Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Feb 5, 2005 16:45:40 GMT -5
Berbers claiming it as their legacy is is like Spainards claiming mesopotamia's accomplishments as their own. I'm not aware of any berber who claims the pyramids or AE's civ. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) . Was it just a comparison, Fael !?
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Feb 5, 2005 17:01:51 GMT -5
I'm not aware of any berber who claims the pyramids or AE's civ. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) . Was it just a comparison, Fael !? He has been contaminated by human2, Fael is lost... lol
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Feb 5, 2005 17:06:40 GMT -5
He has been contaminated by human2, Fael is lost... lol I doubt it; Fael is a well balanced guy ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) .
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 17:11:20 GMT -5
Thanks Berter, I beleive it was Igu who claimed earlier in this very thread that the berbers were the mos closely related to the AE's. Though to be fair that is not the same as the ridiculous claim that the ancestor of black americans built the pyramids. But look at the pictures I would assume the Libyans represent people quite similar to your ancestors and look how different they are represented from how the AE's represented themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Feb 5, 2005 17:21:23 GMT -5
Thanks Berter, I beleive it was Igu who claimed earlier in this very thread that the berbers were the mos closely related to the AE's. Though to be fair that is not the same as the ridiculous claim that the ancestor of black americans built the pyramids. But look at the pictures I would assume the Libyans represent people quite similar to your ancestors and look how different they are represented from how the AE's represented themselves. Of course we are the closest to them, that is obvious, Egyptians admit it, We admit it, genetics proves it, that's a fact. We come from the same stock. (before reaching NW Africa, the ancestors of berbers-egyptians passed FIRST by Egypt , those who stayed are egyptians, those who continued their way are now berbers). I know PLENTY of egyptians contrary to the whole board (except the egyptians of course), What I'm doing is to refute the lies about their people not claiming their civilization... I defend them, and I am sure that Alexander or IFTHELIGHTTAKESUS agree with my point.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Feb 5, 2005 17:23:57 GMT -5
But look at the pictures I would assume the Libyans represent people quite similar to your ancestors and look how different they are represented from how the AE's represented themselves. Speak to any algerian arab about Kabyles he will tell you that they are all blond and blue eyed... but in reality we look like them. same goes with egyptians/berbers or egyptians/middle easteners. -Actually, Egyptians are intermediate between berbers and near-easteners. (Human2, do you see how we properly utilize the term "intermediate"? Learn)
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 17:32:30 GMT -5
I don't really think we can know whether the ancestors of berbers expanded up the nile delta the Saharah was mostly Savanah in the UP paleolithic when your ancestors like arrived so the could have come directly from other most any part of africa, and gene flow into your region from Sub-Saharan africa has been much less extensive then into egpty since the expansion of the Sahara. Aside from the evidence of the eye, the genetic studies I have seen indicate berbers are no more closely related to egyptians then ethiopians or levantine people.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 17:34:38 GMT -5
Amend that last sentence to "intermediate between, berbers near easterns and east africans" and you would be basically correct, while the mixture is not exact its contrary to fact to ignore the sub-saharan element.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Feb 5, 2005 17:45:08 GMT -5
I don't really think we can know whether the ancestors of berbers expanded up the nile delta the Saharah was mostly Savanah in the UP paleolithic when your ancestors like arrived so the could have come directly from other most any part of africa, and gene flow into your region from Sub-Saharan africa has been much less extensive then into egpty since the expansion of the Sahara. Aside from the evidence of the eye, the genetic studies I have seen indicate berbers are no more closely related to egyptians then ethiopians or levantine people. in paleolithic times the sahara was not savanah... the sahara became wet and hospital (hospitality) in the neolithic up to 5ky ago. the peopling of NW africa occured before that...
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Feb 5, 2005 17:50:10 GMT -5
Amend that last sentence to "intermediate between, berbers near easterns and east africans" and you would be basically correct, while the mixture is not exact its contrary to fact to ignore the sub-saharan element. in egypt, sub saharan admixture is a little bit higher than in Berberia... you are exagerating the SS influence. in upper Egypt they found subsaharan mtdna at a rate of 30%. and they represent only 20% of the whole egyptian population. that's the same case in NW africa.. SS mtdna in touareg reaches 80%.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 17:59:28 GMT -5
That not correct either Igu but neither was my orginal statement its more complicated then that the Mousterian Pluvial ended around 30,000 years ago which is towards the beggining of the Uppper paleolithic and the desert beginning expanding at that point but it was still considerable more hospitable for much of the UP then it is know, and its certainly possible even likely the berbers ancestors arrived in Northwest africa before it was major barrier.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 18:04:15 GMT -5
The Toureg are defineatly interesting but overall most of north africa has less SS ancestory then the nile delta. Its also likely that eygpt during the dynastic period was less caucasion then today as its post dynastic history has seen quite a few invasions from the north but none from the south.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 18:09:09 GMT -5
To make it clear I do not think that modern egyptians are exactly intermediate between caucasions and SSA's they cluster closer to Caucasions but they are defineatly show a high level of gene flow from Sub-Saharan africa and I think this was likely more true during dynastic times.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Feb 5, 2005 19:42:20 GMT -5
This is especially directed at Kame. The Ancient Egyptians were not Negroid, nor were the Nubians or Ethiopians. In fact, much of Africa (esp. the North) was Caucasian, due in part to an immense movement south. East Africans are classified as Caucasians, although obviously there has been large Negroid admixture.
Negroids (not other Blacks) are a race that has only recently (in the beginning of recorded history) begun to claim Africa. If you examine articles at Dienekes' anthropological research page, you'll see what I mean.
I'm sorry, but Negroids (Blacks as we know them today) possess little in the way of civilization-building history. That is why the blacks are probably most hated by East Asians, particularly the Japanese. African-Americans, have NO history. They are barely a people, other than clinging together out of the grim reality that White America will not accept them.
Ethiopians consider themselves to have a long and colourful history. They do not consider themselves African or Black, and despise African-Americans. They consider themselves Ethiopian, much as a German person would consider himself German, not European or White.
Afro-centrism and White Nationalism are both very much North American products. Why? Because many Whites in the United States are so inter-ethnically mixed that they can derive their heritage from all over Europe, and even include some Amerindian ancestry. They're just 'White,' and at most vaguely European, although they do not fit the 'national' phenotype for any European country, they are simply generic. So to create a heritage for themselves, they write 'White' history. This is the same thing that African-Americans are doing. But I'm afraid that Ethiopians complain to me that Sudanese are 'too Black, I don't like them.'
One Ethiopian I know said that he came to America because it had a large African-derived population and he could fit in more. Unfortunately, the Blacks kept wrecking his pizza business in Sacramento, telling him to 'get back on the boat' and calling him 'n****r'. Eventually, this man shoved a pistol down one gangbanger's throat and that kept the peace for a time. Finally, he moved up to Canada, and believes that the problem for African-Americans, and many Africans, is that 'they have no heritage.'
Indeed, few African countries can claim to have a nation and a state the way Ethiopia does. While Ethiopia consists of many different tribes and is currently in conflict with Eritrea, this situation was not uncommon amongst the nation-states of Europe.
Aside from a few countries, Africa is a collection of states and an even larger collection of nations.
Forget history. Forget Egypt. Perhaps aliens built the damn pyramids, so that would make this threat pointless. Quit trying to re-write history, Kame and the rest of you. Hell, quit trying to be White.
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Feb 5, 2005 20:57:18 GMT -5
IER eastern african affinities to classic negroids are unclear (which is why I use the term Sub-Saharan africans) but claiming they are simply caucasians or vaguely europeans distorts the facts. The fact is that most likely both negroids and Caucasians descend in the most part from an orginal east african population of modern humans, and its likely that both are specializations away from that orginal phenotype. Prior to the Bantu expansion most east africans could probably have been classed into a seperate race from both Caucasians and Negroids perhaps more then one race, their is evidence of Khoisanids types in east africa as well. Colin Turnbull beleived the IK people he studied in Uganda were similar to Khoisanids and noted that their language was related to coptic egyptian. In any event while its fair to say much of africa was probably not Negroid in classic sense its not fair to simply charecterize them as caucasians. With all that said look at the nubian in that picture and tell me he doesn't have negroid affinities.
Furthermore your statement about the civilization building proclivities of the actually negroid people is ridiculous and contrary to fact in fact aside from Ethiopia most of africa's civiliazation could be attributed to Negroid africans, The Songhai were negroid, Ghana was negroid, mali and great Zimbabwe too. Agrarian practices were spread through most of africa by negroid bantu's and Iron Smelting was likely invented by negroid people independant of their invention in anatolia and technologicals superior. It amazes me how often people argue that Negroids do not build civilizations simply because they haven't taken the time to research the real negroid civilizations. Its an argument from ignorance. Before you go condemming the civilization history of blacks read up on "their" history and I don't mean american afro-centrist nonsense.
African Civilizations by Graham Connah is descent place to start, though it doesn't limit itself to negroid african history. I have only studied African in passing in my archeology classes at uni so I can't offer a more in depth Bib but information is out there if you actual care about the truth.
|
|