|
Post by betrand on Dec 16, 2005 3:05:51 GMT -5
One thing that I hear so much, especially from Dienekes is that Ethiopians and East Africans have mtDNA lineages from intrusive Negroid females, totally untrue and Kivisild explains:
"Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow. Three different passages can be outlined.
The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches.
Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa.
Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia.
The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa."
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild - 2004
So much for the intrusive Negroid female theory.
|
|
|
Post by maniac on Jan 21, 2006 13:07:38 GMT -5
Although I don't agree with the use of the "true negro" term, It's impossible to argue that the Aethiopids are part of the negro subrace. Only Afrocentrics will agrue otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 13:14:15 GMT -5
Although I don't agree with the use of the "true negro" term, It's impossible to argue that the Aethiopids are part of the negro subrace. Only Afrocentrics will agrue otherwise. Then what race do East Africans belong to? They are Negroid but only a different type of Negroid.
|
|
|
Post by maniac on Jan 21, 2006 13:19:29 GMT -5
Are you sure, their culture , dress, music , history and language is much more different than the rest of black Africa. I can accept a lot of things when it comes to Africa but calling them negroes is a joke. They're a semitic people with negroid admixture. The people in the swahili coast could be considered another type of negroes but not them.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 13:24:50 GMT -5
Are you sure, their culture , dress, music , history and language is much more different than the rest of black Africa. I can accept a lot of things when it comes to Africa but calling them negroes is a joke. They're a semitic people with negroid admixture. The people in the swahili coast could be considered another type of negroes but not them. Culturally they are different, no disagreement, just as the rest of black Africa is culturally different. Semitic with Negroid admixture? You have to be sick, since its well known that the mixture in some Ethiopians is due to back migration from Southwest Asia.
|
|
|
Post by maniac on Jan 21, 2006 13:37:08 GMT -5
Black Africa is culturally diverse but one thing is clear you can easily distinguish their language and culture from the rest of the world. When it comes to Aethiopids it's a whole different matter they're culture and language is more in touch with its eastern roots. I thought all of this was common sense, I didn't think people would actually fight this fact. Please don't bring up that back migration stuff because with that logic you could claim everyone in the world is a black african.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 13:38:42 GMT -5
In the words of an imminent anthropologist:
"The extreme Negroid variant is just that, a variant, and not a "founding" or the "original" type."
History in Africa, Vol. 20, (1993), 129-154
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 13:42:49 GMT -5
Black Africa is culturally diverse but one thing is clear you can easily distinguish their language and culture from the rest of the world. the same with Ethiopians, so whats the difference? Last time I checked, Ethiopia is a part of "black Africa". just back up your claims and do you understand what back-migration is?
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 21, 2006 14:04:18 GMT -5
Skin color alone makes no race and Negrids are not defined just by their dark pigmentation. So "Black Africa" is one thing and Negrid another since there are worldwide people with dark skin which are not Negrid.
|
|
|
Post by maniac on Jan 21, 2006 14:36:04 GMT -5
Planet Asia,
I never said one had to be an extreme negroid to be negroid. What I said is I can't accept Aethiopids being negroid because they dont share historical or linguistic connections with the rest of black africa, any reasonable person would agree.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 22, 2006 3:47:35 GMT -5
Planet Asia, I never said one had to be an extreme negroid to be negroid. What I said is I can't accept Aethiopids being negroid because they dont share historical or linguistic connections with the rest of black africa, any reasonable person would agree. How do you figure there isn't al least any shared culture? Ethiopia is a part of black Africa furthermore, so why pretend that Ethiopia is one thing and the rest of "black Africa" is different?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 22, 2006 4:09:00 GMT -5
Ethiopians are transitional between Caucasoid West Asians and more Negroid East Africans. One often is surprised to find among them purely Caucasoid morphology, which is not the case elsewhere in black Africa. It is almost certainly the case that the primitive Ethiopian type was native to East Africa, a darker and more generalized prototype of the same general type out of which the Caucasoid race emerged after its migration from east Africa. But, certainly, the more Caucasoid Ethiopians certainly must be attributed to the movements of the Semitic-speaking West Asians who have had a substantial influence on the Ethiopian population, without negating its continuity by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 22, 2006 4:24:06 GMT -5
Ethiopians are transitional between Caucasoid West Asians and more Negroid East Africans. That so called "pure Caucasoid morphology" is in reality "Elongated morphology" and isn't even caucasoid to begin with. In the wors of an eminent anthropologist: "However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa(Gabel 1966; Hiernaux 1975; Rightmire 1975; Schepartz 1987) and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed "non-African." History in Africa, Vol. 20, (1993), 129-154 Its just like your logic to call Elongated east Africans "Caucasoid" like when "Caucasoids" as well as all non-Africans are descendants of East Africans who migrated out of Africa, its the child that takes from the parent, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 22, 2006 11:17:17 GMT -5
If you compare elongated and more progressive Negrids (Nilotid) with Aethiopids you see the striking difference. Furthermore a narrow nose alone doesnt make one Europid and Aethiopids are in their majority finally Negroid if you want to put them in one category - others are more Europoid - but neither they are Negrid nor Europid and better described as being intermediate. Many mulattoes which happened to have rather Europoid morphology look like Aethiopids and thats not by chance...
But probably you post some "elongated Negrids" and maybe I agree that they are Negroid since you find bost in EA, the more Negroid and more Europoid once. I explained that in another thread already with "3 categories"....
|
|
|
Post by winwin on Jan 31, 2006 18:25:41 GMT -5
ethiopians arn't true aethiopids many are mixed with bantus, nilotes, arabs, pygmees, bushmen etc i think somalis are the truest aethiopids ;D ;D ;D ;D I beleive the word aethiopids is more close to Ethiopia than to Somalia, if it was close to somalia, it would have sounded like... Somaliopids
|
|