 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology Forum » OT: African genocide of subhumanoids? |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ara Zacis |
 Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 24 Jan 2004 17:15:01 GMT, in rec.arts.movies.past-films,
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
[quote:0b12f1d64c]In article <73994cc8.0401240858.2ec8a9d8@posting.google.com>,
gom <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote:
[/quote:0b12f1d64c]
<snip>
[quote:0b12f1d64c]But, Neanderthals couldn't use language. And, why couldn't they learn
from Cro-Magnon man like Greeks learned from the Egyptians and Romans
learned from Greeks and one Indian tribe learned from another?
You have evidence for the statement that they couldn't use language?
Most professional anthropologists are a lot less certain.
And what makes you think that they couldn't learn? Perhaps they didn't
want to copy the others - think of the Tierra del Fuegans. And there
is no evidence that the technological difference was involved in their
demise. We simply don't know.
[/quote:0b12f1d64c]
Some people believe that the Basque people are the descendants of the
Neaderthals. Basque is a language isolate, not related to any other
attested natural language. The Basques are also genetically different
from all other European populations. If the Basques are the
descendants of Neanderthals, then the Neaderthal population did
eventually develop language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gom |
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message news:<buu96l$9ft$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
[quote:cc9a3e1375]
But, Neanderthals couldn't use language. And, why couldn't they learn
from Cro-Magnon man like Greeks learned from the Egyptians and Romans
learned from Greeks and one Indian tribe learned from another?
You have evidence for the statement that they couldn't use language?
Most professional anthropologists are a lot less certain.
[/quote:cc9a3e1375]
That's what I once read, that Neanderthals weren't physically equipped
to talk like cro-magnons.
[quote:cc9a3e1375]
And what makes you think that they couldn't learn? Perhaps they didn't
want to copy the others - think of the Tierra del Fuegans. And there
is no evidence that the technological difference was involved in their
demise. We simply don't know.
[/quote:cc9a3e1375]
Well, any threatened people react in some fashion. They learn new
methods, flee, or something. The Hun invasion didn't wipe out the
Germanic population. The Aryan Invasion didn't wipe out the native
Dravidians in India.
So, isn't it strange that Neanderthals all died out? They had to have
been killed unless it was a mass suicide. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nim |
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401241954.f58d660@posting.google.com...
[quote:dbae01451d]nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
news:<buu96l$9ft$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
But, Neanderthals couldn't use language. And, why couldn't they learn
from Cro-Magnon man like Greeks learned from the Egyptians and Romans
learned from Greeks and one Indian tribe learned from another?
You have evidence for the statement that they couldn't use language?
Most professional anthropologists are a lot less certain.
That's what I once read, that Neanderthals weren't physically equipped
to talk like cro-magnons.
[/quote:dbae01451d]
Rubbish. Read what people who actually study Neandertal have to say about
Neandertal.
[quote:dbae01451d]
And what makes you think that they couldn't learn? Perhaps they didn't
want to copy the others - think of the Tierra del Fuegans. And there
is no evidence that the technological difference was involved in their
demise. We simply don't know.
Well, any threatened people react in some fashion. They learn new
methods, flee, or something. The Hun invasion didn't wipe out the
Germanic population. The Aryan Invasion didn't wipe out the native
Dravidians in India.
[/quote:dbae01451d]
There was no Aryan invasion of India - that is another myth.
[quote:dbae01451d]
So, isn't it strange that Neanderthals all died out? They had to have
been killed unless it was a mass suicide.
[/quote:dbae01451d]
Perhaps they are right here, mixed into populations alive today. There are
quite a few experts who say that. Look them up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick Maclaren |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <uNHQb.25598$1e.4643@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Nim <Nim@ppc.com> wrote:
[quote:a40ebb1145]
"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401241954.f58d660@posting.google.com...
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
news:<buu96l$9ft$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
But, Neanderthals couldn't use language. And, why couldn't they learn
from Cro-Magnon man like Greeks learned from the Egyptians and Romans
learned from Greeks and one Indian tribe learned from another?
You have evidence for the statement that they couldn't use language?
Most professional anthropologists are a lot less certain.
That's what I once read, that Neanderthals weren't physically equipped
to talk like cro-magnons.
Rubbish. Read what people who actually study Neandertal have to say about
Neandertal.
[/quote:a40ebb1145]
Don't be so positive, either! Yes, well respected anthropologists
have made that statement, and they had some evidence for it. His
mistake was to take a statement of "belief with inconclusive evidence"
as if it were a statement of fact. The jaw differences are indicative,
but we would need larynx and soft tissue information to know whether
they could form enough sounds to speak English (for example).
[ From another posting. ]
As far as I know, the theory that Basques might be descended from
Neanderthals is felt to have been convincingly disproved. They may be
different in some respects, but are not THAT different. The race and
language are the last remnants of the pre Indo-European population of
Europe, but that is a matter of 3-10,000 years rather than 30-100,000.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Anne Gilbert |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gom:
[quote:8789324632]to talk like cro-magnons.
[/quote:8789324632]
I have no idea where you read this, but there's absolutely no evidence of
this. They even had a modern-looking hyoid bone.
[quote:8789324632]So, isn't it strange that Neanderthals all died out? They had to have
been killed unless it was a mass suicide.
[/quote:8789324632]
It seems to have taken an awfully long time to "kill them off". And as for
the idea that they were "killed off by cold", my problem with that is, these
same writers who claim they couldn't "really" talk also tend to claim they
were "cold adapted"(and some popular writers follow this lead so closely
that they have Neandertals complaining if it's a nice comfortable 75° out
there. But if they were "cold adapted", advancing glaciers shouldn't have
bothered them. And apparently they *did* learn new things toward the end of
their time. So go figure.
Anne G |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gom |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 3:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Nim" <Nim@ppc.com> wrote in message news:<uNHQb.25598$1e.4643@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
[quote:161245b9ca]"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401241954.f58d660@posting.google.com...
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
news:<buu96l$9ft$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
But, Neanderthals couldn't use language. And, why couldn't they learn
from Cro-Magnon man like Greeks learned from the Egyptians and Romans
learned from Greeks and one Indian tribe learned from another?
You have evidence for the statement that they couldn't use language?
Most professional anthropologists are a lot less certain.
That's what I once read, that Neanderthals weren't physically equipped
to talk like cro-magnons.
Rubbish. Read what people who actually study Neandertal have to say about
Neandertal.
And what makes you think that they couldn't learn? Perhaps they didn't
want to copy the others - think of the Tierra del Fuegans. And there
is no evidence that the technological difference was involved in their
demise. We simply don't know.
Well, any threatened people react in some fashion. They learn new
methods, flee, or something. The Hun invasion didn't wipe out the
Germanic population. The Aryan Invasion didn't wipe out the native
Dravidians in India.
There was no Aryan invasion of India - that is another myth.
[/quote:161245b9ca]
Was it legal immigration then? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| People's Commissar |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401251259.5db25949@posting.google.com...
[quote:64cad741e8]Well, any threatened people react in some fashion. They learn new
methods, flee, or something. The Hun invasion didn't wipe out the
Germanic population. The Aryan Invasion didn't wipe out the native
Dravidians in India.
There was no Aryan invasion of India - that is another myth.
Was it legal immigration then?
[/quote:64cad741e8]
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/aryan.html
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-aryan-myth.html
There was no invastion, no immigration, nada. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gom |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Anne Gilbert" <kebara@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<AOOdnVBOVfW-gond4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
[quote:c81fd14ebc]Gom:
to talk like cro-magnons.
I have no idea where you read this, but there's absolutely no evidence of
this. They even had a modern-looking hyoid bone.
[/quote:c81fd14ebc]
Check this site:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Wilford_98.html
It was widely believed that Neanderthals didn't have speech capacities
like the modern Cromagnon man. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| People's Commissar |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
WAS believed. NOT believed any more. Gilbert is an expert on the
Neandertal. You just GOT an expert to answer you.
"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401251519.3640abf4@posting.google.com...
[quote:f6579af1ab]"Anne Gilbert" <kebara@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<AOOdnVBOVfW-gond4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
Gom:
to talk like cro-magnons.
I have no idea where you read this, but there's absolutely no evidence
of
this. They even had a modern-looking hyoid bone.
Check this site:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Wilford_98.html
It was widely believed that Neanderthals didn't have speech capacities
like the modern Cromagnon man.[/quote:f6579af1ab] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| gom |
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"People's Commissar" <tjsrno@spam.com> wrote in message news:<qmXQb.26491$1e.2881@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
[quote:f99973b9dd]"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401251259.5db25949@posting.google.com...
Well, any threatened people react in some fashion. They learn new
methods, flee, or something. The Hun invasion didn't wipe out the
Germanic population. The Aryan Invasion didn't wipe out the native
Dravidians in India.
There was no Aryan invasion of India - that is another myth.
Was it legal immigration then?
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/aryan.html
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-aryan-myth.html
There was no invastion, no immigration, nada.
[/quote:f99973b9dd]
That's thirdrate scholarship with cultural agendas of its own.
Also, Aryan is a cultural category, not racial.
And, do explain why so many Indians are lightskinned and Caucasian
looking compared to some who are very dark and Patelish. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nim |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"gom" <walrussian@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73994cc8.0401251930.7ab4ba4@posting.google.com...
[quote:fac9039d31]
There was no Aryan invasion of India - that is another myth.
Was it legal immigration then?
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/aryan.html
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-aryan-myth.html
There was no invastion, no immigration, nada.
That's thirdrate scholarship with cultural agendas of its own.
[/quote:fac9039d31]
No, he lists first hand studies, finds and genetics.
[quote:fac9039d31]
Also, Aryan is a cultural category, not racial.
And, do explain why so many Indians are lightskinned and Caucasian
looking compared to some who are very dark and Patelish.
[/quote:fac9039d31]
After the Harrapan finds, they performed genetic tests. Aryan is a word
that designates the Shivaite culture of India. That is all it designates.
It has never been a racial term or a cultural term. Arya and Dasya are
Indian words - both words can be used to define the same person. Suggest
you ask people from India themselves. Or see this
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/aryan.html
where there is information on that, on the Harrapan finds and on the genetic
tests. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tedd Jacobs |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Nim" wrote...
[quote:89e87917ff]
"gom" wrote...
Also, Aryan is a cultural category, not racial.
After the Harrapan finds, they performed genetic tests. Aryan is a word
that designates the Shivaite culture of India. That is all it designates.
It has never been a racial term or a cultural term.
[/quote:89e87917ff]
if the word designates the Shivaite culture then is a cultural term (cultural
category).
also, definitions:
from: http://www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=Aryan
\Ar"yan\ ([aum]r"yan or [a^]r"[i^]*an), a.
Of or pertaining to the people called Aryans; Indo-European;
Indo-Germanic; as, the Aryan stock, the Aryan languages.
Aryan, Arian
noun
1 (in Nazi ideology) a Caucasian of non-Jewish descent, esp. of the Nordic
type
2 a member of any of the peoples supposedly descended from the Indo-Europeans,
esp. a speaker of an Iranian or Indic language in ancient times adjective
3 of, relating to, or characteristic of an Aryan or Aryans adjective, noun
4 (archaic) Indo-European
[ETYMOLOGY: 19th Century: from Sanskrit arya of noble birth]
from: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/Aryan
ARYAN
Pronunciation: 'ehreeun
Definition: [n] a member of the prehistoric people who spoke Proto-Indo
European.
[n] (according to Nazi doctrine) a non-Jewish Caucasian person of Nordic
descent
[adj] of or relating to the former Indo-European people; "Indo-European
migrations"
Webster's 1913 Dictionary:
Definition: \Ar"yan\, n. [Skr. [=a]rya
excellent, honorable; akin to the name of the country Iran,
and perh. to Erin, Ireland, and the early name of this
people, at least in Asia.]
1. One of a primitive people supposed to have lived in
prehistoric times, in Central Asia, east of the Caspian
Sea, and north of the Hindoo Koosh and Paropamisan
Mountains, and to have been the stock from which sprang
the Hindoo, Persian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Teutonic,
Slavonic, and other races; one of that ethnological
division of mankind called also Indo-European or
Indo-Germanic.
2. The language of the original Aryans. [Written also
{Arian}.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nim |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Anne Gilbert" <kebara@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AOOdnVBOVfW-gond4p2dnA@comcast.com...
I'm told you are an expert on Neandertal. Do you have a website?
Do you know - or think - that baldness and/or endomorphy comes from
Neandertal admixture? I think Neandertal did mix with H. sapiens.
Thank you.
[quote:62aa7b72c0]
Gom:
to talk like cro-magnons.
I have no idea where you read this, but there's absolutely no evidence of
this. They even had a modern-looking hyoid bone.
So, isn't it strange that Neanderthals all died out? They had to have
been killed unless it was a mass suicide.
It seems to have taken an awfully long time to "kill them off". And as
for
the idea that they were "killed off by cold", my problem with that is,
these
same writers who claim they couldn't "really" talk also tend to claim they
were "cold adapted"(and some popular writers follow this lead so closely
that they have Neandertals complaining if it's a nice comfortable 75° out
there. But if they were "cold adapted", advancing glaciers shouldn't have
bothered them. And apparently they *did* learn new things toward the end
of
their time. So go figure.
Anne G
[/quote:62aa7b72c0] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tedd Jacobs |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Nim" wrote...
[quote:da7ea81b2a]"Tedd Jacobs" wrote...
Western definitions, older or more recent, based on "scientific racism" are
ignored. Aryavarta: the *ancient* name of India itself. Aryasatyani: the
four truths Duikha, Samudaya, Noridha and Marga. Arya: originally a title
of the Rishis who had mastered the four truths. Dasya, title of a person of
bad character. One single person could be called either, based on his
behavior. Only later was it stoken from the Indians to be used as a name
for all Europeans. There is no such thing as a "German" Aryan. White
"scientific racism" of the past, accepted as fact, reminds me of the
craziest of the Afrocentric claims - both of these people (white and black)
tried to steal cultural heritage.
Shivaite is a culture and religious system, one of the most, or *the most*
ancient. Aryan is the name of an Indian in India/Aryavarta. As you might
agree; that's not a "race." Or perhaps it is. But it's not Germanic;
stealing the word doesn't count.
[/quote:da7ea81b2a]
i'm going to try here nim, work with me please.
i agree, it is not race. the definition references i provided are definitions of
the word as acepted by more than one dictionary. we cannot make up our own rules
about what 'counts' and what doesnt count. most every word in use today was
stolen from somewhere and has an origin in which the original definition may
have been quite different from the accepted use we have today. it is not our
luxury to just make it up as we go and decide arbitrarily what we want or dont
want each word to mean. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nim |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tedd Jacobs" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:Hp2Rb.82$B61.69591@news.uswest.net...
[quote:7581b87e80]
"Nim" wrote...
"Tedd Jacobs" wrote...
Western definitions, older or more recent, based on "scientific racism"
are
ignored. Aryavarta: the *ancient* name of India itself. Aryasatyani:
the
four truths Duikha, Samudaya, Noridha and Marga. Arya: originally a
title
of the Rishis who had mastered the four truths. Dasya, title of a
person of
bad character. One single person could be called either, based on his
behavior. Only later was it stoken from the Indians to be used as a
name
for all Europeans. There is no such thing as a "German" Aryan. White
"scientific racism" of the past, accepted as fact, reminds me of the
craziest of the Afrocentric claims - both of these people (white and
black)
tried to steal cultural heritage.
Shivaite is a culture and religious system, one of the most, or *the
most*
ancient. Aryan is the name of an Indian in India/Aryavarta. As you
might
agree; that's not a "race." Or perhaps it is. But it's not Germanic;
stealing the word doesn't count.
i'm going to try here nim, work with me please.
i agree, it is not race. the definition references i provided are
definitions of
the word as acepted by more than one dictionary.
[/quote:7581b87e80]
In the West.
we cannot make up our own rules
[quote:7581b87e80]about what 'counts' and what doesnt count. most every word in use today
was
stolen from somewhere and has an origin in which the original definition
may
have been quite different from the accepted use we have today. it is not
our
luxury to just make it up as we go and decide arbitrarily what we want or
dont
want each word to mean.
[/quote:7581b87e80]
When the Aryans are still alive and well in India, after having suffered
though and endured the colonial people of Europe treating them like
subhumans in their own country, I tend to regard *only* their own language
for the definition of their own word; a word still used today.
Btw, I made typos and added a qualifier in my post to myself (guess you did
not see that).
Corrections of typos: Dukha, Samudaya, Nirodha, Marga
Stoken should be stolen.
Usually, when Chinese speak casually of culture, they refer to that which
comes from the "heart" and lineage of the people; as such, it is almost
synonymous with ethnic group. Minorities in China take issue with being
called "Chinese" because they claim to be of another *race and culture* -
also called "ethnic group." Hence, Chinese would not consider themselves
"Asians" in the same sense that Japanese or SE Asians would be called Asians
by the whites. When Chinese insist on calling a Uighur "Chinese," trust me,
it's insulting and political and we know it. I'd call PComm's grandfather
Chinese (but she'd have my head for it if I did  He's Tatar. (Born in
China). I'm more American than she is. However, I am Chinese. When I say
that, there really isn't any clear western definition from a dictionary to
define what I *mean* by that. It is more like a combination of
ethnic/culture/race/state of being/mentality all in one.
This might be similar to Alberto (elsewhere), who is Brazilian, stating that
he is *not* Hispanic.
Aryan is a person from India that is not just born there, but whose people
have come from there as indigenous people. Descendents of the Moghuls
(Mongols) e.g., would not be Aryans, no matter how long they've lived in
India..
[quote:7581b87e80]
[/quote:7581b87e80] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:20 pm
|
|