|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 1:23:25 GMT -5
I would only claim Caucasoid hybridization for periphery peoples, such as Somalis or Tuaregs. Tuaregs are substantially mixed and do vary, but Somalis are not substantially mixed. Combined paternal and maternal mixture amounts to 13%, hardly indicating a hybridised population, you need to review the genetic information. Bantu speakers as a whole aren't heavily mixed with Khoisan peoples, only a few groups are mixed with Khoisan. There's no such thing as 'Sudanid', West African is the proper term and they vary so no generalised 'Sudanid' term can be ascribed to them.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 1:27:25 GMT -5
That's what YOU think! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 1:46:28 GMT -5
That's what YOU think! ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Unless you can quote specific genetic evidence that: 1) Somalis are hybridised population consisting of mixture of 'True Negrids" and Caucasoids 2) Bantu populations have mixed significantly with Khoisan This particular discussion is over. Recent genetic studies say Somalis have 15% Eurasian on the paternal side and 11% on the materal side which amounts to 13% combined Eurasian mixture. I quote from sources, not my own thinking, you disagree with it post some evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 1:47:40 GMT -5
I guess you're right, TopDog. I'll need some serious genetic evidence to topple your monumental knowledge on this subject! Nilotids: ![](http://www.webloc.de/kino/perspic4/riefens2.jpg) ![](http://www.rosings.com/nuba.jpg) ![](http://www.helmut-schmidt-online.de/Riefenstahl-Homepage/images/Fahey-Klein-Nuba-Katalog-Titel.jpg) Aethiopids: ![](http://www.viscom.ohiou.edu/hatch/images/somali%20eyes.jpg) ![](http://www.lib.washington.edu/about/events/whatsnew/events/Ethiopian.jpg) ![](http://www.selamta.net/Afar%20man.jpg) ![](http://www.2001pray.org/images/Afar-1-5.jpg) ![](http://www.sudan101.com/images/beja%209.jpg) You're right, TopDog... there doesn't seem to be any difference between Aethiopids and their neighboring Nilotic friends. They're just so much alike... I mean just look at that dark skin and woolly hair! They've just got to be of the same major race! Nevermind that Aethiopids have an intermediate Caucasoid skull form and all of that great white nonsense! Down with the man! Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I'm not a geneticist. And for one reason: I think it's boring. Don't bother arguing with me about genetics because I have very little knowledge in the subject. You might as well argue with a brick wall if you want to talk about haplogroups or what not. Go argue with Dienekes or RacialReality if you want to argue genetics. But one thing I do know and have read up on extensively in the past few months I've garnered all my knowledge is physical anthropology. It is a fascinating science. It's a real shame political correctness has virtually driven its study to messageboards such as these. But it is a very respectable science and, with revision, it very well can be corroborated with genetics. And that's exactly what is happening with it. Genetics for instance has leagued Atlanto-Mediterraneans with Upper Paleolithics. Does that mean all the physical anthropologist enthusiasts whined about how Coon was wrong about Atlanto-Meds? No, of course not. They just fixed it. So just because it's old doesn't mean it's obsolete. Just in need of repairs, which is going on presently every day. So tell me, TopDog, who do you think the average Joe is more likely to believe: respectable sources (like Mr. Dienekes Pontikos, Cavalli-Sforza, historians, the biblical Table of Nations, and practically every encyclopedia ever written) or is that average Joe likely to believe someone who obviously has an axe to grind for the Afrocentric case? Unless you go overthrow Dienekes or the encyclopedias with your godlike information, I think I'll stick to my "Aethiopids are an intermediate type" analysis, thank you very much. *bows and exits*
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 2:59:10 GMT -5
Posting selective pictures means nothing Nilote: ![](http://www.game-reserve.com/gallery/people/images/maasai_smile.jpg) ![](http://www.lost-oasis.org/photos/big/bw3.jpg) Tutsi, Bantu ![](http://img97.exs.cx/img97/6803/dwf156685096yd.jpg) ![](http://www.rnw.nl/informarn/assets/images/kagame.jpg) ![](http://www.afroamerica.net/MmeKagame.jpg) ![](http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cMI_QrtTkG2367L8E1s508GZf1R0HdNI75uYtGpxC6SmBLsyLayw-qPUYDT7p0QVLCiFOkojVC0nJKoLw6qiaNUzOduyYw/Highculture/Ethnologue/musinga3.jpg) Mr Pontikos isn't a reliable source, sorry. Stop whining about an 'Afrocentric' case, this has nothing to do with Afrocentrism, thats a red herring. My point is that certain East African groups look the way the look because of climatic and natural selective pressures, not mixture or hybridisation. geneflow has affected some people but not the large majority. The genetic evidence is crucial because if East Africans were so highly hybridised you would have case, but the genetic and skeletal evidence do not lend support to your case. Thats not very hard to do, what do you think, Dienekes is god or something? I have in fact traded posts with him and the bulk of the evidence supports me, not him. They are intermediate genetically in relations to ROA, skeletally skulls o their type are native to Africa and do not result from mixture. (?) Proof?
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 3:10:43 GMT -5
Mr. Pontikos is a very intelligent man. Whose board do you think you're posting on right now, wise guy? If you want converts to your elongated African cause, go to RAS. You and your friends at EgyptSearch are the only ones who seriously believe in environmental differentiation for Aethiopids as opposed to gene flow from neighboring Caucasians. Gene flow is the most natural, substantiated conclusion. If you were right we'd have to completely change the definitions of what constitutes Congoid and Caucasoid. Nobody wants to do that and there is no reason to do that. Aethiopids are skeletally intermediate. I'm not changing my opinion on the racial formation of that beautiful people because I don't need to. The preponderance of what I know and believe in supports my conclusion. And that's good enough for me and most of the people here at Dodona. I'm just a messenger for the majority opinion. Don't take it personally.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Mar 22, 2005 3:38:28 GMT -5
Believe it or not, I have heard of a southern Somali clan claiming that the tutsi's are one of their lost clans.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 3:44:42 GMT -5
Mr. Pontikos is a very intelligent man. Whose board do you think you're posting on right now, wise guy? If you want converts to your elongated African cause, go to RAS. RAS is full of trolls. The RAS' trolls make Dodona's trolls look like angels. Unless you can prove that in genetics this isn't worth arguing about. Elongated Africans do exist, just read up on Hiernaux, Keita, and Rightmire et tal. You're not as read up on anthropology as you think you are. Geneflow isn't why East Africans look different, its climatic and natural selective forces. So-called 'races' don't have non-overlapping traits. Proof? East Africans are neither Caucasoid nor Congoid. East Africans are a specialised version of Africans, not hybrids. Can't you make up your own mind instead of parroting Dienekes? The majority of East African DNA is iEast African in origin, with Amharas being the most mixed while Somalis and Oromos are far less mixed than Amharas. I don't care for majority opinion, the majority of people at stormfront and VNN believe blacks are inferior, does it make it right? You haven't quoted a prepondrance of anything, just your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Mar 22, 2005 3:51:04 GMT -5
This really doesn't make sense.
I will give you an example, for example my clan has two branches the father being an Arab, one branch who was mothered by an Oromo and the other who was mothered by a Amhara/Harari or Habash as Somalis call it.
So how does a Somali who is made of habashi(harari/amaharic) and an arab have little admixture while amharic have more admixture. Please explain this to me.
By the way do you know which Somalis are being tested?
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 3:58:58 GMT -5
Like I said before, who's a hapless lad like myself to believe, TopDog? An articulate, non-politically-inclined man like Dienekes Pontikos who has proven himself to be trustworthy or some guy who wandered in from EgyptSearch or some like board who only posts topics about blacks? I've read all 82 of your posts. The only other thing you talk about is racial intelligence. Everything else is "yap-yap-yap Africa." I would be out of my mind to give in to your arguments. They run contrary to substantiated racial classifications. What you've said does not convince me to change my opinion on who is Congoid, who is Caucasoid, and who is in-between. I respect your zeal but it's not enough.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 4:21:26 GMT -5
This really doesn't make sense. I will give you an example, for example my clan has two branches the father being an Arab, one branch who was mothered by an Oromo and the other who was mothered by a Amhara/Harari or Habash as Somalis call it. So how does a Somali who is made of habashi(harari/amaharic) and an arab have little admixture while amharic have more admixture. Please explain this to me. By the way do you know which Somalis are being tested? Somalis aren't made up of Amharas and Arabs, they're closely related to Oromos. I know you might disagree, but there are some African groups who claim a large amount of descent from Arabs when in fact they have very little. Notice that Southern Arabian mixture is high in Amahars due to mingling during Axumite times. I think perhaps you misunderstood me, what I'm saying is that Somalis and East Africans in general are not Arabised or Semiticised 'Congoids'. Maybe your particular clan is unique perhaps, you can't make a generalisation. I haven't denied geneflow between southern Arabians and Somalis, I just said, with evidence to back it, that Somalis as a whole are not heavily admixed with Middle Easterners.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 4:28:50 GMT -5
I think Haile Selassie's a good example of an Amhara if there ever was one. ![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/180px-Hallies.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Soomaal on Mar 22, 2005 4:29:04 GMT -5
Somalis aren't made up of Amharas and Arabs, they're closely related to Oromos. I know you might disagree, but there are some African groups who claim a large amount of descent from Arabs when in fact they have very little. Notice that Southern Arabian mixture is high in Amahars due to mingling during Axumite times. I think perhaps you misunderstood me, what I'm saying is that Somalis and East Africans in general are not Arabised or Semiticised 'Congoids'. Maybe your particular clan is unique perhaps, you can't make a generalisation. I haven't denied geneflow between southern Arabians and Somalis, I just said, with evidence to back it, that Somalis as a whole are not heavily admixed with Middle Easterners. LMAO I don't think you understand, there is no debate here. I am talking about my clan, which is made up of an Oromo branch and the other who had a Habash mother, This is actually documented by my clan. I just don't understand how people who have a mother who is Harari/amharic and an Arab father could have less mixture than an Amharic. Of all the Somali clans only one claims to be pure, they live in the southern region and even they say their patriarch is buried in the northern Somalia.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 4:32:42 GMT -5
![](http://www.ocha-eth.org/Photos/photos/People/OromoWomenchildrenNew.jpg) Do most Oromos look like these people? They're Nilotesque-looking to me.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 4:34:38 GMT -5
Like I said before, who's a hapless lad like myself to believe, TopDog? An articulate, non-politically-inclined man like Dienekes Pontikos I have debated Mr Pontikos numerous times and he is politically inclined. He's no different than you for that matter. he does the same bashing of Afrocentrists and Nordicists under the guise of being well-meaning and objective. my own personal board isn't just about blacks, I just started and most of my members are from egyptsearch, but I do communicate with anthropologists and geneticists via email and I'm only beginning to expand my board. I have no particular slant to any type of ideology, if a person wants to talk about Europe or Asia in my forum I will not forbid him/her nor will I allow the person to be subject to be abused by posters with differing points of view. People need to get a balanced view and look at all points instead of being simple and closed minded and categorising people as 'Afrocentrist' Nordicist, and like terms. Holding a particular view doesn't mean a personal promotes ideology. There is no Afro-view in here, everything here is oneĀ“sided and full of white-washing. There are no substantiated racial classifications, race is just as arbitrary and subjective as its always been. I'm not a prophet so I'm not into convincing or converting people to my view, I'm about the truth.
|
|