|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 20:41:20 GMT -5
By simple rationale of geography. And I don't mean recent ancestor. Just because they're Egyptian, they're likely to have at least one partially negroid ancestor somewhere back there. Same with most Americans having black and American Indian ancestors. I fit in that niche, for instance. Most white Americans do not have a black ancestor. Even if they do, they're still Caucasian. Saudis had black slaves till the 1960s. If Egyptians are part-Negroid, supposedly, so are they. So in other words, they're in the same category as Saudis and Americans. They're still Caucasian. Egyptians have had no more proven Negroid admixture than any Arab groups. In the study Charlie Bass showed they grouped with Omanis. There are numberous other studies were Egyptians are essentially just like other Middle Eastern and North African populations. I can post some if you'd like. I don't see why we need to make certain presumptions that the average Egyptian will have negroid blood when we don't do the same for Middle Easterners and North Africans who are essentially the same. It reeks of hypocrisy. None of you even saw a sign of negroid blood in their faces but just assumed. I'd like to think we've gone beyond the point of reasoning where any "African" must be part black. It is seriously ridiculous. We don't just assume every Saudi or Iraqi we see is part black- why do the same for Egyptians who show NO signs of Negroid features.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 12, 2005 21:27:46 GMT -5
Most white Americans do not have a black ancestor. Even if they do, they're still Caucasian. Saudis had black slaves till the 1960s. If Egyptians are part-Negroid, supposedly, so are they. So in other words, they're in the same category as Saudis and Americans. They're still Caucasian. Egyptians have had no more proven Negroid admixture than any Arab groups. In the study Charlie Bass showed they grouped with Omanis. There are numberous other studies were Egyptians are essentially just like other Middle Eastern and North African populations. I can post some if you'd like. I don't see why we need to make certain presumptions that the average Egyptian will have negroid blood when we don't do the same for Middle Easterners and North Africans who are essentially the same. It reeks of hypocrisy. None of you even saw a sign of negroid blood in their faces but just assumed. I'd like to think we've gone beyond the point of reasoning where any "African" must be part black. It is seriously ridiculous. We don't just assume every Saudi or Iraqi we see is part black- why do the same for Egyptians who show NO signs of Negroid features. egypt is far more african negroid then any where in arabia.
|
|
|
Post by gulereatie on May 12, 2005 21:30:34 GMT -5
It's always preferable to compare notes when the people are in their prime, not when their faces are sagging. i think it's quite a huge difference, actually. unforunetly we dont have pictures of those men in their prime age. though, in my opinion, it is only worthwhile to classify people when not in the old age in which those are. old people tend to look like other old people, across humans.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 12, 2005 21:31:56 GMT -5
Most white Americans do not have a black ancestor. Even if they do, they're still Caucasian. Saudis had black slaves till the 1960s. If Egyptians are part-Negroid, supposedly, so are they. So in other words, they're in the same category as Saudis and Americans. They're still Caucasian. Egyptians have had no more proven Negroid admixture than any Arab groups. In the study Charlie Bass showed they grouped with Omanis. There are numberous other studies were Egyptians are essentially just like other Middle Eastern and North African populations. I can post some if you'd like. I don't see why we need to make certain presumptions that the average Egyptian will have negroid blood when we don't do the same for Middle Easterners and North Africans who are essentially the same. It reeks of hypocrisy. None of you even saw a sign of negroid blood in their faces but just assumed. I'd like to think we've gone beyond the point of reasoning where any "African" must be part black. It is seriously ridiculous. We don't just assume every Saudi or Iraqi we see is part black- why do the same for Egyptians who show NO signs of Negroid features. I didn't say they weren't Caucasian. Only that Egyptians were more likely to have a black ancestor somewhere back there than, say, Turks. By virtue of geography. Simple matter of the odds. Same with Americans. An American is alot more likely to have an Amerind ancestor than is an Englishman, right?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 21:45:55 GMT -5
egypt is far more african negroid then any where in arabia. Oh yeah? How so? Because apparently Yemenis have 35% Negroid mtdna. MOst Egyptians fit in perfectly in Arabia. None of the Ministers, with the exception of one, show any signs of Negroid blood, so how is African influence strong? Don't just make assumptions like that. In fact, in trans-Arab opinion, Egyptians are usually grouped with Levantines and Palestinians as people of the "Mashreq". Look at page 9 of the following report: hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf"The cumulative frequency of typical sub-Saharan lineages (A, B, E1, E2, E3a, and E3b*) is 9% in Egypt and 10% in Oman, whereas the haplogroups of Eurasian origin (Groups C, D, and F–Q) account for 59% and 77%, respectively." It also mentions that most SSA geneflow to either region is as a result of the slave trade and is relatively recent And in the chart of African geneflow that you'll find on page seven shows that Omanis are closer to SSAs then Egyptians. In this: Egyptians seem to be genetically smack dab in the middle of North African and Middle Eastern populations. Just like in real life. Kind of weird since S. Egyptians are closer to Middle Easterners than Northern Egyptians, but still. Signs of shared origin for Morrocans and Egyptians www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2000.550307.x/abs/Again, Egyptians seem to right smack dab in between Northern Africans and Palestinian ARabs www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html"Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, Nagah Elaiwa, Carlos Silvera, Ahmed Rostom, Juan Moscoso, Eduardo Gómez-Casado, Luis Allende, Pilar Varela, and Jorge Martínez-Laso. "The Origin of Palestinians and Their Generic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations." Human Immunology 62(9) (September 2001): 889-900. Published by Elsevier Science Inc. Recalled by editors after publication. Retraction in Human Immunology 62(10) (October 2001): 1063. Abstract excerpts: "The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times..." Excerpts: "Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a common ancient Canaanite origin.... Jews, Cretans, Egyptians, Iranians, Turks and Armenians are probably the closest relatives to Palestinians..." (p. 897) " Here: www.geocities.com/dienekes_dodona/E3b/index.htmlYOu'll see less Negroid "E(xe3b)" genes among Egyptians than among Palestinians or even Portuguese. Give me a break. This whole, more Negroid blood in Egypt than ARabia thing is crap. Most Egyptians fit in pretty damn well in the Arabian penninsula, and the average Joe on the street couldn't tell the two apart. He could however tell apart either group from an Ethiopian or Sudanese.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 21:46:37 GMT -5
I didn't say they weren't Caucasian. Only that Egyptians were more likely to have a black ancestor somewhere back there than, say, Turks. By virtue of geography. Simple matter of the odds. Same with Americans. An American is alot more likely to have an Amerind ancestor than is an Englishman, right? Of course moreso than Turks. But why moreso than Arabians?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 21:48:49 GMT -5
i think it's quite a huge difference, actually. unforunetly we dont have pictures of those men in their prime age. though, in my opinion, it is only worthwhile to classify people when not in the old age in which those are. old people tend to look like other old people, across humans. Don't blame old age for their lack of Negroid features. Stop trying to make excuses. Face it- they're not Negroids. The fact is that old age does little if nothing to change the way someone's phenotype looks. A Caucasian person will still look Caucasian in old age, same with Negroid etc. etc. People of old age don't look universally alike. That is ridiculous. It is easy to tell the difference between an old Chinese man, an old Sudanese man, an old Mexican and an old Swede. Give me a break. Furthermore, these mean are not that old at all. Most are in their late fortie or fifties, maximum age is around the mid-sixties. If you think old age is to blame for their lack of Negroid features think again. It's not old age- it's reality.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 13, 2005 1:57:55 GMT -5
Most white Americans do not have a black ancestor. Even if they do, they're still Caucasian. Saudis had black slaves till the 1960s. If Egyptians are part-Negroid, supposedly, so are they. So in other words, they're in the same category as Saudis and Americans. They're still Caucasian. Egyptians have had no more proven Negroid admixture than any Arab groups. In the study Charlie Bass showed they grouped with Omanis. There are numberous other studies were Egyptians are essentially just like other Middle Eastern and North African populations. I can post some if you'd like. I don't see why we need to make certain presumptions that the average Egyptian will have negroid blood when we don't do the same for Middle Easterners and North Africans who are essentially the same. It reeks of hypocrisy. None of you even saw a sign of negroid blood in their faces but just assumed. I'd like to think we've gone beyond the point of reasoning where any "African" must be part black. It is seriously ridiculous. We don't just assume every Saudi or Iraqi we see is part black- why do the same for Egyptians who show NO signs of Negroid features. The study I posted did not have typical Egyptians Alex, so stop obfuscating the facts. The authors of the study made a special notation that those particular Egyptians used in that study were Arab-Berber mixes and you yourself admitted that the Arabian element in Egyptians was minimal. Since Egyptians were and are not Berbers that sample cannot be taken to mean typical Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 13, 2005 15:19:21 GMT -5
The study I posted did not have typical Egyptians Alex, so stop obfuscating the facts. The authors of the study made a special notation that those particular Egyptians used in that study were Arab-Berber mixes and you yourself admitted that the Arabian element in Egyptians was minimal. Since Egyptians were and are not Berbers that sample cannot be taken to mean typical Egyptians. THe authors of that study did take in regular Egyptians. You are completely misunderstanding them. What do you think they did, take only people of Arabian or Algerian descent or something? There aren't any of them living in Egypt- they had to have taken actual Egyptians. The people used in that study came from Mansoura University in Mansoura, Egypt. Mansoura is a typical Egyptian town. Keep living in your fantasy world where Egyptians are more similar to Sub-Saharan Africans then other Middle Easterners- you'r eonly kidding yourself. There's a reason why Egyptians view themselves as Middle Easterners (not Arabs necessarily) above all else. There's a reason why people view Egyptians as Middle Easterners and there's reason why people have a hard time differentiating Egyptians from other Middle Eastern groups. All those Egyptian MPs could easily pass for Iraqi or Syrian to an average person's eyes. Face it, Egyptians are far more Middle Eastern than black African. I urge you to post a single, just one, study that finds Egyptians to be black Africans or closer to black Africans than other Middle Eastern groups.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 5:20:47 GMT -5
The study I posted did not have typical Egyptians Alex, so stop obfuscating the facts. The authors of the study made a special notation that those particular Egyptians used in that study were Arab-Berber mixes and you yourself admitted that the Arabian element in Egyptians was minimal. Since Egyptians were and are not Berbers that sample cannot be taken to mean typical Egyptians. You are the one confusing the facts, Arredi et al. took typical egyptians : www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?AJHG41184the study that took a berber-arab sample is Luis et al www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?AJHG40703Alexandrian used Arredi et al (typical egyptians).
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 6:03:58 GMT -5
I have just added the pictures of moroccan governement's members (see my first post in this thread, I edited it).
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 6:13:25 GMT -5
I ask this because I have read that 1/3 of Mozabite Berber mtDNA belongs to a haplogroup of European origin. It dates back to the LGM in prehistoric times, All berbers have these mtdnas, from north to south and from east to west, now concluding that the lighter types are of prehistoric european origin, is not that correct: I have never seen a light skinned mozabite Berber (saharan Berbers), they all look indian, I guess that skin color adapts very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Shenuda on May 14, 2005 6:26:25 GMT -5
I have just added the pictures of moroccan governement's members (see my first post in this thread, I edited it). And where are Tunisians,Lybians,Mauretanians and Sudanese
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 14, 2005 8:45:40 GMT -5
Wrong i didn't post Arredi's study, the study Alex was referring to was the one I posted from Luis et tal's. I haven't confused anything, you are misrepresenting what was presented.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on May 14, 2005 8:54:04 GMT -5
Wrong i didn't post Arredi's study, the study Alex was referring to was the one I posted from Luis et tal's. I haven't confused anything, you are misrepresenting what was presented. Then again it does not fit your point: Arredi et al (typcal egyptians) found lower level of subsaharan admixture than Luis. et. al.
|
|