|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 14, 2005 2:33:10 GMT -5
Both sides are equally wrong. Nordicists are no different from Afrocentrists. And your position is no different from either one of theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 14, 2005 3:10:56 GMT -5
Swedes and Spanish are both Caucasians, different branches on the same Caucasoid tree. The Ethiopians, Somalis, Bejas, and other Cushitic-speaking peoples are for the most part hybridized Atlanto-Mediterranean and Congoid populations. They are intermediate. This is completely in alignment with the Afro-Asiatic migration. I'm not playing down the Congoid element of the Aethiopids, nor am I saying they are a separate race. They are just distinct in the same way Lapps are distinct from other Europeans. They are by no means simply black or white. They are their own thing. A composite. Mujahid seeing himself as black is purely social. Somalis only have 13% non-African mixture, which makes them more African genetically than African-Americans. The most recent studies on Somalis say they 15% Eurasian mixture paternally and 11% Eurasian mtDNA, do they math and you come up 13% which amounts to limited Eurasian geneflow in Somalis. Ethiopian Amhara have the highest amounts of Middle Eastern mixture with 35% paternally and 5.4% maternally, and Oromo have 13% combined paternally and maternally. The intermediate designation explained is as simple as this, non-Africans share a recent common ancestry with NE Africans and NE Africans are located centrally between sub-Saharan and non-Africans, thus that makes NE intermediate. Thats in regard to recent out of Africa origins for modern humans. There obviously has been some geneflow, but as I've shown, its very weak. |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Mar 14, 2005 3:33:55 GMT -5
that does'nt mean anything It means that I know black african people, with bantu culture and religion, I'm then not biased and know how far my culture is from their. I've showed that upper egyptians have only 10% ss-adimixture (20% maternally and 0% paternally) |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Mar 14, 2005 3:36:42 GMT -5
Somalis only have 13% non-African mixture, which makes them more African genetically than African-Americans. The most recent studies on Somalis say they 15% Eurasian mixture paternally and 11% Eurasian mtDNA, do they math and you come up 13% which amounts to limited Eurasian geneflow in Somalis. Ethiopian Amhara have the highest amounts of Middle Eastern mixture with 35% paternally and 5.4% maternally, and Oromo have 13% combined paternally and maternally. The intermediate designation explained is as simple as this, non-Africans share a recent common ancestry with NE Africans and NE Africans are located centrally between sub-Saharan and non-Africans, thus that makes NE intermediate. Thats in regard to recent out of Africa origins for modern humans. There obviously has been some geneflow, but as I've shown, its very weak. Don't use the term africa, africa is a geographical area decided by humans, Speak about race or groups, East africans share with negroids about 40% of their genes (sforza). |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Mar 14, 2005 3:38:36 GMT -5
And I forgot to add somoething: Egyptians are closer genitically to nordics than to Negroids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Mar 14, 2005 3:43:23 GMT -5
Somalis only have 13% non-African mixture, which makes them more African genetically than African-Americans. The most recent studies on Somalis say they 15% Eurasian mixture paternally and 11% Eurasian mtDNA, do they math and you come up 13% which amounts to limited Eurasian geneflow in Somalis. Ethiopian Amhara have the highest amounts of Middle Eastern mixture with 35% paternally and 5.4% maternally, and Oromo have 13% combined paternally and maternally. The intermediate designation explained is as simple as this, non-Africans share a recent common ancestry with NE Africans and NE Africans are located centrally between sub-Saharan and non-Africans, thus that makes NE intermediate. Thats in regard to recent out of Africa origins for modern humans. There obviously has been some geneflow, but as I've shown, its very weak. That number seems rather low, I would love to see a study of all the regions of Somalia not just one region, but thats quite hard considering the current situation. The study has to be somewhat off, because northern Somalis are semeticized Oromo's of some sort. So you do the math. |
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Mar 14, 2005 3:58:54 GMT -5
That number seems rather low, I would love to see a study of all the regions of Somalia not just one region, but thats quite hard considering the current situation. The study has to be somewhat off, because northern Somalis are semeticized Oromo's of some sort. So you do the math. I'd say east africans are closer to middle-easteners than to west africans. I'll make a thread later about genetic and phenotypic relativeness to other groups. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 14, 2005 20:06:08 GMT -5
And your position is no different from either one of theirs. Oh give me a break. How is saying that the ancient Egyptians are the same people, in the basic sense, as the modern Egyptians even related to those extreme -centrisms? You're a ridiculous Egypt-hater with low self-esteem. |
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on Mar 15, 2005 1:19:38 GMT -5
It's true that the Fulani and Wolof have undergone considerable Berber admixture, but since when do Ghanaians have non-Negroid features? The Akans, Brong Ahafos, Dagbanis, Dagombas, Ewes, Gas, Ga-Adangmes, Mole-Dagbanis, Twis, and many other Ghanaians look nothing like the Fulani and Senegalese. The peoples of Ghana are Negrids through-and-through whereas the Fulanis are predominately mixtures of Sudanid, Negrid, and Berber types. I went through the liberty of searching for the most isolated, blackest, west african groups I could find.   As you can see even they (some of them) have semi-caucosoid features (pointy nose, etc). They are from central-west africa, of the kuba tribe. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 15, 2005 1:28:15 GMT -5
It means that I know black african people, with bantu culture and religion, I'm then not biased and know how far my culture is from their. There is no Bantu culture and religion. Lumping all sub-Saharans together culturally would be like lumping Ancient Egyptians with ancient Libyans, they were far from being the same. Bantu speakers are highly vaeriable in culture, they're not all the same culturally and when does black culture equal Bantu only? You don't know black African people otherwise you would not have said such ignorant things as "I feek closer to a Chinese than I feel to black Africans.' North Africans are far more closer to sub-Saharan Africans culturally and linguistically than they are to Chinese people. You haven't shown anything except how simple-minded and racist you are. Look at this: Egyptians have little to no Northern European admixture, what exactly are you trying to prove here? No matter how hard you try, Europeans will never view North Africans as the same as them so you're wasting your time trying to prove something to them. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 15, 2005 1:30:40 GMT -5
That number seems rather low, I would love to see a study of all the regions of Somalia not just one region, but thats quite hard considering the current situation. The study has to be somewhat off, because northern Somalis are semeticized Oromo's of some sort. So you do the math. Its not all that low of a number, there is no evidence of widespread invasions and migrations into Somalia. Some clans might have mixed more than others, but on average for the entire population 13% isn't that low. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 15, 2005 1:34:45 GMT -5
Oh give me a break. How is saying that the ancient Egyptians are the same people, in the basic sense, as the modern Egyptians even related to those extreme -centrisms? You're a ridiculous Egypt-hater with low self-esteem. Don't attempt to bait me, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I was referring to your position being no different than Afrocentrists and Nordicists. Remember your thread on 'Mediterranean Pride and unity? If that isn't taking an equally extreme position as the Nordicists and Afrocentrists then what is?(insert rolling eyes here) |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 15, 2005 1:41:00 GMT -5
Don't use the term africa, africa is a geographical area decided by humans, The same with terms like Negroid and Negro, Negroland doesn't exists so why liken something to a nonexistent entity? According to Sforza, East Africans share 60%, not 40% of their genes with 'Negroids'. Anyways, Sforza's studies are about 11 years old, if you're quoting his well known book and even then he states that 'Caucasoid' mixture in East Africa(well Ethiopians to be precise) does not not exceed 50%. |
|
|
|
Post by Minstrel on Mar 15, 2005 1:54:53 GMT -5
Why are they always quick to point out ethiopians, somali's and other east africans have "caucosoid" admixture, but get mad when people say upper egyptians may have significant black admixture?
There was quite a bit of arab immigration to east africa. And they screwed the hell outta african women, but they could not have contributed very much genetic material to entire populations of people in retrospect. Such a thing would require mass amounts of ME immigration and intermarriage, which ofcourse was present, but not to the extent they might harp about.
P.S. what is it with arab dudes and black women? Why can't black dudes mack on arab or middle eastern women?
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 15, 2005 2:03:49 GMT -5
Don't attempt to bait me, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I was referring to your position being no different than Afrocentrists and Nordicists. Remember your thread on 'Mediterranean Pride and unity? If that isn't taking an equally extreme position as the Nordicists and Afrocentrists then what is?(insert rolling eyes here) How is being proud of my Mediterranean heritage (which I undeniably have) equivalent to trying to make false claims about the ancient egyptians and stealing their ancestors. |
|
