Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Mar 20, 2019 17:03:58 GMT -5
Population genetics reports are generally clueless about applying post-1980's transdisciplinary methodology to Inner Africa(ns).
They often write conclusions on Africa and Africans after consulting not a single African born, bred, educated, independent minded authority on nothing.
When making up silly titles for African reports, they pose question in a way they never would for Europe and Europeans.
They invented something they call back migration. But how do people migrate back to where they never were? It's a sophisticated next level 21st century makeover of Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis and Seligman's dark whites. And they choose anthro teammates willing to dress Speke&Seligman in the latest styles in fashion to match the head&face makeover.
Hopefully the new African periodical will depart from the Simon Says mentality most black amateurs profess.
All quite true what you say. There are many double standards, even hypocrisy in their approaches such as how they define a "true negro" but seldom do the same to define a "true white" as Keita pointed some years ago. Then there is their manipulation of sampling and key definitions. Also their strategic use of certain labels to distort data on the ground- i.e. the classic "Mediterranean" label for clearly tropical African remains. Or some of the laughable narratives that they would never use to describe EUropeans such as the Kushites being from "deep" in Africa when they were right next door to Kemet, indeed occupying part of today's southern Egypt in some eras. But the purpose of the distorted narrative is to create the impression of exotic, stranger blacks. SMH. No one would call New Yorkers from Buffalo who crossed over to Canada people from "deep" in the United States, but in research on Africa, such nonsense appears in prominent places.
But post more on Kanem Bornu population and Caucasus types in that area.
Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. You still fail..
Anthropologists have invented the ingenious, convenient, fictional notion of the "true Negro", which allows them to consider, if need be, all the real Negroes on Earth as fake Negroes, more or less approaching a kind of Platonic archetype, without ever attaining it. Thus African history is full of "Negroids", Hamites, semi-Hamites, Nilo- Hamitics, Ethiopoids, Sabaeans, even Caucusoids!
If the African anthropologist made a point of examining European races "under the magnifying glass" he would be able to multiply them ad infinitum by grouping physiognomies into races and sub-races as artificially as his European counterpart does with regard to Africa. He would succeed in dissolving collective European reality into a fog of insignificant facts.
Suppose an African ethnologist insisted on recognizing only blonde Scandinavians as whites and systematically refused all other Europeans -- especially Mediterraneans, French, Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, and Portuguese -- membership in the white race.
Only NW (North Sea) & N (Baltic Sea) Euro folk are "true Blanco". But European substructure continues with sub-Pyrenean Brancos/sub-Alpine Biancos, ... and the Hunites.