posted 03 June 2004 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunstorm2004:
It's not likely that the "black is black" comment was meant to "box people in" by skin color, or even suggest that all black people are alike. I think it was meant to smile on common ground & bump up pride for certain aspects some might say are common to "black" cultures worldwide.

Romantic for sure -- but not deserving of the Zimbabwean dude's "byotch-like" hypersensitivity.

That Zimbabwean guy is a clown (& a "clown of justice" to boot). He reacted to "Jessie Jackson's" good nature with haughtiness and spite -- an *over-reaction* even if he disagreed with the sentiment.

I wish I had been there.

---

(Jeesh -- no clowns *worse* than the black ones. They're an insult in too many ways to tell... But what to do with'em?)

---

Your post echoes the discussion that followed, and the tension created by these guys beside me in the days before.

posted 03 June 2004 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
* scratching my head *

---

posted 04 June 2004 12:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]There are people who call themselves African-Americans who could pass as white, should they be considered racially white due to the fact they possess few features with blacks? I'm using your logic
You obviously don't understand my logic, as I don't subscribe to your so-called "phenotypical" ideal on race. If these African Americans can "pass" for
"white" 9 times out of ten, they probably
are half white/mulatto, 50% of one race, 50% of another. On the other hand a white person, who's great great grandmother was black,on one side of the family, has about 10%, european ancestry, 9 times out of 10 would call himself white. And the same for blacks, who may have about 10% European ancestry, would call themselves "black". As the law that required you to call yourself black if you had a drop of negro blood, is how do you say....history.[/B]

---

This is what i have to say, austroloid and negroid are two different races they are not simular in any way both originater in different continents, just becuase they are somhow simular in skin color does not make them the same, some asain people have white for their skin color would that make them caucasian no, they are mongloid, skin color i believe does not give the true identity of a person, u would need to go further more into the physical features. I see where u are goin homeylu.

posted 04 June 2004 01:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
That same argument has been used to whiten the Egyptians and define this so-called "mediterranean race", trying to separate Egyptians from other Blacks, when the fact is, there are Blacks in every part of this world, with aqueline noses, thin lips, long hair, etc. and I cant even count how many whites and Asians have big noses...

I personally could care less if you're Sudroid, Astraloid, Negroid, blah blah blah

as a famous rapper once said " BLACK IS BLACK"

---

posted 05 June 2004 10:01 AM            

There are few things I agree with Wally about, but one thing I do agree with is if you want the answers ask the people themselves, In the case of AEgyptians this unfortunatley is difficult as I beleive the ancient messages are up for Interpretation. However as in the case of Aboriginals there are 300,000 that will give you an answer.

I beleive the cultural aspects of a people do more to define their connection to others as much and maybe more than genetics, although genetics is in many cases simply supporting those cultural connections anyway. The Australian Aboriginal has a unique, language, unrelated to any other in the world, The Australian Aboriginal through the Dreamtime legends, has a unique religion, myths, legends, and beliefs, rarely mirrored in any other cultures around the world, The Australian Aboriginal has had a continuouse culture for over at least 60,000 years, a period of time unmatched by any culture ever: The Australian aboriginal has unique genetic make up, and in fact resides on the oposite side of the tree in relation to most other peoples who share their external apearance. This leaves the only comonality between them and all other black people. "Skin Color". A very shallow basis for catagorisation when considering a peoples individualality.

IF you were to ask an aboriginal if he was black, he would in more cases than not, look at you like you are an idiot and say off cause I am. But if you told him he was a black man like the rest of the world he would debate being catagorised by his color.

This feeling was echoed by most of the people whom I have mentiond at Womad, who were being approached by those preaching the African Black)-diaspora unity on the basis of nothing more than color, not a good place to do this when these people come from all over the world to showcase their music and different cultures.

As one of the guys said (Not word for word) " I do not understand why a people who have been catagorised and predudeced against by the color of there skin, Much the same as we have, insists on using the same catagory for themslves and go one step further by widening the catagory to every black man in the world. We are here to show our individual cultures as individual peoples, from individual countries, and you would have us present ourselves as balck men united under the banner of only the color of our skin. If that dont bury my culture nothing will".

Hence the reaction to Black is Black.

Maybe you should ask them if they want to join the club before listing them as members!

Ozzy

posted 05 June 2004 04:36 PM            

however there certainly was and is a shared experience with regard to their treatment by whites.....who could care less what kind of black they are/were....there genitals were still cut off and strung up around the necks of white hunters....and to this day they do not enjoy close to a standard of living of white australians

posted 05 June 2004 06:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:
I agree with what u have said Ozzy i certainly don't feel any kinship to australoids...

however there certainly was and is a shared experience with regard to their treatment by whites.....who could care less what kind of black they are/were....there genitals were still cut off and strung up around the necks of white hunters....and to this day they do not enjoy close to a standard of living of white australians

To many whites black is black

---

Obenga, I wrote rater a lengthy responce but lost it, dont have time to re right. The cruts of my responce was in regards to your last statment. "To many whites black is black.

I think this is the point, its not weather a white thinks its so, its weather other blacks around the world feel its so. and if they dont (Which has been my experience) why should they be labled, canned,or boxed, by the same people who claim or feel a connection becuase of skin color. In many cases, as I have mentioned above I have seen a resentment come from it.

Talking of race to the Africans I know for example, often talk of other Africans, when refering to race. Australian Aboriginals do not like being called African or just Black, as evident from the outrage during runokko rashiddis reported staement that All Aboriginals were greating him as brother and telling him of thier African origins. None of the Black people I know now or have known; support the Africa-diasora idealism that Blacks are Blacks, and in ffact the majority distance themselves in favor of cultural individuality.

In regards to the standard of living for Aboriginal Australia, this is a complicated subject and is not as simple as Aboriginals not having what White Australia does. And is not for this Forum. I would be happpy to discus via email if anyone has an interst.

posted 05 June 2004 06:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
There are few things I agree with Wally about, but one thing I do agree with is if you want the answers ask the people themselves, In the case of AEgyptians this unfortunatley is difficult as I beleive the ancient messages are up for Interpretation.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 05 June 2004 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

The skeletal data of the AE is very easy to interpret and they were Black.

---

posted 05 June 2004 09:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
In Upper Egypt it was,but in the north most of the crania was intermediate series.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 June 2004 07:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

As far as I am aware "Black" is a social term used in the USA and Great Brittan to describe people of African descent of various degrees including multi-ethnic people. Hence an intermediate type would still be socially classified as Black in America. Harry Belafonte is socially classified as Black, yet his features are intermediate.

---

Maybe African-Americans will classify Belafonte as black, but some Africans will not. Northern Egyptian crania had intermediate and even some tropical African patterns in their crania, but as Shomarka Keita said, an indigenous coastal African pattern can be found, and it was distinct from those of tropical Africans. Its practically useless to use American racial classifications for ancient Egyptians for a person with even the slightest amount of black ancestry in the US is black. people like Mariah Carey and Walter White are socially "black" in American, but would never be considered as blacks to Africans.

posted 06 June 2004 10:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Maybe African-Americans will classify Belafonte as black, but some Africans will not. Northern Egyptian crania had intermediate and even some tropical African patterns in their crania, but as Shomarka Keita said, an indigenous coastal African pattern can be found, and it was distinct from those of tropical Africans. Its practically useless to use American racial classifications for ancient Egyptians for a person with even the slightest amount of black ancestry in the US is black. people like Mariah Carey and Walter White are socially "black" in American, but would never be considered as blacks to Africans.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 June 2004 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The point is the word "BLACK" is specific to the US and Great Brittan. So of course AFRICANS would not call these people "Black" as the concept of "Black" is foreign to Africa. You cannot translate concepts to different cultures. But as you have just admitted, in the USA (the home of the concept of Blackness) these Northern Coastal Egyptians would be considered "Black". My logic stands.

---

Not quite my friend. Northern coastal Egyptians are NOT "black" because of the "one drop rule" which many African-Americans fail to realize was created by white racists to preclude white blood from being tainted. You play right into their logic by using such ridicupous standards of what is black. Why define whats black according to the rule of white racists? Italians have low level of black ancestry, are they black? Some completely non-Negroid looking North Africans have moderate to substantial levels of sub-Saharan ancestry, does it make them black? If you go to south Africa which is more racially divided than the US, people like Belafonte would be considered as Coloureds, not black.

posted 06 June 2004 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The concept of blackness is not limited to the US. If you look at the Negritude movement that started with Leopold Senghor, that was not an American invention, that was totally African.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 June 2004 01:31 PM            

Honestly, you guys take "race" waaay to seriously, as if there's a whole lot of solid science to it.

Race is political. It's main utility is to "lock in" social status. ("I'm born of race x so I'm more worthy -- even 'smarter' -- than a person born of race y.")

Its engine is the "self-esteem" that it gives to people with little else to feel good about. If everyone was the same "race," societies would even invent categorizations of people to look down upon, as the Japanese did with the burakumin. Give a populace a "race" to look down on & they're less likely to challenge their "overlords". They'll take the route of least resistance instead & persecute & scorn the "race" they're "better than". Plus, "race" provides a issue to divide people with, & thus take the heat off the overlords.

That's what race is good for, & that's about it -- essentially, locking in status, or "class".

You all seem to have vested more in this "science" than it's actually worth.

-----

Cranial measurements, "aquiline" noses vs flat, skin color, genetics-- all that appears along a continuum, throughout the peoples of the world. Where's the demarcation points between the races? Who sets them? How -- if not politically?

Taxonomic classification of creatures as complex and intermingled as humans is suspect in itself. Indeed, to try to reduce humans to the *material* like that, and ultimately *stand in judgement* of children like that (which is what it always leads to), marks the "science" of race as a matter rooted not just in politics, but in the conflict in *spiritual* realm. Its "science" is just a smokescreen.

... And where is comes to culture, culture is different between blacks even as closely "related" as blacks in the Caribbean & blacks in the U.S., and we were dropped off by the same slaveships. (Personally, I can often even tell by just looking at a black person whether they were born in the U.S., Carribean, West Africa, or East Africa.)

So does that mean that some of us aren't "black", because we hail from different cultures? ...Because we're now diverse "genetically"? That's playing the game by the rules of "racists" (and, typically, letting them change the rules when they don't suit their purposes.)

---

Race is politics, which is exactly why people like Harry Belafonte consider themselves black. It's less a matter of choosing between races than choosing to identify with the oppressed or the oppressor, and those who will embrace you vs. those who would reject you...

If you huff at being called "black" by another "black", (like that Zimbabwean), you're shedding more light on your politics than what "race" you are. (Or maybe the next guy was just a better drummer...)

Outside of the racial equation, we can all be individuals. But within the racial equation, an Australian Aborigine, a Zimbabwean, a Papuan, a Viet Montegnard, or a Dalit who huffs at being called "black" is suspect in my book. While we're at it, let's throw in the Ancient Egyptians, people from the Dominican Republic, Anwar Sadat, and Uday and Qusay Hussein.

(...& maybe Ozzy. Come join the club, dude. Pweeeze? Pwetty pweeeze? We need more guys like you!)

----

Rather than invest your scholarship in the "science" of race, why not turn an eye to the culture of racism, which impels people to distance themselves from "black" people in whatever way they can, grasp at straws to embrace "whiteness", as well as, of course, be shrill and underhanded about removing all "Africanness" from Ancient Egyptian culture...

Study of the culture of racism -- its psychology, its methods, its history, etc. --will be more valuable to the world than the "science" of race could ever be...

posted 06 June 2004 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Really, I always thought "Black" was a English term? Did Senghor speak English as his native tongue? If not, I will have to assume that their was another term and social meaning that may be SIMILAR to the American concept of Blackness. Do you get my point?

---

I do get your point, do not get me wrong. Though Senghor didn't speak English, the attitude associated with blackness is still the same as with African-Americans

I will say that coastal North Africans are biologically African, unlike Nina who tries to whitewash them as "European Caucasian" and ignore that sub-Saharan biological relationships with North African exist on a cline(North-south) phenotypically and genotypically, therefore one cannot whitewash or cleanly separate the two

posted 06 June 2004 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I will say that coastal North Africans are biologically African, unlike Nina who tries to whitewash them as "European Caucasian" and ignore that sub-Saharan biological relationships with North African exist on a cline(North-south) phenotypically and genotypically, therefore one cannot whitewash or cleanly separate the two

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 June 2004 11:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Not quite my friend. Northern coastal Egyptians are NOT "black" because of the "one drop rule" which many African-Americans fail to realize was created by white racists to preclude white blood from being tainted. You play right into their logic by using such ridicupous standards of what is black. Why define whats black according to the rule of white racists? Italians have low level of black ancestry, are they black? Some completely non-Negroid looking North Africans have moderate to substantial levels of sub-Saharan ancestry, does it make them black? If you go to south Africa which is more racially divided than the US, people like Belafonte would be considered as Coloureds, not black.

The concept of blackness is not limited to the US. If you look at the Negritude movement that started with Leopold Senghor, that was not an American invention, that was totally African. The US does have significant contributions of what is blackness, don't get me wrong. Black in America is merely social, not really that much biological, especially if people like Walter White can be considered as black when they have low levels of African ancestry. Thats why Keita says the Ancient Egyptiaqns are biologically African and excludes such terms as black, white, Negroid, and Caucasoid. With so many definitions of what constitutes blackness in world, who's to say that the American definition is the right one.

---

Multishpinx says:
Yes delta region egyptians are not "black", but they are not whites as Italains or the rest of North Africa, the reason is because they contain more negroid in them that for pure modern egyptian today it makes a difference in how they physically appear. I mean i never saw an Italian with kinky hair or thick lips, and the same is with the rest of north Africa whcm don't contain negroid feartures what so ever as you said they are known as non negroes of Africa. So what i am tryin to say is that the egyptians of today have more negroid in them to give them such features as the kinky hair, thick lips broad noses, etc... These are found especially throughout the fellahin in both upper and lower egypt aswell as the saidies.

[This message has been edited by multisphinx (edited 06 June 2004).]

posted 06 June 2004 11:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
When will this thread die? Too many posts that are irrelevant to ancient Egypt...

---

posted 07 June 2004 01:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Indeed. There is more to be said on this issue which IS related to AE in that these regions were colonized by AE and AE needs to be contextualized within its proper African context. I do not believe in race, but from a North American social perspective Early Dynastic Upper and Lower Egyptians were "Black".

---

Correct, though the North American context of what is black is far from acceptable.

The biological cline between the two(Sub-Saharan and North Africans) isn't the only thing that connects the two. We have evidence of the Aterian originating in sub-Saharan Africa and moving into North Africa. We have the linguistic unity in the form of the Afro-Asiatic and to a lesser degree, Nilo-Saharan, language families. Another fact to point out is the Oran Capsian(Algeria) and the Kenyan Capsian. Coon thought East Africa was populated by "Mediterranean Caucasoids" because of the similarities between the two tool industries, but since no evidence exists for "Mediterranean Caucasoids" populating East Africa(Rightmire 1975) that is not true. What we do have is evidence of DNA ancestral to East Africa genepools present in North African genepools and crania with tropical African affinities are found in North Africa as well as intermediates(Keita et tal) so even the Capsian in North Africa might have had its origins in East Africa

Its simply to much to go over that shows that there is indeed biological, archaelogical, and linguistic continuity bewteen the North and sub-Saharan Africans, some of which exists on a cline. Separating the two is ridiculous as some have tried(Dienekes Pontikos, racialreality, Nina, etc).

posted 07 June 2004 02:22 AM            

Biomed Pharmacother. 1999 Sep;53(8):386-92. Related Articles, Links

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms of a west Algerian population
(Oran region).

Ivanova R, Astrinidis A, Djoulah S, Lepage V, Wijnen E, Hors J,
Charron D.

INSERM U396, Hospital St Louis, Paris, France.

Mitochondrial DNA codes for enzymes involved in the cellular
energetic pathway. The polymorphism of this genome has been
extensively analyzed for disease associations, but can also be used to
characterize anthropological distances between populations. This study
presents the results of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation
for a population sample of 50 unrelated individuals originating from
western Algeria. The samples were studied with the recently developed
long PCR technique followed by RFLP analysis using six restriction
endonucleases: HpaI, BamHI, HaeII, MspI, AvaII and HincII. One new
morph for HpaI (named HpaI-9Alg) was detected, and was found to be
derived from the combination of the already known morphs 3 and 4.
mtDNA restriction endonuclease fragment patterns were analyzed for
potential site gain or loss and classified into 18 mtDNA types by the
sequence-comparison method. Three mtDNA types (97Alg; 2-1-7-1-1,
98Alg; 2-1-1-8-37 and 99Alg; 9Alg-1-1-1-3) were detected for the first
time. Another mtDNA marker--the presence of the 9 bp deletion in the
COII/tRNA(Lys) region--was also studied in the Algerian sample. No
deletions were observed. Our results indicate that the Algerians are
genetically related to the Israeli-Arab population, with certain
characteristics found in southern Europeans and others found in
sub-Saharan Africans.

posted 07 June 2004 03:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Here's a Mtdna analysis of Algerians from Oran.

Biomed Pharmacother. 1999 Sep;53(8):386-92. Related Articles, Links

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms of a west Algerian population
(Oran region).

Ivanova R, Astrinidis A, Djoulah S, Lepage V, Wijnen E, Hors J,
Charron D.

INSERM U396, Hospital St Louis, Paris, France.

Mitochondrial DNA codes for enzymes involved in the cellular
energetic pathway. The polymorphism of this genome has been
extensively analyzed for disease associations, but can also be used to
characterize anthropological distances between populations. This study
presents the results of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation
for a population sample of 50 unrelated individuals originating from
western Algeria. The samples were studied with the recently developed
long PCR technique followed by RFLP analysis using six restriction
endonucleases: HpaI, BamHI, HaeII, MspI, AvaII and HincII. One new
morph for HpaI (named HpaI-9Alg) was detected, and was found to be
derived from the combination of the already known morphs 3 and 4.
mtDNA restriction endonuclease fragment patterns were analyzed for
potential site gain or loss and classified into 18 mtDNA types by the
sequence-comparison method. Three mtDNA types (97Alg; 2-1-7-1-1,
98Alg; 2-1-1-8-37 and 99Alg; 9Alg-1-1-1-3) were detected for the first
time. Another mtDNA marker--the presence of the 9 bp deletion in the
COII/tRNA(Lys) region--was also studied in the Algerian sample. No
deletions were observed. Our results indicate that the Algerians are
genetically related to the Israeli-Arab population, with certain
characteristics found in southern Europeans and others found in
sub-Saharan Africans.

PMID: 10554673 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra\
ct&list_uids=10554673

---

posted 07 June 2004 04:06 AM            

Oran also has a population of Sahrawiwho are a mixture of many elements,sub-Saharan,Arab,and Berber. The Algerian singer Khaled is a member of this group.

posted 07 June 2004 04:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
I'm aware that U6 is the most common halpotype for modern Algerians. If you read the other abstract posted about Algerians,the abstract suggests the modern Algerian Berbers are migrants from the Near East about 30,000 years ago.

Oran also has a population of Sahrawiwho are a mixture of many elements,sub-Saharan,Arab,and Berber. The Algerian singer Khaled is a member of this group.

---

posted 07 June 2004 02:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The skeletal data of the AE is very easy to interpret and they were Black.

---

I dont debate the origins the AE, of cause they were black in the sence black is used today. Its much of the material that is used as evidance that I debate. We have had the Skeletal data debate many times, andthe dat can be used sucessfully bu both sides. The AEs were native and most definately black.

I actualy find much of the data used often as damaging to those who support the black native origin of AEs.

Having said that I do also support the existance of lighter people from the delta. I consider them native also regardless of their origin, as much as anyone can call any other people who have migrated to or from, more than 20,000 years ago. If you were to deny then the lable or native then many peopel from around the world,,RE:American indians, much of Europe etc could not be called native. I dont see anyone debating their rights to call themselves native so why North Africa.

Ozzy

posted 07 June 2004 02:52 PM            

You missed the message altogether, and maybe its becuase you have actualy looked for a political motivation for the reaction of those people. You have put the Polotics in the motive just as the African-diaspora campainers brought polotics to a cultural festivil.

No one huffed at being called black, on the contrary, these guys were there to showcase themselves, in every aspect but polotics.

They did however huff at not being recognised for their individualalty, and being boxed.

For someone to look for th political motivasion of a Black man who simply does not share the ideals of the african-Diaspora movement I think it is clear who is hung up on the polotics.

Ozzy

posted 07 June 2004 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

That is true thats why there is alot of confusion about the exact origin of the U6 haplotype, some say it may have arisen in Africa in-situ or it may have arisen in the Near East. The anthropological evidence would suggest the latter, but after 30,000 years these migrants would have adapted and their DNA would have mutated to become African-specific, hence U6 is characterized as an African haplotype geographically more frequent in North Africans.

---

Thought this may interst you:

Extract from,Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography
Nicole Maca-Meyer1 , Ana M González1 , José Pestano2 , Carlos Flores1 , José M Larruga1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, SPAIN

In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic. The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading. This movement is in time frame with the Capsian culture. Based on archaeological and anthropological grounds, it has been speculated that these incomers slowly pushed away the aboriginal residents [2]. It could be in that time when U6b reached the south of the Iberian Peninsula from where it was displaced to the north where it persists today. The U6b and U6c diaspora also reached the Atlantic fringe from where they sailed to the Canary Islands. Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area.

Besides U6, other genetic markers such as 110(-) haplotype of the CD4/Alu system [36], and the M81 Y-chromosome binary marker [6,7], point to an ancient and autochthonous human presence in Northwest Africa. An eastward decline in M81 frequencies has been detected, regrettably the lack of extensive intra-M81 microsatellite diversity studies in Africa precludes phylogeographic comparisons as those done with mtDNA. There are other coincidences between mtDNA data and other systems. For instance, using classical genetic markers, it was found that the Iberian Peninsula showed smaller genetic distances with East Africa than with West Africa [37]. The same pattern was observed for Y-chromosome studies [7], both in line with our results (Table 3). More studies with other genetic markers are necessary to corroborate, complement or even contradict the proposed U6 landscape.

Other studies have shown it unlikley that the Iberian Africa connection was via the staights of Gibrolter. I feel the connection lies in two seperate migrations each side of the medeteranien.

Im not sure it can be considered African-specific when it has a hight frequesncy in Iberia. Many of the Subgroups have originated in Africa, if thats what you mean. But most of those were much less than 30,000 years.

posted 08 June 2004 12:03 AM            

I must also admit that I am a product of my society. A society developed on "white supremacy"

And if I can identify with my African brothers and sisters who were subjected to this "white supremacy" I can also identify to my Indian "Black Untouchables" brothers and sisters who were/are subjected to it, as well as my "Aboriginal" brothers and sisters who were/are subjected to it.

As this concept of white supremacy was based on SKIN COLOR, not nose shape/size, hair texture, blah, blah, blah.

They only embraced those physical characteristics later when they discovered that these "dark skinned" people created civilizations that were "superior" to what they had during the same time frames.

Prior to the industrial revolution, being "Lilly white" all during the victorian era, was a sign of refinement, wealth, so-called ultimate beauty. White women would even try to "whiten" their already white skin. As being tanned was associated with some low class field hand "white trash" associated with working in the sun for hours a day. As recent as the 1920's when the infamous Coco Channel dared to get tanned playing tennis South of France, tanning became oh so "fashionable" a sign of being able to take exotic vacations.

And now these same white supremacist wants us to embrace their concept that the Egyptians were nothing by white people with "TANS".

Give me a freaking break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not be a part of this plot to keep allowing "THEM" to define beauty, and what "in" and "not in".

posted 08 June 2004 12:28 AM            

And the moment they discover these "distinct" features on the collosal heads of the Ohmec culture as one poster pointed out, low and behold, they create another race. And many of you are falling right into this plot knowingly,or unknowlingly, by arguing these trivial physical features, unaware that the only purpose of all of this is to disassociate these civilizations from sub-saharan Africans.

posted 08 June 2004 12:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Thought this may interst you:

Extract from,Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography
Nicole Maca-Meyer1 , Ana M González1 , José Pestano2 , Carlos Flores1 , José M Larruga1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, SPAIN

In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic. The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading. This movement is in time frame with the Capsian culture. Based on archaeological and anthropological grounds, it has been speculated that these incomers slowly pushed away the aboriginal residents [2]. It could be in that time when U6b reached the south of the Iberian Peninsula from where it was displaced to the north where it persists today. The U6b and U6c diaspora also reached the Atlantic fringe from where they sailed to the Canary Islands. Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area.

Besides U6, other genetic markers such as 110(-) haplotype of the CD4/Alu system [36], and the M81 Y-chromosome binary marker [6,7], point to an ancient and autochthonous human presence in Northwest Africa. An eastward decline in M81 frequencies has been detected, regrettably the lack of extensive intra-M81 microsatellite diversity studies in Africa precludes phylogeographic comparisons as those done with mtDNA. There are other coincidences between mtDNA data and other systems. For instance, using classical genetic markers, it was found that the Iberian Peninsula showed smaller genetic distances with East Africa than with West Africa [37]. The same pattern was observed for Y-chromosome studies [7], both in line with our results (Table 3). More studies with other genetic markers are necessary to corroborate, complement or even contradict the proposed U6 landscape.

Other studies have shown it unlikley that the Iberian Africa connection was via the staights of Gibrolter. I feel the connection lies in two seperate migrations each side of the medeteranien.

Im not sure it can be considered African-specific when it has a hight frequesncy in Iberia. Many of the Subgroups have originated in Africa, if thats what you mean. But most of those were much less than 30,000 years.

I think I posted a study showing the Sub-saharan influence in some of the North African groups, which suggests either retaied dna from the iindiginouse or a later return by sub-saharans.

---

Ozzy you need to read the full text of that study, for it is seriously flawed. A poster from North Africa posted a good response to it when I first posted it, his name is Mohamed from racial myths. The writers of that study say Caucasians from east Africa spread the Afro-Asiatic languages, that right there makes it suspect. I encourage you to read the full text when its available, not just the abstract

posted 08 June 2004 04:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Ozzy you need to read the full text of that study, for it is seriously flawed. A poster from North Africa posted a good response to it when I first posted it, his name is Mohamed from racial myths. The writers of that study say Caucasians from east Africa spread the Afro-Asiatic languages, that right there makes it suspect. I encourage you to read the full text when its available, not just the abstract

---

I have read it! it was published in October 2003. Would you like a copy?

The word Caucasian as you have seen is in reference to the migrations into North Africa. If you further read you will notice that they conclude that these people most probably came from the Near East not Europe. And the term is used (Although badly) as a reference to them.

Further the origins of the Poto-U6 clade are further suggested by them as being East African. Considering this is within a 30,000 year time period the mutation dates given give some insight to the limited time out of Africa and a possible continual contact (Suggested by me not them). How long do Africans stay African? I doubt the return migrations would have been that much different from the original out of Africa migratory.

So even though they use the term it is no way in relation to what the general public perceive as Caucasian. You yourself said the data points to Near East.

Genetic researchers don’t often have a grasp of the terminology they should be using. Have you meet any?

The only problem in this report is some of the terminology used by them, which I have seen often in many of the reports published by La Laguna here in Tenerife. They use the term incorrectly as anything Non Sub-Saharan African.

In relation to language comparisons, they say this.

“There are different hypothesis to explain the Afro-asiatic origin. For some, it would be the result of a Neolithic demic diffusion from the Near East to Africa [27,28]. For others, the Afroasiatic originated in Africa and had a posterior demic spread to West Asia [29,30]. A third possibility is that Afroasiatic languages spread mostly through cultural contacts either from Africa or from Asia [31]. Only demic diffusions could be correlated with U6 expansions detected here.

As you may have noticed these comments are based not on their own studies but references from Barbujani G, Pilastro A, De Dominico S, Renfrew C: Genetic variation in North Africa and Eurasia: neolithic demic diffusion vs. Paleolithic colonisation.
Am J Phys Anthropol 1994 for instantce.

And they are simple correlating their research data against available Archeological, linguistic, and Paleontological evidence. And they more than once give the range of thought in each area for the reader to consider. Their conclusions are simply those which fit there data. They make that perfectly clear.

Apart from the word use, which is extremely bad at times I think the data is far from Flawed and has been supported by many other reports. It’s the interpretation that makes the difference. Read the data as well as the publication and make a judgment.

I have a PDF copy if you want one.

Ozzy

posted 08 June 2004 04:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Did you save Mohammed's responce? Sounds like some old Nusratic theories. Do you talk to Mohammed? Whaever happen to him?

---

Ausar, you have used data from the Univerities of La Laguna, and Grand Canaria, before. You should know they dont go out of their way to publish bias material.

Have you actualy read it?

Ozzy

posted 08 June 2004 04:34 PM            

http://popgen.well.ox.ac.uk/eurasia/htdocs/nostratic.html

posted 08 June 2004 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Afro-asiatic is no longer within the Nostratic linguistic family.

http://popgen.well.ox.ac.uk/eurasia/htdocs/nostratic.html

---

As I said if you had read it you would have seen that they supported a stongly supported position of Near Eastern origin for the North African migration. The Proto for these people was suggested East African. The comment of Language spread was in reference to them.

The use of the word Caucasion was unfortunate but by no means suggesting a European, Asian or other origin.

I can not understand how anyone can come to that conclusion just from one word, when there are thousands of other words to the contrary.

posted 08 June 2004 05:07 PM            

Still if people are suggesting the Afro-Asiatic language was spread by caucasoid people from Eastern Africa then they must explain why other speakers are not racially caucasoid.

From what I understand the amazigh branch of Afro-Asiatic was spread by people from the Lower Nile and then isolated from other branches.

posted 09 June 2004 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
I have read it! it was published in October 2003. Would you like a copy?

The word Caucasian as you have seen is in reference to the migrations into North Africa. If you further read you will notice that they conclude that these people most probably came from the Near East not Europe. And the term is used (Although badly) as a reference to them.

Further the origins of the Poto-U6 clade are further suggested by them as being East African. Considering this is within a 30,000 year time period the mutation dates given give some insight to the limited time out of Africa and a possible continual contact (Suggested by me not them). How long do Africans stay African? I doubt the return migrations would have been that much different from the original out of Africa migratory.

So even though they use the term it is no way in relation to what the general public perceive as Caucasian. You yourself said the data points to Near East.

Genetic researchers don’t often have a grasp of the terminology they should be using. Have you meet any?

The only problem in this report is some of the terminology used by them, which I have seen often in many of the reports published by La Laguna here in Tenerife. They use the term incorrectly as anything Non Sub-Saharan African.

In relation to language comparisons, they say this.

“There are different hypothesis to explain the Afro-asiatic origin. For some, it would be the result of a Neolithic demic diffusion from the Near East to Africa [27,28]. For others, the Afroasiatic originated in Africa and had a posterior demic spread to West Asia [29,30]. A third possibility is that Afroasiatic languages spread mostly through cultural contacts either from Africa or from Asia [31]. Only demic diffusions could be correlated with U6 expansions detected here.

As you may have noticed these comments are based not on their own studies but references from Barbujani G, Pilastro A, De Dominico S, Renfrew C: Genetic variation in North Africa and Eurasia: neolithic demic diffusion vs. Paleolithic colonisation.
Am J Phys Anthropol 1994 for instantce.

And they are simple correlating their research data against available Archeological, linguistic, and Paleontological evidence. And they more than once give the range of thought in each area for the reader to consider. Their conclusions are simply those which fit there data. They make that perfectly clear.

Apart from the word use, which is extremely bad at times I think the data is far from Flawed and has been supported by many other reports. It’s the interpretation that makes the difference. Read the data as well as the publication and make a judgment.

I have a PDF copy if you want one.

Ozzy

---

posted 09 June 2004 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
It puzzles me why negriod is no longer in scientific use yet the word caucasoid is. I bet these are the same people who claim race is just an illusion yet continue to use such jargon in peer reviwed genetic journals.

Still if people are suggesting the Afro-Asiatic language was spread by caucasoid people from Eastern Africa then they must explain why other speakers are not racially caucasoid.

From what I understand the amazigh branch of Afro-Asiatic was spread by people from the Lower Nile and then isolated from other branches.

---

Ausar you know as well as I do that caucasoid is no longer a scientific word just as Negroid is not. Whoever how many times have you used the word negroid, as well as posted Peer Review publications which use the word Negroid? The words are used! and if one is inclined to discard "data!" for the sake of words that may offend or not perscribe to personal choice then your reading is going to be limited. I have not seen you discard a paper that uses the word Negroid when this word is also listed in the Dictionay of Anthropology as a non scientific defunct word.

I admit the average person reading the article would be mislead in that they would imediatly think of white caucasoid people, when the word is used. Im surprised that one of those people is you.

Regarding the Language comparisments, they again simply say that their data corresponds and supports one of three schools of though, they do not discount, the others at all. Many peer Review publications dont even bother to offer the varied thoughts, they simply present thier findings and their view.

I think the reaction the word use is simply over the top.

posted 09 June 2004 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by multisphinx
[b]If u are goin to identify people just on skin color then u could call half the world black.
I do.

I must also admit that I am a product of my society. A society developed on "white supremacy"

And if I can identify with my African brothers and sisters who were subjected to this "white supremacy" I can also identify to my Indian "Black Untouchables" brothers and sisters who were/are subjected to it, as well as my "Aboriginal" brothers and sisters who were/are subjected to it.

As this concept of white supremacy was based on SKIN COLOR, not nose shape/size, hair texture, blah, blah, blah.

They only embraced those physical characteristics later when they discovered that these "dark skinned" people created civilizations that were "superior" to what they had during the same time frames.

Prior to the industrial revolution, being "Lilly white" all during the victorian era, was a sign of refinement, wealth, so-called ultimate beauty. White women would even try to "whiten" their already white skin. As being tanned was associated with some low class field hand "white trash" associated with working in the sun for hours a day. As recent as the 1920's when the infamous Coco Channel dared to get tanned playing tennis South of France, tanning became oh so "fashionable" a sign of being able to take exotic vacations.

And now these same white supremacist wants us to embrace their concept that the Egyptians were nothing by white people with "TANS".

Give me a freaking break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will not be a part of this plot to keep allowing "THEM" to define beauty, and what "in" and "not in".

Enough of the collagen lip injections already!
[/B]

---

posted 09 June 2004 03:40 PM            

"Southern" United States- go figure

posted 09 June 2004 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

The terminology isn't the only thing wrong, they get wrong the archaeological aspect. They suggested that the Aterian started in Northwest Africa, but that view is no longer accepted for the area in southwest Egypt/Sudan is now considered as the origin of the Aterian. this is why they used to term Caucasian to describe the people who spread Afro-Asiatic. In any case genetics and linguistics do not often correlate. Cavalli-Sforze tried to group Afro-Asiatic speakers under the same cluster genetically and his was study ended up flawed for he excluded Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic speakers, Keita and Richard Kittles once pointed this out

---

Im aware there have been suggestions, and some concern has been put forward regarding the lack of research done in Southern Egypt but I was not aware this was mainstreem. As far as I am aware apart from occurring in some oasis contexts, the Aterian does has not appeared in Upper Egypt nor Nubia yet. If this be the case then the report is true to current Archoelogical evidance.

If this has changed, can you direct me to the new material which shows the Aterian industry started in SouthWest Africa. I must admit that I have not exactly read much refering to the Aterian industry in the last few years but I would be supprised if it had changed so much. But as always im happy to be corrected.

Ozzy

posted 10 June 2004 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Im aware there have been suggestions, and some concern has been put forward regarding the lack of research done in Southern Egypt but I was not aware this was mainstreem. As far as I am aware apart from occurring in some oasis contexts, the Aterian does has not appeared in Upper Egypt nor Nubia yet. If this be the case then the report is true to current Archoelogical evidance.

If this has changed, can you direct me to the new material which shows the Aterian industry started in SouthWest Africa. I must admit that I have not exactly read much refering to the Aterian industry in the last few years but I would be supprised if it had changed so much. But as always im happy to be corrected.

Ozzy

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 09 June 2004).]

---

Here is the evidence:

Ph. Van Peer, "A review of the Late Middle Pleistocene and Early Upper Pleistocene cultural developments in the Middle and Lower Nile Valley" -

He said that the best evidence for the Middle to Upper Pleistocene transition comes from Sai island in the Sudan with Sangoan to Acheulian levels. Around 300,000 years ago the transition started in Eastern Africa. Farther north (ie. Sudan) the transition occurred around 200,000 years ago. He found many Sangoan grinding stones (sandstone) which were used for grinding pigments, lumps of which were also found in situ. They found as well grinding stones with indication that they had been used for processing plant material. Then the Sangoan large tools were replaced by blade tools. Afterwards, these were in their turn replaced by Nubian levallois tools. Then the foliates disappeared and were replaced by the Nubian Aterian complex. Then the Aterian emerged, probably in the area of southern Egypt, northern Sudan and southern Libya from where it spread to the west into the Sahara and to northern Africa. Then about 70,000 years ago a blade tool technology appeared, involving a very specialized division of work and a complex social organization. The time covered by this study goes between about 225,000 to 25,000 years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

posted 10 June 2004 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Here is the evidence:

Ph. Van Peer, "A review of the Late Middle Pleistocene and Early Upper Pleistocene cultural developments in the Middle and Lower Nile Valley" -

He said that the best evidence for the Middle to Upper Pleistocene transition comes from Sai island in the Sudan with Sangoan to Acheulian levels. Around 300,000 years ago the transition started in Eastern Africa. Farther north (ie. Sudan) the transition occurred around 200,000 years ago. He found many Sangoan grinding stones (sandstone) which were used for grinding pigments, lumps of which were also found in situ. They found as well grinding stones with indication that they had been used for processing plant material. Then the Sangoan large tools were replaced by blade tools. Afterwards, these were in their turn replaced by Nubian levallois tools. Then the foliates disappeared and were replaced by the Nubian Aterian complex. [b]Then the Aterian emerged, probably in the area of southern Egypt, northern Sudan and southern Libya from where it spread to the west into the Sahara and to northern Africa. Then about 70,000 years ago a blade tool technology appeared, involving a very specialized division of work and a complex social organization. The time covered by this study goes between about 225,000 to 25,000 years ago.
http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

[/B]

---

As far as I know that is simly an opinion, as he stated also in 2000 that he believed the origin of the Aterian industry would be found there and he named a layer Aterian, but this has not been confirmed as Aterian. Its hardly accepted mainstream which makes it his opinion only. Opinions are not evidence, what sites have produced Aterian artifacts that pre date those traditianly called Aterian from further north? We have an opinion but were is his data, evidence?

Again unless there is generaly accepted artifacts to establish this prior to the release of the report above, they have still stated the then current mainstream opinion, which makes it true to their statment.

Ozzy