|
Post by Power Cosmic on Jul 12, 2005 7:56:55 GMT -5
Good Afrocentrism: -Black Africans did have the ability to create civilizations. -There are plenty of black African civilizations to boot. -East Africans were never Caucasoids.-There is a lot of Eurocentric ideology that needs to be refuted or at least re-examined and corrected. Bad Afrocentrism: -There were no Caucasoid Egyptians. -All Egyptians were black and those crazy Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Arabs came in and mixed everything up. -the Greeks owe everything to Egypt. -West Africans have connections with Egypt because hey, the Sahara wasn\'t always there and hey, it coulda happened! DUN DUN DUN! -Hannibal was black, Cleopatra was black, etc. -Colchis was Negroid, etc. -the Caucasoid Berbers are recent Iberian immigrants and aren\'t the true Berbers, who were black. -There is some kind of black African unity. -European history is biased and cannot be trusted because it was written by Europeans, who as we know are always trying to put the black man down. -Australoids are really just black Africans, and because of this, blacks created the Khmer, Sumerian, Jomon, Olmec, and Harappan civilizations. I could go on, but there ya go. There\'s good side to every centrism, but a dark side, as well. I disagree, How is that \'good \'afrocentrism\'? Those Aethiopide horn Africans obviously got a great Caucasoid element. And nobody classified them as Caucasoid they are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, No not arab etc+negroid etc but something else. Middle Eastern gene flow into the Horn is confirmed, but it isn\'t that great and is frequently overstated above all other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 8:05:01 GMT -5
I disagree, How is that 'good 'afrocentrism'? Those Aethiopide horn Africans obviously got a great Caucasoid element. And nobody classified them as Caucasoid they are Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids, No not arab etc+negroid etc but something else. No, they do not. That's 19th and 20th century baloney. They are not hybrids. Cushitic-speakers (along with Nilotes) were classified as hybrids because anyone who had a thin nose was considered Caucasoid. If anything Aethiopids are their own race and should not be pegged as either Caucasoid or Negroid.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Jul 12, 2005 9:45:08 GMT -5
No, they are not. Your conclusion is based on a biased interpretation. For one thing, attaching labels like Caucasoid and Negroid to genes is just plain retarded.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 12, 2005 13:41:38 GMT -5
No, they do not. That's 19th and 20th century baloney. They are not hybrids. Cushitic-speakers (along with Nilotes) were classified as hybrids because anyone who had a thin nose was considered Caucasoid. If anything Aethiopids are their own race and should not be pegged as either Caucasoid or Negroid. Buddy, Cushitic speakers are paternally almost full (proto)Caucasoid and maternally mostly negroid. Please, give that old nonsense a rest, Cushitic speakers aren't paternally Proto-Caucasoid anything.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 12, 2005 14:19:58 GMT -5
Please, give that old nonsense a rest, Cushitic speakers aren't paternally Proto-Caucasoid anything. E3b is ...And I don't want a 7 page discussion that it isn't, Afro Bass E3b isn't and I want to see evidence, since E3b arose in East Africa *AFTER* the first modern humans already left Africa. If E3b is Proto-Caucasoid, North Africans and Europeans were not Caucasoids before they acquired this lineage. Just shut up and cease trolling.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Jul 12, 2005 14:34:46 GMT -5
Here we go again... Just shut up and leave this thread if you don't care to discuss things.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 12, 2005 14:41:03 GMT -5
E3b is ...And I don't want a 7 page discussion that it isn't, Afro Bass E3b isn't and I want to see evidence, since E3b arose in East Africa *AFTER* the first modern humans already left Africa. If E3b is Proto-Caucasoid, North Africans and Europeans were not Caucasoids before they acquired this lineage. Just shut up and cease trolling. Charlie, we've been through this before: 1) The populations in Africa were highly structured long before anyone left Africa. They were not panmictic. 2) NRY M168 was the founder haplogroup of all non-Africans and it evolved in Africa. 3) Y haplogroup E derives from M168-- the Eurasian Adam. 4) Proto-Eurasians evolved in Africa. 5) M96 and its derivatives mostly remained in Africa while M89, M96's brother, left. 6) So, haplogroup NRY E was "originally African" in the geographic sense only, not in the genetic sense of "African". In the genetic sense, its origin is more properly called "non-African". 7) The interesting issue is what happened (I mean genetically) to these E haplogroup carriers as they moved through Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 12, 2005 16:43:07 GMT -5
Afro-Bass is a broken bad record,pay no heed to the ignoramus!
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 12, 2005 20:36:44 GMT -5
6) So, haplogroup NRY E was "originally African" in the geographic sense only, not in the genetic sense of "African". In the genetic sense, its origin is more properly called "non-African". How can haplogroup E be called “non-African” when their presence in Africa is not due to ‘extra-African’ sources? A shared common ancestry with a group that migrated out of Africa does not make haplogroup E genetically “non-African” or proto-Eurasian. M168 is called the “Eurasian Adam” because it’s the progenitor of all non-Africans. The M168 that stayed in Africa gave rise to Haplogroup E, what is so “non-African” genetically about E? Can you quote a geneticist that will agree that Hg E is genetically “non-African”?
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 12, 2005 20:51:07 GMT -5
African Archaeological Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 2005 ( C 2005)
Explanation of the Pattern of P49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt S. O. Y. Keita1
“Underhill et al.’s (2001, p. 51) spatiotemporal interpretation of the PN2/M35 lineage corresponds to the core range of Afroasiatic, which was not a concern in his work: “We suggest that a population with this subclade of the African YAP/M145/M213/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene.” (“Southern” here refers to northern Africa.) “ . . . a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant”(see Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; Bosch et al., 2001).”
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jul 13, 2005 2:55:57 GMT -5
6) So, haplogroup NRY E was "originally African" in the geographic sense only, not in the genetic sense of "African". In the genetic sense, its origin is more properly called "non-African". How can haplogroup E be called “non-African” when their presence in Africa is not due to ‘extra-African’ sources? A shared common ancestry with a group that migrated out of Africa does not make haplogroup E genetically “non-African” or proto-Eurasian. M168 is called the “Eurasian Adam” because it’s the progenitor of all non-Africans. The M168 that stayed in Africa gave rise to Haplogroup E, what is so “non-African” genetically about E? Can you quote a geneticist that will agree that Hg E is genetically “non-African”? Think. We've been over this countless times: take the basic genetic division between "African" and "non-African"--on Nu Sapiens map the ancient genetic fission between Blue ("African") and Red + Green ("non-African"). It's unfortunate that the terms used lead to confusion. But I'm really getting tired of having to explain the difference between "names" and conceptual entities in themselves. It seems like many people just cant overcome this conceptual hurdle. It has to do with the methodological standard scientists call "incommensurability", or variance in meaning. Geographic terms like "African" and "sub-saharan" are are often "incommensurate" with genetic terms that use the same labels, especially when you're dealing with vast differences in time depths. If you dont understand the variances in meanings you cant really understand whats going on. I too am beginning to sound like a broken record, and its getting truly exasperating to have to explain this over and over. Look at it this way: M168 arose in geographical Africa without any geographical (or genetic, at that time) "extra-African sources". Fret not, I'm not talking about the origin of modern "races", just logic and methodology. I swear this is the last time I try to explain this.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 13, 2005 16:09:42 GMT -5
I gave you an exalt on this for pointing out the very obvious,even despite that fact, that its been pointed out atleast 10 dozen times over again to Charlie Bass and his cronies...these thick-headed fellows will never get it! Shame...
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 13, 2005 16:30:38 GMT -5
I gave you an exalt on this for pointing out the very obvious,even despite that fact, that its been pointed out atleast 10 dozen times over again to Charlie Bass and his cronies...these thick-headed fellows will never get it! Shame... Do yu even understand what he's trying to say or are you playing a sideline cheerleader?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jul 13, 2005 17:38:44 GMT -5
You should ask yourself that very same question!
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Jul 14, 2005 1:16:17 GMT -5
You should ask yourself that very same question! I understand exactly what he's attempting to say, but I'm just not buying it. And I have good reason not to. But arguing with you with be a waste of time as well as brain drain.
|
|