"where there's on-going Afrocentrism/race debate."

Jason, I wouldn't call it an Afrocentrism debate, though that subject was touched on peripherally in Doric Greek's, I think it was, criticism of the thesis of Richard Poe's book, "Black Spark, White Fire," as being Afrocentric (which, I gather, is open to question).

From what I saw, it was a debate partly over "Thought's" position that there were no such things as races, which according to him (and of course the leftist neo-Marxist community in general) are merely a "social construct," and partly over the extent to which sub-Saharan and other recent Africans are part of the ancestry of the various European ethnicities or races, including Nordics and Mediterraneans.

"Thought," who of course took part with Richard Poe, Dienekes, and others in a GnXp.com debate over similar subject-matter, is a tenacious debater who does not shrink from taking several adversaries on at once, and who seems to know his subject for the most part, though he carelessly strays into areas where he is less-well prepared. He gives a good account of himself in debate (despite being completely wrong about, for one thing, the validity of claiming that there are no such things as races).

Thought's main interests seem to include educating white Euros and others about: 1) the fact that white Euros are believed to have sprung from remote Negro-like African ancestors who had dark skins and prognathic facial structures when they first arrived in Europe (or in central Asia before going to Europe, as the case may be); 2) the existence of a black-skinned "Caucasian facial look" which is, he says, entirely indigenous to (eastern) Africa and not the result of mixture with Caucasians; 3) the disqualification of the word Negro as applying broadly in any sense whatsoever African "black" folk, one benefit to be gained from this -- apart from increased precision and truth (by Thought's lights) -- being the elimination of a barrier against black African folk in general being able to feel they contributed to the birth of civilization in Egypt and perhaps to a certain extent in the Near East and Fertile Crescent also.

I took part in that exchange in order to defend the position that the denial of the existence of races is untenable.

I mentioned my conviction that race-denial is the product ultimately of the minds of Marxists and neo-Marxists.

(In my first sentence above, I didn't mean that the thesis of Richard Poe's book, "Black Spark, White Fire" was open to question. I meant that the contention -- by Doric Greek I think it was -- that that thesis was an Afrocectric one was open to question. I don't happen to have read that book yet -- but it's looking more and more like I'm going to have to.)

I didn't mean that the thesis of Richard Poe's book, "Black Spark, White Fire" was open to question. I meant that the contention -- by Doric Greek I think it was -- that that thesis was an Afrocectric one was open to question.

So, you think it's still in question whether or not the book Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe is Afrocentric? Ok.

As for the race debate, you really got bogged down with semantics. Poe completely nailed it with this very clear-headed comment [emphasis mine]:

I will leave Thought with this parting shot. In my opinion, eliminating the word "race" will not cause people to acquire a more complex or subtle view of racial differences than they already have. The word "race," like most words, can be absolute or ambiguous, simple or complex, depending upon its use. It is neither more nor less flexible than any of the words Thought may wish to use in its stead. [a very excellent point - JM] When Winston Churchill famously praised the British "race," he was not suggesting that the British are profoundly different from, say, the French, in any physical way.

Human beings are subdivided into different kinship groups, some of which are physically distinct and some of which are not, but all of which can be called "races," depending on the context. Referring to these groups as "clusters" or whatever rather than "races" will neither clarify any point about physical anthropology nor will it have a pacifying effect on people who are inclined toward racial hatred. Racial ideologues will not be dissuaded from their purpose by whatever momentary semantic confusion they experience upon first encountering a term such as "tropical African."

Jason, a few things:

I agree one hundred percent with everything you just said in your comment: 1) the debate did get bogged down in semantics (which was unavoidable given that a participant refused to admit that "races" existed -- it was either dwell on semantics or unilaterally withdraw from the debate altogether); 2) your final paragraph above is one hundred percent right, and 3) the passage by Richard Poe which you quoted is one hundred percent right.

I'll add: in today's world, "people who are inclined toward racial hatred," as you put it, and "racial ideologues" and "their purposes," are to be found just as much -- if not more so -- on the side of the "race-deniers" as on any other side (I would say "more so"). They're not expending so much time and energy devising sophistries aimed at denying the obvious for the weak-minded of the world, for nothing. They've got ultimate intentions which are worse than unpleasant -- they're frightening.

the debate did get bogged down in semantics (which was unavoidable given that a participant refused to admit that "races" existed

Thought knows that people who had/have ancestors from certain parts of the world within a certain window of history will likely have certain genes and share them with other people from that place and window. What those genes do is not important for the discussion. If he wouldn't/won't agree on a word, just move on to the data the idea encompasses. You and I, Unadorned, might not agree that "dogs" exist, but we might agree that a four-legged mammal that goes "bark" and chases cats exists. Horray, common ground! I'll call it a dog, you can call it whatever the hell you want.

I'll add: in today's world, "people who are inclined toward racial hatred," as you put it...

I didn't put that. Everything in the indented blockquote (except for the initialed parenthetical) is Poe's.

(Sorry for mistaking Poe's quote for your comment!)