02 PM
actually i cant see the images in the first post might

i know the thread is very old but i would put some info:

ethiopian are cushites and native in the first place thought their is arab admixture/origin in some particularly "habesha" ethnic in both eritrea/ethiopia also the khosian haplogroup is existed
the J1 haplogroup found mainly among in the Semitic-speaking populations "amhara" at 33.3%

more than half the population fall under the e3b culsters y-dna haplogroup ,many scientist believe that M haplogroup were born in Ethiopia ,most maternal linage is vary between L1,L2,L3x,L0 ,M1,N,

here some native cushtic look
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/47150724_bb83d75c5b.jpg

http://www.sirdoon.com/media/4/20070528-nuruddin_farah.jpg
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5449/2gobblins.jpg


i think in some ways the many cushties resemble the south Indians Dravidian "phenotypically"

here also the somali people who share the same root to many ethiopians

http://pics.myspaceprofiles.org/792/l/105055792_3.jpg

http://nimg.sulekha.com/Others/original700/abdullahi-yusuf-2008-12-29-3-3-1.jpg