|
Post by MC anunnaki on Aug 1, 2005 5:52:20 GMT -5
YOU are the one who hates God. God's finest creation is the Aryan (that is, White Europeans, not your feces-colored friends in India). He made my kind in His Image. That you would work AGAINST God's Image on Earth indicates that you are a worker of iniquity. Race mixing is a SIN in all evolved philosophical systems. *uncontrollable laughter* and so forth. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 1, 2005 6:39:05 GMT -5
I answered this in another post that had the same question: -If anyone posts any thing about sub-saharan (or from any other region) influence in North Africa, I'd take, it interests me... But if a retareded person tries to use recently mixed Berbers like the tuareg to prove that Jughurta, Massinissa, Tariq Ibn Zyad were Black and that present day Berber are just a result of Arab and Roman mix, it irritates me. -It also irritates me to see Tuareg being presented as a representitive sample of Berbers whereas it has been proven by many genecists that they are outliers. -As for your pschological "mulatoid" problems, I don't care. What proof do you have that Tuaregs were originally 'pure' Berbers that became 'blackened'? Tuaregs have 34% E1 and though E1 is sub-Saharan its fairly geographically restricted to Saharan black populations. Plus the Tuaregs nearest genetic 'neighbors' are the Beja of the Red Sea Hills, so unless you want to say the same thing for Bejas you have no argument here. Tuaregs are 'Berbers' linguistically, whats so hard to see about that? When did anyone use Berbers as the representative Berber population? Quit setting up stupid strawmen to knock down. Plese quote those geneticists who say Tuaregs are outliers. Mithochondrial DNA heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers: Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations: "Moreover, the longest internal branches of both the neighbour-joinig tree (not show) and the split diagram (Fig. 6a) separate the sub-Saharan populations including the Tuareg from the other Northwest African populations."
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 1, 2005 7:09:49 GMT -5
R1a1 originated in Upper Paleolithic times and represents multiple migratory events, from Upper Paleolithic until recent times. Subclades of R1a1 specific to these specific events have not been identified so far. Subclades no, but specific lineages (I think this is the term) yes. Check the YHRD databse. It can be seen as a Turkish marker when history is taken into account. See Dienekes, it all has to be done in the context of what we know from history. Scientists do that all the time these days, in one report after another. R1a1 is a Slavic marker. It's also a proto-Indo-European marker...hence its presence in south India...where it got there via genetic drift from the north. I point you to the very latest report on the issue, which you obviously haven't read. If you've got something more recent, then plase show it to us, but please spare us your opinion on the issue, which I'll ignore any day in favor of what appears in official scientififc reports. BTW, this report supercedes a previous one that tried to debunk the fact that R1a1 found it way to India from the north. www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/CordauxCurBiol2004.pdf Yeah, it is. In the future that will only become more obvious, as Balto-Slavic specififc subclades are singled out.
|
|
Melani2333
Full Member
http://www.livingwaters.com
Posts: 194
|
Post by Melani2333 on Aug 1, 2005 7:51:34 GMT -5
I see the debate still rages on. ;D Face it! Most N. Africans will never be considered "true Whites", despite genetic studies. Move on---> Amaska, I am not a troll and NEVER post using pseudonyms. Also, I have never posted anything disparaging Berbers - some of you (not you B ) are quite cute, especially that soccar player. Most of you Berber people to untrained American eyes look to be dark South Frenchmen, Semitic, or *GASP* Mulattoesque. LOL! And no, the 1-drop rule no longer applies in America, get your heads out of your We Americans can often tell who has *potential* Black Admixture, and this is only due to racism in America. BTW, Waadad is correct about that girl someone posted, she looks similar to many Quadroonish kids in the US. But on the other hand, she may be too dark and ethnic looking......LOL B & I -> I don't claim (nor want ) your culture. I have my own American Superpower (*cough*) culture of which to be proud. I can trace my ancestry (now this is a big deal for Americans ;D) back to 1776 on one side.... So, I don't really care about some nomads roaming North Africa in some brightly colored cloth and tattoos , now what did they accomplish globally again..... LOLZ!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 1, 2005 8:33:56 GMT -5
Subclades no, but specific lineages (I think this is the term) yes. Check the YHRD databse. No Slavic-specific lineages have been identified. There is no research on the phylogeny of R1a1 published in the literature. Irrelevant, since this study shows that R1a1 is associated with Indic speakers migrating into India, and hence proves my point that R1a1 is not a Slavic marker. If Balto-Slavic specific subclades are singled out, then these will be Balto-Slavic markers. R1a1 will never be a Slavic marker, because quite simply it did not originate in Slavs but antedates Slavs by many thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Aug 1, 2005 9:26:40 GMT -5
I think we're arguing semantics here. But anyway, for me it's enough that the Slavs carry a lot of R1a1, and also be responsible for ONE of the major expansions of this haplogroup in Europe and Asia, to call R1a1 a Slavic marker.
R1a1 is also a Indo-European marker, and was brought to India with Indo-Europeans NOT Slavs. However, this does not exclude it from being a Slavic marker.
That's like saying R is, relatively speaking, a Caucasoid marker. I mean, it's mostly found in Caucasoids, but also in North American natives. Does this mean it's not a Caucasoid marker Dienekes? I think you'll find that many reports out there see it as a Caucasoid marker.
|
|
|
Post by masri on Aug 1, 2005 13:07:18 GMT -5
I see the debate still rages on. ;D Face it! Most N. Africans will never be considered "true Whites", despite genetic studies. Move on---> Amaska, I am not a troll and NEVER post using pseudonyms. Also, I have never posted anything disparaging Berbers - some of you (not you B ) are quite cute, especially that soccar player. Most of you Berber people to untrained American eyes look to be dark South Frenchmen, Semitic, or *GASP* Mulattoesque. LOL! And no, the 1-drop rule no longer applies in America, get your heads out of your We Americans can often tell who has *potential* Black Admixture, and this is only due to racism in America. BTW, Waadad is correct about that girl someone posted, she looks similar to many Quadroonish kids in the US. But on the other hand, she may be too dark and ethnic looking......LOL B & I -> I don't claim (nor want ) your culture. I have my own American Superpower (*cough*) culture of which to be proud. I can trace my ancestry (now this is a big deal for Americans ;D) back to 1776 on one side.... So, I don't really care about some nomads roaming North Africa in some brightly colored cloth and tattoos , now what did they accomplish globally again..... LOLZ! Your smileys per paragraph ratio is quite high. That's probably the only area where you can beat North Africans. Just cut the crap. Nobody has told me I look mullatto or quadroon or part-black. Furthermore, most Americans can tell the difference between dark and part-black, there are differences to see and they're quite easy to spot. Stop making Americans look dumb and ignorant. Though, you're right, to many people Middle Easterners and North Africans will never be white. It's OK with me, they can drown in their ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Aug 1, 2005 13:52:59 GMT -5
White is a term that has always been used to describe only Europeans or those decended from Europe or even look overwhelmingly European,thats just way it is. I doubt it will change.
regular everyday Americans do not call or describe North Africans or Middle Easterners as blacks . Usueally the only name that is used in times of generalization is Arab or Arabic or middle Eastern.
|
|
Melani2333
Full Member
http://www.livingwaters.com
Posts: 194
|
Post by Melani2333 on Aug 1, 2005 14:00:50 GMT -5
White is a term that has always been used to describe only Europeans or those decended from Europe or even look overwhelmingly European,thats just way it is. I doubt it will change. regular everyday Americans do not call or describe North Africans or Middle Easterners as blacks . Usueally the only name that is used in times of generalization is Arab or Arabic or middle Eastern. True. They shouldn't want to be compared to Whites anyway. Their culture is far older. Masri, HA! HA! HA! Here are some extra 4U. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Aug 2, 2005 7:04:49 GMT -5
I see the debate still rages on. ;D Face it! Most N. Africans will never be considered "true Whites", despite genetic studies. Move on---> I don't really care how people classify "semites": white, swarthy, darkies, sandniggers, semites, I leave the terminology of naming ethnics to others. My interest is in the genetics and racial make up of Berbers, but i will stand up against any thief (eg: charlie bass) who wants to rip off Berbers' heritage. If "security" is giving his ass to thieves, no I am not secure, I get frustrated and very very insecure when congo-centrists steal my people's history. As for your favourite subjects about whiteness, be informed that I have no interest in them, I hope that from now on, you will stop trolling as you have just done, either you disagree about what I say [for example: Tuareg are outliers] or you just keep quite. Here is my opinion about whiteness :
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Aug 2, 2005 7:24:30 GMT -5
What proof do you have that Tuaregs were originally 'pure' Berbers that became 'blackened'? Tuaregs have 34% E1 and though E1 is sub-Saharan its fairly geographically restricted to Saharan black populations. Plus the Tuaregs nearest genetic 'neighbors' are the Beja of the Red Sea Hills, so unless you want to say the same thing for Bejas you have no argument here. Tuaregs are 'Berbers' linguistically, whats so hard to see about that? When did anyone use Berbers as the representative Berber population? Quit setting up stupid strawmen to knock down. Plese quote those geneticists who say Tuaregs are outliers. Mithochondrial DNA heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers: Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations: "Moreover, the longest internal branches of both the neighbour-joinig tree (not show) and the split diagram (Fig. 6a) separate the sub-Saharan populations including the Tuareg from the other Northwest African populations." Good post, I respect you for that. Now, moving on, what specific proof do you have that Tuaregs were originally pure "non-Negroid" Berbers who mixed with "Negroids"?
|
|
Melani2333
Full Member
http://www.livingwaters.com
Posts: 194
|
Post by Melani2333 on Aug 2, 2005 9:41:06 GMT -5
Mithochondrial DNA heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers: Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations: "Moreover, the longest internal branches of both the neighbour-joinig tree (not show) and the split diagram (Fig. 6a) separate the sub-Saharan populations including the Tuareg from the other Northwest African populations." Good post, I respect you for that. Now, moving on, what specific proof do you have that Tuaregs were originally pure "non-Negroid" Berbers who mixed with "Negroids"? Igu, I responded to you in the other thread. Once should suffice. And the term Congo-centric. Quite racist. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Just because current theory is being challenged (not claimed ), it should not warrant such "hatred". I certainly don't want your culture, I like many, do however, want the truth. I see that hatred for peoples of color in America (who they probably have never met is a sad reflection of one's own sad circumstances in life. Hilter did the same, just like many Eastern Euros blame "foreigners" for their own personal short-comings. If one was about something themselves, they would not have a problem with other people (s). The answer to most DD posts is really quite simple, the peoples everyone is "fighting over" resemble in part: how they look now, their artwork, paintings, etc, ancient discriptions of themselves, DNA studies, migrations routes, conquering nations, rulers, etc. Most nation-states from surrounding areas do share similar features - race aside. And to suggest Turagegs, N. Africans, berbers, etc who spent millenia in Africa without ever "steppin' foot in the kitchen". HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. It is when people of today with their own biases project what they THINK of cultures that really gets into a fray. Oh well, debate on........ It matters little to me anyway but sure is a fun way to past my breaks at work. LOL! Do any of regular posters have jobs? LOL! ;D Hmmmm, I wonder how I would be treated in these "Berber" lands.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Aug 2, 2005 11:26:34 GMT -5
My interpretation of the Berbers here:
Igu: not really obsessed with wanting to be white, but gets heart attacks when black and Berber are mention in the same sentence. Fear factor of Blackness level: 5
Amska: Displays no fear of blackness and generally accepts *ALL* Berbers as Berbers, regardless of physical appearance. Fear factor of Blackness level: 2
Berter: Obsessed with Berbers being white; spams the board repeatedly with pictures of European looking Berbers; does not consider non-European looking Berbers as true Berbers; posts on a Aryan Nationalist "Berber" forum[now how dumb is that?] Fear factor of Blackness level: 10+
Overall it does seem that the berbers here do fear blackness. They don't raise concerns when European looking Berbers are posted, but if any Berber with the slightest bit of visible black ancestry is posted, for some odd reason they freak out with stupid conspiracy theories about people wanting to claim Berbers as black, but Berbers haven't done anything worth claiming in my humble opinion so whats the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Aug 2, 2005 18:57:44 GMT -5
The Tuareg have traditionally had a strong class structure. "Socially the Tuareg are divided into five classes, viz.: Thaggaren or nobles; Marabouts or priests; Imghad or serfs; Ireghenaten or cross-breeds; and the slaves. The nobles are all pure-blooded, and provide the tribal chiefs. They do no manual work, but almost live in the saddle, either convoying those caravans which have paid blackmail for safe passage, or making raids on trade-routes or even outlying Arab settlements. Before the French occupation they sometimes penetrated into the very heart of Algeria and Tunisia. Among the Imghad serfdom is hereditary, and whole tribes are vassals to the nobles. They cannot be sold or freed like slaves, though they may be inherited. Most of them have practical independence and act as " squires " to the nobles on their pillaging expeditions. The cross-breeds are the descendants of mixed marriages between the nobles and serfs. These follow their mother's status. The slaves are chiefly Sudanese negroes. They are well treated and are practically members of the Tuareg family, but the Tuareg never intermarry with them." 49.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TU/TUAREG_OR_TAWAREK.htm
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Aug 2, 2005 20:45:05 GMT -5
No, I am not a Jew. If you must know, I'm an American with Greek and Germanic ancestry. Are you Greek on your paternal or maternal side or both? Have you taken any chromosomal DNA tests to see to which haplogroup you belong and look at your haplotypes?
|
|