real expert
Regular Member
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 520
- Points
- 93
Yeah, I thought I was the only one noticing an almost political, racism/oppression, Eurocentrism narrative, some of them were trying to not so lightly peddle. Some of these posters seem to be insinuating that when both academics and amateurs, refer to Basal Eurasians as “Basal Eurasians” lol, it represents some form of Western chauvinism, which is pure nonsense. Basal Eurasians are simply a hypothetical population; they were devised to explain a specific basal genetic affinity both modern and ancient West Eurasians have, relative to all other Eurasians. It’s not a purely geographic term, because such terminology is quite vague, and provides us nothing elucidating, genetically speaking. Are Neandersovans “African” now? What about all Eurasians? No one there is really calling them out on this ideological sewage, for fear of being banned it seems. These people really should be put under greater scrutiny by the moderators over there, this is just a form of idealogical coping, and semantics. No different than Nordicism and Mediterraneanism.
Only people with an agenda can create a drama about the term "Basal Eurasians". "Basal" is a term in biology for 'primitive' or 'ancestral'. Basal is preferred because it is neutral and non-judgmental. This terminology came into use with cladistics. The term is used in evolution and classification to mean the group which gave rise to later forms. Hence, Ancestral Eurasians imply that Basal Eurasians don‘t need to be Eurasians proper.