Isn't it funny that what you referenced, used Central Africa, for its poorly done research - the same Central Africa that's the most exploited region in Africa due to its vast resources, from the Portuguese, to the Spanish, to the Brits, to the French, to the Germans, to the Dutch, and Belgians. A region where exploitation has been going on for over 400 years; a region where the Portuguese and Dutch armies were stationed for decades in the 1600s and 1700s, in their brutal wars with Kongo Kingdom. How shocking that there are 'Yellow People' there! Absolutely shocking, isn't it?
Also, excerpts from the same article (paragraphs 5, 7 & 8):
A typical yellow African of pure indigenous character is usually tall, inclined to be slender, with large, bright, brown eyes and rather aquiline nose (the aquilinity greatly modified, however, from the norm), much smaller hands and feet than the other Africans, kinky hair, and oily skin. His bearing is usually more dignified than that of the blacks, and his general appearance much handsomer.
Technologically the yellow men seem superior to the others ; their arts and industries are more advanced and their skill greater.
The bright-colored Africans are also generally more intelligent, of a more sensitive nervous organism, less emotional but more vivacious, and much more apt to cherish resentment.
Err, so how come the cac who wrote the article believes that these 'Yellow men' are more 'dignified'/'handsomer' than 'blacks', and go on to say that they're 'technologically superior' (which means smarter) since he said they weren't from a separate group and are just an anomaly within different African tribes? And how can they be 'superior' if they share the same genotype with the other groups and the anomaly is in the phenotype? Anyone with a brain would see the racist agenda here, despite the idiotic effort to mask with it pseudo-intellectualism and half-baked research.
The writer also went on to say this in the last paragraph:
Again, there is evidence that there have been three general successive migrations of people into Africa from the northeast, the region of the Nile and the Red Sea. Of these, the first settled Egypt and may have passed southward ; the second built the pyramids ; the third occurred after the rise of Muhammed and produced effects still discernible, though the immigrants are not yet crystallized as a distinct ethnic stratum. Each migration-group was probably lighter in color than the preceding one, and the commingling of the descendants of later comers with the offspring of the earlier groups would suffice to produce at least six distinct ethnic classes, with many more subsequently formed. All of these classes may be seen in the tribes of Africa today.
After paragraphs full of poor research, pure conjectures, and racist statements that contradict the writer's beliefs - the writer further contradicted himself on the last paragraph, by alluding to the successive migration into Africa, from the Nile valley region (which is true). A region where admixture between whites and blacks have been going for over 4,000 years and the region which birther the Arabs, who're mostly an admixture of white and black people. There are just too many holes in the junk article you posted as a rebuttal and I doubt you read it, before posting it.
So, if I may ask: what's your level of education because I don't believe anyone who has done dissertation, which is mostly about critical analysis would post a rubbish article like this one that contradicts itself, from paragraph to paragraph?
This ain't shyt to talk about.
.
