About so-called "Ethiopids"

[Said Mohammad]

AWAR said:

Well, I don't know mostly anything about Ethiopian DNA, so I wanted to see if someone else would contribute a good counter-argument.

You sure as hell don't know and neither does your pet stooge Graeme

That's one of the major ironies of history. The Muslims were the ones catching and selling black ( and other ) slaves and selling them to European traders.[7quote]

Most of those who were capturing Africans were Africans period who sold mostly POWs from war. Before Europeans and Arabs came, they were selling to each other so Islam has nothing to do with this.

Islamic presence in Africa wiped out all the indigenous African cultures, many of the traces of indigenous Black and other African civilizations were destroyed, tribal cultures erased to make way for Islamic globalization.

Which indigenous cultures, which civilizations, start naming them. Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Timbuktu, and tekrur were all Islamic kingdoms, great ones in their own right. Gao and Djenne were centres of learning, nothing has been lost, you speak ignorance. Either put up or shut up.

Today Blacks in USA think of Islam in a romanticized manner, unknowing of it's role in their slavery and historical misfortune.

Most blacks in America aren't even Muslim, but of course a Serb who gets his information off of google and knows nothing about religion among African-Americans is allowed to make generalizations like this. Its not as if the European version of Chritsianity with its racial overtones was so much better. The Europeans and European descended peoples who enslaved Afriacns were Moslems too perhaps.

[AWAR]

LOL What a bunch of crap you wrote!

You speak about some non-white ancestry among southern Europeans. First of all, the burden of proof is upon you, not me. You're trying to prove that southern Europeans have non-white ancestry, so, where's some proof?

You also spew a lot of insults whenever you can't respond with any fact. Yes, I said that IMO Ethiopids are a race on their own. I said 'I think'... if your only response to my opinion is an insult... then we have nothing to discuss.

You already insulted other members, then you said 'f*ck Dodona', then removed yourself, then you come back again and you insult me. You've got your estrogen levels too high ;D

btw. I'm the wrong person to whine to about slavery. Had I lived in that time, I'd enslave you, your people and anyone else black or white. Such was the time.

I was only pointing out how ironic it is that a people who were hunted down and sold into slavery by muslims, now, several hundred years after, look up to Islam as some sort of ancestral religion that will save them.

[Said Mohammad]

AWAR said:

LOL What a bunch of crap you wrote!

Its crap only inasmuch that your ridiculous "thats Afrocentric, that Nordicist" ad-hominem can't refute anything I've said. Why don't you point out what things I said are crap, be specific.

You speak about some non-white ancestry among southern Europeans. First of all, the burden of proof is upon you, not me. You're trying to prove that southern Europeans have non-white ancestry, so, where's some proof?

Southern Europeans have low, very low levels of sub-Saharan ancestry, negligible to be honest, not to mention that Sicilians have significant ancestry from the Middle East, but some people in here call it "neolithic" to downplay it, makes not difference. The same with East African M-1, southern Euros trying to call it non-Negroid. stupid arguments IMO, thats called denial right.

You also spew a lot of insults whenever you can't respond with any fact. Yes, I said that IMO Ethiopids are a race on their own. I said 'I think'... if your only response to my opinion is an insult... then we have nothing to discuss.

My opinion was assaulted, for my post was about Ethiopians, no Afrocentrism or slavery. I told you you can think what you want, thats fine, but reality says Ethiopians are not a separate race. From your people, yes they are a separate race, from mine , no they are not.

You already insulted other members, then you said 'f*ck Dodona', then removed yourself, then you come back again and you insult me. You've got your estrogen levels too high ;D

No, I was the first to get insulted, esp, by that troll Graeme. I came back instead of running, to refute and set afire ridiculous pseudo-information about Africa and black people, two things you know nothing about.

btw. I'm the wrong person to whine to about slavery. Had I lived in that time, I'd enslave you, your people and anyone else black or white. Such was the time.

You had no reason to speak on slavery, and neither did Silveria, it had nothing to do with my original post on Ethiopians. You tell me what relevance does it have in this thread except to detract from my point, which that troll Graeme fail to properly address.

I was only pointing out how ironic it is that a people who were hunted down and sold into slavery by muslims, now, several hundred years after, look up to Islam as some sort of ancestral religion that will save them.

Nothing ironic about anything. Black Americans do not look to Islam as some sort of ancestral religion. Most Black Americans are Christian, which of this is not registering in your brain? Even if they did, what would be wrong? you're making look as though Muslims were the only guilty party. It wasn't the religion that enslaved people. Christians did the same and what do you have to say for this?

[Melnorme]

Saidu_Mohammad said:

The same with East African M-1, southern Euros trying to call it non-Negroid. stupid arguments IMO, thats called denial right.

You said earlier that you did not consider M1 a tracer of 'black African ancestry'. Changed your mind, did you?

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

You said earlier that you did not consider M1 a tracer of 'black African ancestry'. Changed your mind, did you?

thats not what I was trying to say. I said it has an East African origin, while Dienekes tried to cast doubt on its area of origin. No gene is a tracer of Negroid or caucasoid ancestry, thats the defeating the purpose of what phylogeography is about, even though the physical type in east Africa is tropical African.

[Melnorme]

Saidu_Mohammad said:

thats not what I was trying to say. I said it has an East African origin, while Dienekes tried to cast doubt on its area of origin. No gene is a tracer of Negroid or caucasoid ancestry, thats the defeating the purpose of what phylogeography is about, even though the physical type in east Africa is tropical African.

Um, okay, I'll just forget you said that then. ;D

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

Um, okay, I'll just forget you said that then. ;D

Southern Europeans and Nordicists with their bickering between themselves have resorted to labelling genes as Mongloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, in an effort to mongerelize each other. You see all the time with nonsense like Russians are chinks and Portuguese are mulattoes. Most geneticists do not label genes as such.

[Scoob]

Saidu_Mohammad said:

Southern Europeans have low, very low levels of sub-Saharan ancestry, negligible to be honest, not to mention that Sicilians have significant ancestry from the Middle East, but some people in here call it "neolithic" to downplay it, makes not difference. The same with East African M-1, southern Euros trying to call it non-Negroid. stupid arguments IMO, thats called denial right.

This is true.

Racial barriers have rarely been impermeable - perhaps only when geography (temporarily) barred all passage, such as during ice ages. I suspect that at all other times, humans mixed, if even at low frequencies.

[Melnorme]

Saidu_Mohammad said:

Southern Europeans and Nordicists with their bickering between themselves have resorted to labelling genes as Mongloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, in an effort to mongerelize each other. You see all the time with nonsense like Russians are chinks and Portuguese are mulattoes. Most geneticists do not label genes as such.

Yes, although from what I've seen geneticists are keen to decide if a given haplogroup is 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Western Eurasian'.

[nevada85]

i think M 1 shouldnt be considered a tracer becuase yemenite jews apparently have zero of that.

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

Yes, although from what I've seen geneticists are keen to decide if a given haplogroup is 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Western Eurasian'.

Yes, I know this, but when they say 'Sub-Saharan' and 'West Eurasian' they're not referring to race. they're speaking in phylogeogrphic terms,ie, the geographic distribution of a particular marker or gene. If a gene shows up in a higher frequency in east asia for example rather than west asia the genes is more likely to be termed 'east asian' rather than west asian. thats the kind of logic being used by geneticists when labelling genes phylogeographically.

[Said Mohammad]

Graeme said:

Awar, I thought this thread was a negro mind wank. Not a serious discussion.

The admixture in East Africans took place long before there was any a Middle East containing semitic speaking people that is in the Prehistoric. Looking for markers of existing modern Middle Eastern people in existing modern East Africans is stupid. What do those f*ckers have to do with the prehistoric folks who contributed their genes to ancient East Africans. These ancient folks could have wandered off to Manchuria. What on earth makes you think they lingered in the Middle East or that they contributed any genes to the present population of Arabia? There are lots of stupid assumptions there. Not very logical and the basis of the study is flawed because of it. Trust that rootless, illegimate humanoid to bring it up trying to prove yet another crock theory of his.

If you think East African got their genes and elongated features from your imaginary "pre-Semitic speaking Middle Easterners who migrated into East Africa"(which you have provided no evidence for BTW) Think again. Read this:

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.


Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups.

Hanihara T.

Department of Anatomy, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.

Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study.

As we can see, the earliest West Asians did not look like todays West Asians, hence it is stupid to say East Africans received their elongated features by way of genes from prehistoric pre-Semitic speaking populations from the Middle East, when the earliest West Asians resembled Africans.

As usual you will reply with another thunderous ad-hominem attack on me and Afrocentrism and will also propose another equally ridiculous theory without posting evidence of course, all in the name of your inability to stay on topic. Have fun trolling your way out of this one, maybe AWAR will come to the rescue and it'll be the same result for him too. ;D

[nordicyouth]

what happened in the former yugoslavia will probably crop up in north america and europe. aesthetics is part of individualism, a trait shared by all human beings albeit free and western_oriented human beings. no one can make us all come together as polynesians or whatever, multiculturalism will only lead to future bloodshed...

[alex221166]

AOW said:

no you have it wrong and this is nothing more than mudslinging Arabs and Moslems to detract from the fact that the Portuguese were some of the biggest enslavers of Africans, hell most of Europe was. Shit, blacks shouldn't be Christians either, we should have no religion using your logic. Arabs and Muslims were not enslavers of African-Americans and blacks in the Carribbean and South America.

No, and you no why? Because the Arabs didn't find the Americas. However, they managed to make a bucket load of cash selling Black Africans throughout the Indian Ocean. The Portuguese traded slaves. The populations who actually enslaved Africans were their rival African tribes. You Aframs sure like to paint your sky blue...

[Graeme]

Drama queen? I am his satanic majesty, if you want to come face to face with a fate worse than death, keep mocking satanic majesty's name. After all I created you and your line.

Afro, cool it. If you want to believe that learned, knowledge hungry men who went into history and archaeology were blind racists who wanted to make everything in their images, that is white, Anglo-Saxon, Northern European caucasians to the extent to damaging beautiful, ancient and priceless sculptures in order to chisel off negroid features, you have gone partly towards Afrocentrist views. That is not rational. There are plenty of Benin sculptures held in museums around the world that have beautiful negro faces, not hacked off ugly caricatures of caucasian ones. Whether you like it or not, it has been Wasps who have done more to discover, codify, study lost cultures, civilisations and languages. All Said ibn Haram quotes are the work of white men studying the languages of the Phoenicians, ancient Hebrew, Babylonian and other semitic languages. Richard Burton may have been a stupid old fart but he did preserve lots of the folklore of the Middle East. It is muslims who deface images. The last example occurred in Afghanistan by the taliban. The wanton descrution of ancient, Buddhist statues. The vandalism of the Sphinx, the vandalism of the Parthenon by the muslim Turks. Muslims have this stupid idea that images are pagan or deification of living people. The stoning to these images is of long standing in Islam and it is exemplied by the stoning of certain pillars during the Haj.

I have said this before and I will say this again, my training is in genetics, molecular biology and microbiology. I have two degrees in those sciences. It is my training. I know all about mitrochrondria, its bacterial like DNA, nuclear DNA, Gregor Mendel, Koch's postulates, genetic engineering....everything. After two degrees and working in the field of molecular biology I should! So I am not an interested, biased, dilettante who cannot criticise the so called efforts of other scientists. We all have are paradigms, but the best of us can be unbiased even if temporarily when doing research.

Said introductory piece had the agenda to discredit the idea based on phenotypes that East Africans are a nego/caucasoid mix. He did this by quoting the study of Middle Eastern DNA from modern Middle Easterners and comparing it to modern East Africans. What does it prove? It proves that East African DNA markers are different from Middle Eastern DNA markers in the 21st century. So what! It does not prove or disprove that the modern East Africans have caucasian admixture because no-one knows which caucasian group contributed its DNA to East Africans. It is just ASSUMED that it is people of Orientalid caucasian origin. No-one knows that. Even his satanic majesty doesn't know. His tack on linguistics is equally flawed. Because semitic languages are the only representatives of the so called Afro-Asiatic group of languages then he and his experts have ASSUME that as the majority of these languages are in Africa then Africa is where they developed. That is rational, but not logical. There is no proof of that assumption. Likewise Said goes off and quotes some Aussie archaeologist, not an anatomist, who claims that certain UP types are not of the caucasoid race. Mostly this archaeologist is talking about Neanderthals. Neanderthals weren't even of the sapien branch of the Homo genus. When I think of UP types I am thinking of actual humans, Cro-Magnons, who were CAUCASIAN. Excuse my French, but f*ck the Neanderthals and Neanderthal-like humanoids, they are no-ones ancestors. Maybe Said's, qui sa?

So any negroes out in cyberland, if you want to believe that nasty caucasian men went around defacing statues of negroes and putting caucasian faces to them or rewriting history of Egypt or other countries in their racist favour. Go ahead. I think you are selling the hard work of scientist, archaeologists, historians down the drain because of your stupid bigotry. It wasn't white Europid men who defaced the images and cartouses of the Pharoah Hatshepsut or Akenaten but their immediate successors all Egyptians. And it was white men who discovered this and deciphered the Egyptian language. So everything you know comes from those [bigots]!