Unless you have something to add beyond your claim that Euro arstocracy was of subsaharan appearance, based on non-replicable evidence, I would like to consider the topic closed.
[ Barack Obama's Kenyan father]
I would like to propose a few topics:
(1)Is Obama Black? As we have seen in this thread that what the public might consider a Black man, may be a White man after all, as his skull index might proof. His black as soot father coming from this area of Africa where the narrowskulled pitch black White man originates.
(2)European cannibalism 1500-1789: eating grounded mummies, drinking blood from executions, making beeftea from human brains etc.
(3)Alzheimer disease; a case suddenly sprang up where I'm confronted with erratic behaviour in a former scholar, which might indicate Alzheimer in its early stages. The input from this learned forum might lead to information and treatment. I strongly wish for this to be a topic on onedroprule.org
(1)Is Obama Black? As we have seen in this thread that what the public might consider a Black man, may be a White man after all, as his skull index might proof. His black as soot father coming from this area of Africa where the narrowskulled pitch black White man originates.
(2)European cannibalism 1500-1789: eating grounded mummies, drinking blood from executions, making beeftea from human brains etc.
(3)Alzheimer disease; a case suddenly sprang up where I'm confronted with erratic behaviour in a former scholar, which might indicate Alzheimer in its early stages. The input from this learned forum might lead to information and treatment. I strongly wish for this to be a topic on onedroprule.org
You need not "propose" new topics. All you have to do is go to the appropriate forum, click on the "New Topic" button, and type away.
Where to post your question of whether Obama is Black depends on what you mean by "Black." if you mean a member of the African-American ethnopolitical community, then post it in either of the political advocacy forums (probably Ïmproving U.S. Society"). If you mean in the light of the obsolete classification schemes used in craniofacial anthropometry, then "Molecular Anthropology and Genetics" would be the best choice [Note to William: You know, I am beginning to think that we need a forum specifically for the history of science--of physical anthropology in particular. Some people seem really interested in those defunct taxonomies.]
Regarding European cannibalism 1500-1789, I doubt that it is a suitable topic under site goals (informing and becoming informed about the U.S. "race" notion), unless you can somehow connect it to "racial" beliefs.
Regarding your feeling that someone you know is suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's, I cannot see how this would connect to the site's mission statement. I suggest that you seek out an Alzheimer's support group. Just google those terms.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1046 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 25 Jul 2008 15:33 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
Note to William: You know, I am beginning to think that we need a forum specifically for the history of science--of physical anthropology in particular. Some people seem really interested in those defunct taxonomies.
That sounds like a good idea. We could then move the existing threads that deal with this (such as those on Coon's work) there. If you decide to create such a forum, I'd be happy to moderate it.
That sounds like a good idea. We could then move the existing threads that deal with this (such as those on Coon's work) there. If you decide to create such a forum, I'd be happy to moderate it.
Let's do it. Let me come up with a main-page description and I shall run it by you before setting it up. This could also give us a place to put forensic anthropology stuff (where craniofacial anthropometry is still very much alive today).
That reminds me. At my weekly Second Life class, last Wednesday, the topic was the history of the "race" concept in science. A forensic anthropologist (or someone knowledgable in the field) said, "I can reliably tell whether a skeleton belonged to a White or a Black person just by looking at the bones. This proves that 'race' is replicable biological reality."
I replied, "And I can tell, even more reliably, whether the person was tall or short. This proves that 'tall' and 'short' are the true 'races'.
To which the person said, "You just don't understand."
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1046 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 25 Jul 2008 20:20 Post subject:
Frank wrote:
Let's do it. Let me come up with a main-page description and I shall run it by you before setting it up. This could also give us a place to put forensic anthropology stuff (where craniofacial anthropometry is still very much alive today).
That sounds great.
Frank wrote:
That reminds me. At my weekly Second Life class, last Wednesday, the topic was the history of the "race" concept in science. A forensic anthropologist (or someone knowledgable in the field) said, "I can reliably tell whether a skeleton belonged to a White or a Black person just by looking at the bones. This proves that 'race' is replicable biological reality."
I replied, "And I can tell, even more reliably, whether the person was tall or short. This proves that 'tall' and 'short' are the true 'races'.
To which the person said, "You just don't understand."
I agreed with that claim.
You had me splitting my sides with that! But at the same time, it's sad. That character reminds me a little of Gill. For kicks, I would love to go through all the world's populations with someone like that and ask him to classify all subjects by "race." I wonder how many "races" he would come up with. Or would everyone just be "White" or "Black"?
Posted: Sat 26 Jul 2008 16:50 Post subject: forensic anthropologist
fwsweet wrote:
William wrote:
That sounds like a good idea. We could then move the existing threads that deal with this (such as those on Coon's work) there. If you decide to create such a forum, I'd be happy to moderate it.
Let's do it. Let me come up with a main-page description and I shall run it by you before setting it up. This could also give us a place to put forensic anthropology stuff (where craniofacial anthropometry is still very much alive today).
That reminds me. At my weekly Second Life class, last Wednesday, the topic was the history of the "race" concept in science. A forensic anthropologist (or someone knowledgable in the field) said, "I can reliably tell whether a skeleton belonged to a White or a Black person just by looking at the bones. This proves that 'race' is replicable biological reality."
I replied, "And I can tell, even more reliably, whether the person was tall or short. This proves that 'tall' and 'short' are the true 'races'.
To which the person said, "You just don't understand."
I agreed with that claim.
Did you ask the forensic anthropologist how he defined "black" and "white" given the reality of racial intermixture? Can he tell the difference between an "Asian" skull and a "white" skull? How about an American Indian skull or a "white" skull? I find it interesting that most of these racialist scientists seem to be interested almost totally in differences between "whites" and "blacks" and no one else.
William: Here is a first-cut at the main-page description for the new forum. I would leave the existing forum's description unchanged.
Quote:
Craniofacial Anthropometry and Racialism in Science
Fossils, skull measurements, forensic anthropology, and the history of the "race" notion in science. Moderated by William.
AD: No, I have found that it is pointless to debate that sort of thing. The answers are usualy analogies. "Just because purple exists does not mean that red and blue are not colors," and "Just because musical notes can combine into chords does not mean that musical notes do not exist," and "Just because there are hundreds of auto makes does not mean that we should not focus on the most common brands," and "Just because species can hybridize does not mean that species do not exist."
Forensic anthropologists are paid to determine from a skeleton what the person looked like in life. If they can tell the police how the invidual would have been "racially" categorized by Americans, it is a big help to investigators. It is no different than being able to tell if the person was short or tall, young old, athletic or couch potato. To them "race" (how a person would have been be categorized) is as important and replicable as height, age, or gender.
The problem is that they do not realize that they are using the term in the sense of an ascribed social classification (like tall or short) and not in the biological sense of subspecies, variety, or breed. Mutual understanding is impossible when two groups of people use the same word to denote such different phenomena.
Yes it should. William said that when he got some time, he would go through the Molecular forum and move anything that fit the new forum (DNA versus bones). I am sure that he would be grateful for the help, now that you have spotted one, if you went ahead and moved it.
bone structure, like facial features are still phenotypes.
I found this a very profound observation; because with al this racialisation we lose sight of what a human really is, with all the emphasis on appearance. I found from Snowden that the Greeks did not go so much into specific races, but looked at colour and made comparisons between people’s colours. Just as I find in the period 1500-1789 in Europe that the descriptions are about colour and not nations. Probably because when people are very mixed you cannot call them a certain race, they are just more or less coloured. So I defined them as 'a fixed mulatto race.'
If I may make a proposal, is that I would like to discuss the WHY behind certain practices which are today obsolete. What motivated these scientists to measure people up, from all sites, and why would some of them falsify the results. So not only the HOW, but also their motivation.
I have been reading Coon and this physical thing is a bit infectious as I now know what to look for and how to name it. For the longest times I saw some small prognasty with White people, mostly with thin lips, so I did not realize it could be called prognasty. But what bothers me something fierce is Coons using artistic impressions alongside photographs. This is so confusing, because they could be fantasy, as I find with the European aristocracy. People are making all kind of assumptions based on the appearance of a person on a painting.
Regarding European cannibalism 1500-1789, I doubt that it is a suitable topic under site goals (informing and becoming informed about the U.S. "race" notion), unless you can somehow connect it to "racial" beliefs.
What do the RULES say about Hypothesis? Are those allowed?
As you now know I consider the European Royal, noble and intellectual elite as coloureds who saw themselves as superior and almost godlike. So using the skin of their White subjects as leather to bind books was no big deal. I do not think their White subjects looked at this the same way.
There was much cruelty going on this time, like at executions people were scorched alive, gutted alive, and made to see their own intestines and heart, before they were killed. There are a few scientific articles on these matters which I would like to print here, and I have noticed it's prudent to ask permission.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
