<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 18 2007, 08:49 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 18 2007, 08:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Human races were grouped by skin tone and other such simplistic schemes. And for a long time there were different racial categorisation schemes with some people putting Australian Aboriginals under the African heading, others saying that they were separate because of the occurrence of blonde hair; some dividing the Africans further into the Bushmen 'race' and a few other groups; and still others grouping Indians as Africans or otherwise as Australian Aboriginals. Makes one's head spin.[right][snapback]70257[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->An example with images from a book that has separated the Bushmen from the rest of Africa - because they aren't dark brown enough to be considered alongside other African communities. Hence the involuntarily separated Bushmen are called 'Capoids':
<i>World of Science</i>, published by Bay Books (Sydney and London), National Library of Australia card number and ISBN 1 86256 273 3
(No year given, but the book is at least as old as very late 1980s.)
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The above pages explain what race means and how it's determined. What sort of 'science' is this? As arbitrary as you please. And always different from others' categorisation of race (some admit only 3 races: N, C, M). All of this is only from the POV of western anthropologists. Which explains why 'Capoid' is not allowed to be grouped under 'Negroid', and why 'black' Africans in liberated Africa are now persecuting the 'brown' African Bushmen to extinction: because they think the Bushmen are somehow much closer related to the 'white' colonisers. Horrid legacy of lies. Enough.
<i>World of Science</i>, published by Bay Books (Sydney and London), National Library of Australia card number and ISBN 1 86256 273 3
(No year given, but the book is at least as old as very late 1980s.)
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/RacesPage2.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
The above pages explain what race means and how it's determined. What sort of 'science' is this? As arbitrary as you please. And always different from others' categorisation of race (some admit only 3 races: N, C, M). All of this is only from the POV of western anthropologists. Which explains why 'Capoid' is not allowed to be grouped under 'Negroid', and why 'black' Africans in liberated Africa are now persecuting the 'brown' African Bushmen to extinction: because they think the Bushmen are somehow much closer related to the 'white' colonisers. Horrid legacy of lies. Enough.