U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-08-2017, 02:32 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
21,374 posts, read 19,297,224 times
Reputation: 8487

Advertisements

A lot of what characterizes the West has come from Sumeria/Babylonia and Persia, not from Egypt. Both Babylonia and Persia have had a big impact on the early Jews, and via the Old and New Testament that has been transferred to the West - unfortunately in come cases.
Old law codes like Hammurabi and its predecessors have left their traces in our laws.

I don't think one can say that the Phoenician alphabet (sorry, alphabet was what I mean, not language) is derived from the Egyptian one as the latter was not really an alphabet. The Phoenicians did a great job, taking hieroglyphs to another dimension by abstracting them.

Sure, there has been lots of mixing, and I don't support the the idea of three races, there are many smaller ones that don't fit in any of those three drawers. But many people still think that way: either you are white, black, or Asian.
In the case of Egypt however I think it is increasingly evident that they were a typical North-African, Mediterranean people, like ancient Jews, Phoenicians, etc., not a black people.
I think the term North-African basically means non-black African.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-08-2017, 03:03 PM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,230,790 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgn2013 View Post
Basically it sounds like whites are going to claim anything "Caucasian", which means including people that they'd never consider as one of them in a modern context.

There are 7 major DNA haplogroups: L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6. Africa contains all of these groups but the rest of the world descends from just L3. Since we all came from Africa, maybe Africans should just lay claim to those accomplishments as well. I mean if north Europeans can connect themselves to Iranians, Nigerians might as well claim Genghis Khan.

It sounds silly, sure. However, the link between a Viking and a Turk is about as tenuous as the link between the Nok and the Mongols.




This is factually incorrect.


The Neolithic expansion spread from Anatolia(it was a cultural and genetic diffusion) the Early European Famer genetic component is a significant component of Scandinavians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 09:11 AM
 
4,433 posts, read 4,414,660 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
[/b]

This is factually incorrect.

The Neolithic expansion spread from Anatolia(it was a cultural and genetic diffusion) the Early European Famer genetic component is a significant component of Scandinavians.
No it not.............

All of human general already "have genetic component is a significant component" to literally everybody else.... Human already share 99% the same DNA genetics

Race today is used a idiom for appearance and ancestry, it used to make simplistic understanding of the world you blank features your ancestors came here. Nothing in a deep thought


but when actually try map Neolithic humans and race it immediately become erroneous

Basically we used race to cultural understand ancestry

But if you try to use as science your going have a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 09:44 AM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,230,790 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
No it not.............

All of human general already "have genetic component is a significant component" to literally everybody else.... Human already share 99% the same DNA genetics

Race today is used a idiom for appearance and ancestry, it used to make simplistic understanding of the world you blank features your ancestors came here. Nothing in a deep thought


but when actually try map Neolithic humans and race it immediately become erroneous

Basically we used race to cultural understand ancestry

But if you try to use as science your going have a problem.
You misunderstood my post. I'm not a supporter of the race categories. I suspect you aren't familiar with the details of the Neolithic expansion and it's cultural and genetic implications on European populations. All European populations share some basal European components European Hunter Gatherers, Early European Farmers, a basal population shared with Amerindians from North Eurasia and Bronze age invaders from the Steppe. My point is that some posters on here see "race, race, race" when it isn't even mentioned, that is the tinted lens with which many posters on here process the information through. (If you review my post you responded to it is clear it was about culture and genetics not race).


It is true that all populations are genetically linked but some without dispute have much more recent ties genetically and culturally than others which you did not recognize when you offered a false equivalency of the Turks/Vikings with the NOK/Mongols.

Last edited by AFP; 08-09-2017 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 10:32 AM
 
4,433 posts, read 4,414,660 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
A lot of what characterizes the West has come from Sumeria/Babylonia and Persia, not from Egypt. Both Babylonia and Persia have had a big impact on the early Jews, and via the Old and New Testament that has been transferred to the West - unfortunately in come cases.
Old law codes like Hammurabi and its predecessors have left their traces in our laws.

I don't think one can say that the Phoenician alphabet (sorry, alphabet was what I mean, not language) is derived from the Egyptian one as the latter was not really an alphabet. The Phoenicians did a great job, taking hieroglyphs to another dimension by abstracting them.

Sure, there has been lots of mixing, and I don't support the the idea of three races, there are many smaller ones that don't fit in any of those three drawers. But many people still think that way: either you are white, black, or Asian.
In the case of Egypt however I think it is increasingly evident that they were a typical North-African, Mediterranean people, like ancient Jews, Phoenicians, etc., not a black people.
I think the term North-African basically means non-black African.
This show you still don't get there not 3..... there wasn't many smaller races. Humans are not divide scientific into race.

Again race is modern social construct.. we used it a simplistic cultural way to understand an ancestry


To say my ancestors came from Europe and Africa, to these specific group and this my heritage.......... find

But to try map Neolithic humans like saying oh my ancestors in Ireland are connected to a larger distinctive group of Humans all the freakin way to the Indus Valley doesn't exist and this called scientific racism

Cause now your not using race as modern social construct to simplistic culturally understand ancestry but rather use it as science. When it factually the lines of race doesn't exist, scientist stop using the concept of race after WW2.

I ask you what is mix, what is pure? Again we use race as modern social construct a simplistic cultural way to understand an ancestry so saying someone half Irish and Mande up to a few hundreds years ago would make sense in that context it's not a deep scientist thought. "mix" make sense here.

but to say Ethiopians are "mixed" with Caucasian and go back thousands of years that too deep now you say race actually exist scientifically. The further you go back the more broader and abstract things become. Going back to neolithic human there's no point of saying people are mix. because then everybody is mix and everybody is pure cause humans are one species with a singular origin. and have 99% the same DNA pointless.

Race only make sense for mapping recent ancestry a couple hundred to maybe a thousand years going back. but back to neolithic time no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 11:33 AM
 
4,433 posts, read 4,414,660 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
You misunderstood my post. I'm not a supporter of the race categories. I suspect you aren't familiar with the details of the Neolithic expansion and it's cultural and genetic implications on European populations. All European populations share some basal European components European Hunter Gatherers, Early European Hunter Gatherers, a basal population shared with Amerindians from North Eurasia and Bronze age invaders from the Steppe. My point is that some posters on here see "race, race, race" when it isn't even mentioned, that is the tinted lens with which many posters on here process the information through. (If you review my post you responded to it is clear it was about culture and genetics not race).


It is true that all populations are genetically linked but some without dispute however some have much more recent ties genetically and culturally than others which you did not recognize when you offered a false equivalency of the Turks/Vikings with the NOK/Mongols.
Yes are..... Your dividing humanity into large groups which is the base of race... You can't go I'm not saying race then turn go "All European populations share" any combination of that is called race

His point was about cultures claiming each other there no point of that when going back to Neolithic times.

Neolithic times are about 10,000 to 2,000 bc...... it doesn't matter how cultural and genetic spread a cross the world that far back it ridiculous claim another group at the other end of a continent that far back. No matter how similar or diss similar they are.

Here the confusion I'm not arguing against Neolithic expansion..... I'm arguing against caring about and cultural claiming the Neolithic expansion..... that's ridiculous

Turks to Scandianians are obliviously closer have more cultural connection than West Africans to the Mongols that's a bad comparison. But you knew the larger point he was trying to make. That's what I agreed with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 01:12 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
21,374 posts, read 19,297,224 times
Reputation: 8487
Being German, I would never claim any of Greek culture for me, it would be absurd. When the Greeks flourished, my ancestors (Germanic and Celtic tribes) were still pretty uncivilized nomads. The Greeks were not my ancestors.
And frankly, even if they were my ancestors genetically, why would I claim the accomplishments of Greeks 3000-2000 years ago for myself? I don't even claim the accomplishments of fellow Germans for myself, it was the accomplishments of Goethe, Siemens, Einstein etc., not mine. I have no right to their accomplishments. Nor am I guilty of the wrongdoings of past Germans. I hate that whole clan thinking, frankly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 01:23 PM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,230,790 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
Yes are..... Your dividing humanity into large groups which is the base of race... You can't go I'm not saying race then turn go "All European populations share" any combination of that is called race

His point was about cultures claiming each other there no point of that when going back to Neolithic times.

Neolithic times are about 10,000 to 2,000 bc...... it doesn't matter how cultural and genetic spread a cross the world that far back it ridiculous claim another group at the other end of a continent that far back. No matter how similar or diss similar they are.

Here the confusion I'm not arguing against Neolithic expansion..... I'm arguing against caring about and cultural claiming the Neolithic expansion..... that's ridiculous

Turks to Scandianians are obliviously closer have more cultural connection than West Africans to the Mongols that's a bad comparison. But you knew the larger point he was trying to make. That's what I agreed with.

1. Stating that some groups are more closely related genetically has nothing to do with race. That is your interpretation as I've stated you see things through a racial lens and that's your world view I'm not here to change that. All European populations have at least those basal components that is factual and the best current genetic science supports that statement.


2. You don't have a clear understanding of the impact of the cultural and genetic impact on Europe in general from the Neolithic diffusion from Anatolia( Here is a more specific timeline estimate 9,000YBP starting in the Aegean specifically the island of Crete).


3. You are entitled to place whatever weight you choose to place on the Neolithic expansion but it is directly tied to population growth, a change in diet and a shift from a hunter gatherer lifestyle to living in organized communities). What exactly do you think was the impetus for development of structured hierarchical societies, cities and empires?


4.Don't assume you know the larger point that was being made and how I interpreted it. What exactly is your interpretation of what he was attempting to make?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2017, 11:22 PM
 
Location: No Coordinates Found
1,235 posts, read 476,012 times
Reputation: 783
List of Important Mathematicians - The Story of Mathematics (read the entire timeline at this website)


35000 BCE African First notched tally bones
3100 BCE Sumerian Earliest documented counting and measuring system
2700 BCE Egyptian Earliest fully-developed base 10 number system in use
2600 BCE Sumerian Multiplication tables, geometrical exercises and division problems
2000-1800 BCE Egyptian Earliest papyri showing numeration system and basic arithmetic
1800-1600 BCE Babylonian Clay tablets dealing with fractions, algebra and equations
1650 BCE Egyptian Rhind Papyrus (instruction manual in arithmetic, geometry, unit fractions, etc)
1200 BCE Chinese First decimal numeration system with place value concept
1200-900 BCE Indian Early Vedic mantras invoke powers of ten from a hundred all the way up to
a trillion
800-400 BCE Indian “Sulba Sutra” lists several Pythagorean triples and simplified Pythagorean
theorem for the sides of a square and a rectangle, quite accurate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 02:20 AM
 
3,496 posts, read 2,509,042 times
Reputation: 6760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyGoldenLife View Post
List of Important Mathematicians - The Story of Mathematics (read the entire timeline at this website)


35000 BCE African First notched tally bones
3100 BCE Sumerian Earliest documented counting and measuring system
2700 BCE Egyptian Earliest fully-developed base 10 number system in use
2600 BCE Sumerian Multiplication tables, geometrical exercises and division problems
2000-1800 BCE Egyptian Earliest papyri showing numeration system and basic arithmetic
1800-1600 BCE Babylonian Clay tablets dealing with fractions, algebra and equations
1650 BCE Egyptian Rhind Papyrus (instruction manual in arithmetic, geometry, unit fractions, etc)
1200 BCE Chinese First decimal numeration system with place value concept
1200-900 BCE Indian Early Vedic mantras invoke powers of ten from a hundred all the way up to
a trillion
800-400 BCE Indian “Sulba Sutra” lists several Pythagorean triples and simplified Pythagorean
theorem for the sides of a square and a rectangle, quite accurate
Lol. Looks like you forgot a couple of things there.

You mention Indians simplifying the Pythagorean theorem without initially mentioning Pythagoras.

No mention of Thales?

The Greek form of Algebra?

How about the Greeks calculating the circumfrence of the earth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top