posted
The point is the human family looks the same overall. Lou King African and Chinese mix.
The lady on the left Judith Manap,a indigenous woman of the Aeta ethnic group from the Philippines
French Montana who's Moroccan on left with Quincy Brown,African American with a mixed mom who is dark.His father , Al B Sure is either a griffe or "average" African American. The dude in the far right is his Quincy's half brother Christian Combs.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You're no use. X'D I wouldn't even know where to start.
I can tell you have a repo, cause you couldn't possibly have read all the articles you actually quote dump on these forums. [/QB]
a repo at any time in the day ? I can take a screenshot of my file if you want but anyway I noticed that you often tend to bring ad hominem when you're in lack of arguments.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The point is the human family looks the same overall. Lou King African and Chinese mix.
The lady on the left Judith Manap,a indigenous woman of the Aeta ethnic group from the Philippines
French Montana who's Moroccan on left with Quincy Brown,African American with a mixed mom who is dark.His father , Al B Sure is either a griffe or "average" African American. The dude in the far right is his Quincy's half brother Christian Combs.
Come on with such kind of argument we can say anything, these cases are not representative. I live with pure west africans here and you'll never see someone like quincy among them ...american populations are mixed af so you should expect to find almost everything there.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: This whole discussion gives me deja vu of all the debates we used to have over whether or not to use "Black" to describe any population at all.
Surely you guys know goalposts are going to be moved about to suit whatever agenda, right?
hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: The point is the human family looks the same overall. Lou King African and Chinese mix.
The lady on the left Judith Manap,a indigenous woman of the Aeta ethnic group from the Philippines
French Montana who's Moroccan on left with Quincy Brown,African American with a mixed mom who is dark.His father , Al B Sure is either a griffe or "average" African American. The dude in the far right is his Quincy's half brother Christian Combs.
Come on with such kind of argument we can say anything, these cases are not representative. I live with pure west africans here and you'll never see someone like quincy among them ...american populations are mixed af so you should expect to find almost everything there.
No. You posted it,but up 30% of our DNA is non-African,so there are instances where we can never be 100% unless a isolated group or we mix with "pure" Africans . The point is some of our appearances is do to plasticity because of slight mixture and being separated from continental Africans on top of already being ethnically diverse. Plus you do have these fractional mixtures like griffes,more than 50% African and mulattos,50% African choosing,relative them "purer" African mates.
I live with pure west africans here and you'll never see someone like quincy among them.
Again,you're talking about a region. I guess Quincy wouldn't pass as Nigerian in most instances but he definitely looks more northwest African.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern "Black" African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Regardless, I didn't change his facial features or hair texture, so he still shouldn't be "Black" to you.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Regardless, I didn't change his facial features or hair texture, so he still shouldn't be "Black" to you.
Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
Seriously what's your problem ? Why do you constantly darkwash north africans don't you know how north africans look ? At this point it's obvious you're racist.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you constantly darkwash north africans.
Um? North Africans aren't exactly white as the UV index is still high to make white skin a thing,I guess the right word would be negro wash, but from I understand that would still be inaccurate. They are darker than most Euros unless admixture with non-dark skin people or albinism.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
We don't know for sure what his ancestry would have looked like since we don't have aDNA samples that are unmistakably Numidian (and no, neither KEB nor certain ancient European samples with North African ancestry count as Numidians). He could have had a ton of EEF ancestry, or maybe not as much. I cited the Iberomaurisians to show you that, yes, populations of darker-skinned people did inhabit the Mediterranean coast of North Africa in very ancient times, despite your insistence that dark-skinned people couldn't survive in that environment.
quote:At this point it's obvious you're racist.
Your entire ideology can be summed up as "WE WUZN'T BLAYCK N SHIET". As in, you'll look for any excuse, shifting the goal posts whenever convenient, to distance North Africa from Black people. Pot, kettle, black.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Why do you constantly darkwash north africans.
Um? North Africans aren't exactly white as the UV index is still high to make white skin a thing,I guess the right word would be negro wash, but from I understand that would still be inaccurate. They are darker than most Euros unless admixture with non-dark skin people or albinism.
That doesn't mean they are as dark as his coloration
Here north african crowds :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: hahaha what are you trying to do with your new avatar ?
It's my simple colorization of an ancient depiction of Massinissa. Y'know, without altering his facial features or hair texture.
why did you make him so dark ? Did he live near the equator ? Are his descendents that dark ?
Would his Iberomaurisian ancestors not have been dark-skinned (i.e. carrying ancestral alleles for dark skin color like those possessed by modern African and Australasian populations) as revealed by aDNA analysis?
Regardless, I didn't change his facial features or hair texture, so he still shouldn't be "Black" to you.
Are you implying that he was predominantely iberomaurusian ? What about those light skin alleles brought by EEF farmers ? Doesn't the EEF component make up at least 40% of the genome of ancient and modern north africans ? And again would such dark skin be adapted to his numidian homeland ? :
Seriously what's your problem ? Why do you constantly darkwash north africans don't you know how north africans look ? At this point it's obvious you're racist.
See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: We don't know for sure what his ancestry would have looked like since we don't have aDNA samples that are unmistakably Numidian (and no, neither KEB nor certain ancient European samples with North African ancestry count as Numidians). He could have had a ton of EEF ancestry, or maybe not as much. I cited the Iberomaurisians to show you that, yes, populations of darker-skinned people did inhabit the Mediterranean coast of North Africa in very ancient times, despite your insistence that dark-skinned people couldn't survive in that environment.
Which euro shifted samples are you talking about ? I'm talking about the two copper age samples, the guanche samples, the imperial samples, etc also between him and modern north africans there is only 2k years so can you tell me what happened for all his descendents ending up being lighter ? Anyway it would be more realistic to portray him as his descendents.
Dark skin doesn't mean they were as dark as the color you choosed
these are also people who lack light skin alleles :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Your entire ideology can be summed up as "WE WUZN'T BLAYCK N SHIET". As in, you'll look for any excuse, shifting the goal posts whenever convenient, to distance North Africa from Black people. Pot, kettle, black. [/QB]
No I'm simply trying to tell you that my ancestors looked like me and why would north africans be close to "black people" I don't understand you're clearly admitting you're biased since all you do is trying to counter an assumption you make about me.
Anyway it's obvious you're racist, like many white american you only see us as arabs and all the stereotypes that are attached to it.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
You can't make this shit up.
Bingo. I believe he got upset at my colorization because he knew deep in his heart that someone out there would look at it and think "Black dude" despite my not changing the original image's facial features or hair texture to look more archetypically "sub-Saharan African" (since he earlier insisted on equating "Black" with SSA). It's all about pushing North Africa (or at least the part of North Africa he wants to claim) as far away from Black people as possible, no matter how.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
Whut ? He's simply assuming 200 B.C. coastal north africans were fully or predominantely IBM which isn't in line with forensic datas or the samples we have that's it so wtf are you talking about ?
Moreover I never ignored anything I actually already adressed your point. When will you start providing something consistent instead of your ad hominem "XD" "LOW IQ" and such ? It's falsifiable on multiple fronts ? Then please show me where I'm here to learn
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: See how your argument fluctuates with each new development. Now it's an issue about Iberomaurasian relatedness because of the skin color.
You can't make this shit up.
Bingo. I believe he got upset at my colorization because he knew deep in his heart that someone out there would look at it and think "Black dude" despite my not changing the original image's facial features or hair texture to look more archetypically "sub-Saharan African" (since he earlier insisted on equating "Black" with SSA). It's all about pushing North Africa (or at least the part of North Africa he wants to claim) as far away from Black people as possible, no matter how.
not at all the skin is simply too dark ; if you had added blond hair I'd have also reacted pointing out how that's not realistic
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Which euro shifted samples are you talking about ? I'm talking about the two copper age samples, the guanche samples, the imperial samples, etc also between him and modern north africans there is only 2k years so can you tell me what happened for all his descendents ending up being lighter ? Anyway it would be more realistic to portray him as his descendents.
Except for the Guanches, all those samples you mentioned were found in Europe. Not North Africa.
Also, it might be significant that one major North African Y-DNA lineage, E-M183, is of very recent origin, possibly the result of a bottleneck during the Punic Wars (although the paper suggests the Arab conquests might have also played a role). So there is a good chance that a lot of ancient North Africa's diversity has been lost over the last few millennia.
quote:The TMRCA estimates of a certain haplogroup and its subbranches provide some constraints on the times of their origin and spread. Although our time estimates for E-M78 are slightly different depending on the mutation rate used, their confidence intervals overlap and the dates obtained are in agreement with those obtained by Trombetta et al. Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth.
quote:these are also people who lack light skin alleles :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Except for the Guanches, all those samples you mentioned were found in Europe. Not North Africa.
So what I'm supposed to believe they were mixed ? The authors of the paper themselves are quite explicit about their origin and how unique they are in comparison to the local remains (you also forgot such samples are similar to guanches too). At this point you seem desesperate.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Also, it might be significant that one major North African Y-DNA lineage, E-M183, is of very recent origin, possibly the result of a bottleneck during the Punic Wars (although the paper suggests the Arab conquests might have also played a role). So there is a good chance that a lot of ancient North Africa's diversity has been lost over the last few millennia.
Yes in terms of lineage diversity but not necessarily in terms of autosomal composition moreover such diversity might be seen with the guanche results which shows lineages which are almost non existent today in North Africa :
and don't you ask yourself why such trait appeared independently there too ? Doesn't it give a clear advantage for people who lived as much north as Siberia ?
There is already a spectrum of color in SSA so being dark skinned doesn't mean you'll end up as dark as let's say dinka :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Antalas says he lives among "pure west africans" ... Now I understand the nature of his discontent
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Antalas says he lives among "pure west africans" ... Now I understand the nature of his discontent
yes people who come from west africa and don't have 20-30% of NW european ancestry like afro-americans nor mixed people like stephen curry who claim to be black
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
West Africa is NOT homogeneous nor is it a monolith...It is made up of different ethnic groups and phenotypes
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: West Africa is NOT homogeneous nor is it a monolith...It is made up of different ethnic groups and phenotypes
Indeed and these groups don't have 20-30% european ancestry like afro-americans
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Indeed and these groups don't have 20-30% european ancestry like African-Americans.
And? That percentage isn't likely to change a group phenotypically.
Oh trust me it does ; myself can easily distinguished afro-americans from the blacks we have here
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Antalas says he lives among "pure west africans" ... Now I understand the nature of his discontent
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
This
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Antalas, the word black has been used as a reference to black skinned people in Africa for thousands of years. Don't sit here and pretend that this is something made up recently in America or "the West". You are pathetic and losing so now are resorting to pretend this is a semantic issue. Nobody is confused about what black means when it comes to skin color. It is you who want to pretend not to understand but in reality you do understand you just want to run away from it. So this is why this thread exists, to pretend that somehow black skin in North Africa is some kind of "conspiracy" by Europeans to put black skin on North Africans as if somehow it didn't exist before. And then when you get called out on it, you pretend to act like you don't understand what words mean. You know perfectly well that these two are not the same skin color but you sit here and pretend that they are the same.
??? again what are you talking about ? I'm criticizing how you label ethnicities who have nothing to do with sub-saharan africans and even mixed individuals all of this in order to claim their history. No indians are not your people nor black, no people from the horn of africa aren't simply "black" nor closer to you than eurasians, no being dark skinned isn't automatically going to make someone look like your folks nor would they feel any kind of kinship with you.
No what you are saying is that you don't like black skin and therefore are complaining about the label being used by Europeans in reference to North Africans. And because you hate black skin so much you are projecting your insecurity and claiming there is a conspiracy by Europeans to erase the presence of light skin people from history. Yet your own examples of ancient artwork shows that this isn't the case. However, your issue is you believe that in all of North African history they have only exclusively been light skinned or Eurasian looking which is objectively false even to this day and this is the bottom line point. Every time you try and bring up this issue you get proven wrong then run off and try to change the subject to the idea that the word "black" is the problem. There is nothing wrong with the word "black" you know WTF it means because you use it yourself. The problem is you don't LIKE black skin because according to you North Africans aren't Africans, they are Eurasians that just so happen to be geographically living in the boundaries of Africa. And because you know most Africans have black skin, you desperately try and push this idea of North Africans being a separate "race" using any and all means available to suggest that black skin is not part of African diversity even in North Africa. Nobody here is denying the historical presence of light skin in North Africa. The issue is you promoting this false history that all North Africans throughout history have only been light skinned and Eurasian looking.
That is the point and that is the problem and it starts with you not the Greeks, not the Medieval Europeans and not the English dam language.
Calling Indians "black" has nothing to do with me or my culture or self identification. That is the obvious BULLSH*T you keep using to project your own insecurity onto other people. The issue is that black skin has never been limited to one part of Africa or even the African continent. Therefore the only thing you can do is trot out old outdated racial concepts to try and lump people together into arbitrary categories as if skin color doesn't count. When you absolutely cling to skin color as being the most important attribute you care about. This is why you will sit here and argue that a black Indian is not a black Indian knowing full well that colorism is a big issue in India and other parts of the world so obviously people see skin color and know what black means. Your dumb self is trying to deny that by somehow claiming that this is something being made up by African Americans as some dam conspiracy to omit light skin people from history, sounding like some kind of idiot when no such thing is the case. Africans all over Africa have variations in skin tone and some are light skin, that doesn't make them not African. But since Africa to you means black you are doing everything in your power to separate from Africa and therefore reinforcing and obsession with Eurasian Genes in Africa to get away from African ancestry. You aren't fooling anybody but yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover stop being mentally colonized, Europeans aren't going to set any kind of references.
Dude you sound dumb. Answer the question below.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: These people are not the same skin color
As this person:
But you want to sit here and argue that somehow these two images reflect the same skin colors and you obviously know full dam well they don't.
??? what does this indian have to do with these medieval north african soldiers ?
You brought it up didn't you? So why don't you answer the question?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: To the point where you are now resorting to some oddball nonsense about "dark skin" isn't "black" when the literal definition of the word black in English means dark skin Africans. It is obvious that you have no intent to deal with facts and only care about ideology and projecting an all white ancient North Africa because you don't believe in diversity and absolutely cannot stand the idea of anything else.
"black" isn't only defined by skin color and that's pretty obvious :
now if it's only about skin color can you explain to me why such people are considered "black" by americans ? :
Your gibberish is annoying. This shows the diversity of skin color among Africans in the world. You act like light skin is somehow some special attribute of North Africans as if other Africans don't have light skin. That is why you sound stupid talking to African Americans about light skin when you know full dam well a lot of African Americans have light skin. The difference is they aren't running from their African ancestry or "black" ancestry. This is the problem that YOU have and why you keep obsessing with black people.
If people in India don't acknowledge black skin then why is colorism so rampant? Nothing you say is based on facts. It is all made up gibberish that you keep spewing.
quote: Throughout the years she was growing up in southern India, Christy Jennifer, a producer with a media house in the city of Chennai, was traumatized by episodes of prejudice.
As she walked through school corridors, classmates pointed at her darker skin and teased her, she said. Even friends and family members told her never to wear black. She said she was constantly advised on which skin lightening cream to use, as if the remedy to this deep-seated social bias lay in a plastic bottle.
"Every day, my dignity and self-esteem were reduced to the color of my skin," she said. "I felt a worthless piece of flesh."
Colorism, the bias against people of darker skin tones, has vexed India for a long time. It is partly a product of colonial prejudices, and it has been exacerbated by caste, regional differences and Bollywood, the nation’s film industry, which has long promoted lighter-skinned heroes.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And to that point, people like this are not the epitome of what you claim as "North African" because these people are still "too black" for you, even though some "black" people in America are lighter than many "North Africans".
Even though you posted those pictures of Libyans looking like this:
Both of whom are very similar to the images of Juba I and Juba II.
While claiming no mixture in North Africa from recent waves of immigration.
talks about skin color then post a north african man without his face...wtf and people like you like to talk about "recent waves of immigration" but strangely become blind when it comes to the slave trade did you at least know the slave trade brought more people than arabs+romans+moriscos combined ? How would such recent "immigration" have impacted north africans if isolated berbers like guanches are genetically similar to them ? Same for 1st-3rd century AD north africans... you see you keep contradicting yourself.
Again, more gibberish. You can't deny the presence of blacks in North Africa in history so you sit here and argue about words and semantics and what 'black' means like you don't know what it means. You are simply pathetic because you just hate human diversity and the only thing you can do is sit here and make pathetic attempts to make diversity a bad thing.
And don't you know that the word "slave" comes from Slavic people as in groups from Central and Eastern Europe? This kind of slavery was dominant in much of Europe and Islam but somehow you seem to omit that. This includes the fact that the Ottomans enslaved many Europeans and brought them to North Africa. But yeah according to your dumb self slavery only happened to Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Why do you constantly darkwash north africans.
Um? North Africans aren't exactly white as the UV index is still high to make white skin a thing,I guess the right word would be negro wash, but from I understand that would still be inaccurate. They are darker than most Euros unless admixture with non-dark skin people or albinism.
That doesn't mean they are as dark as his coloration
Here north african crowds :
OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
So basically what you are saying is these people were never Africans to begin with and their culture has nothing to do with Africa According to you these are just Eurasians from over 20,000 years ago who just so happen to live geographically in the continent of Africa but have not connection with Africa, obviously indicated by black skin or mixture.
And even with all of that, those North Africans certainly don't get treated as such when they move to Europe and places like France.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Whut ? He's simply assuming 200 B.C. coastal north africans were fully or predominantely IBM which isn't in line with forensic datas or the samples we have that's it so wtf are you talking about ?
Moreover I never ignored anything I actually already adressed your point. When will you start providing something consistent instead of your ad hominem "XD" "LOW IQ" and such ? It's falsifiable on multiple fronts ? Then please show me where I'm here to learn
He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
You do realize that Africa as a continent is 10x bigger than Western Europe right? The idea that all Africans across Africa looks the same is dumb and non scientific. The Sahara has nothing to do with it. Not to mention humans have been in Africa for over 300,000 years giving rise to all sorts of diversity in features. And that tiny sliver of coastal north africa is a tiny fraction of the overall African landmass, even in "North Africa" as the Sahara is 5x bigger than that little sliver of the coast. And obviously Africans have always been in the Sahara.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
So basically what you are saying is these people were never Africans to begin with and their culture has nothing to do with Africa According to you these are just Eurasians from over 20,000 years ago who just so happen to live geographically in the continent of Africa but have not connection with Africa, obviously indicated by black skin or mixture. [/QB]
Smh what did I just read ? Carthage is a city not a country and I already posted quotes which showed that the amount of italian settlers was very low + all iron age north african samples are similar to modern north africans but of course and as usual you all ignore them.
Being geographically located in Africa doesn't mean all africans are the same or look the same. Do chinese and indians appear to be the same folk to you ? no so cut the crap with your "muh african" bs
"admixture" yeah it actually happened north africans absorbed much more west african "black" ancestry throughout the centuries because of the slave trade :
quote:Comparing our results with previously reported genome-wide data, we also find evidence for a sex-biased sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africans, suggesting that historical events such as the trans-Saharan slave trade mainly contributed to the mtDNA and autosomal gene pool, whereas the northern African paternal gene pool was mainly shaped by more ancient events.
quote:Previous analyzes of mtDNA lineages in North African populations suggest significant Eurasian origins [41–43] with lineages dating back to Paleolithic times [41] and with recent gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa linked to slave trade [44] ."
quote:A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." " The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations , namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."
and why do they find such a sex-biased contribution ? That's because north africans used to mostly import black females and often made them concubines :
quote:Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:According to Mohammed Ennaji, slave ownership in Morocco was associated with prestige and high status.20 Although slaves from both sexes were involved in domestic work, the overwhelming majority were females. In addition to being concubines, female slaves were responsible for household chores and child rearing and provided entertainment for the urban elite."
You think it's a coincidence if the ancient north african samples were on a more east african cline meanwhile modern north africans are more west african shifted ? :
You're in clear denial anyway if you keep ignoring my quotes, I will no more answer like I usually do and will only spam quotes and papers.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: OK. And yes we all know many North Africans look like this. But here is the problem, they look like this after years of mixture. You claim there was no mixture with Rome but the Romans destroyed Carthage and resettled it with Romans. So how on earth did that not impact the population. As a matter of fact, these people above do not look similar to the Libyans from ancient Egyptian art with their curly hair, but according to you they have always been Eurasian looking..... going back 20,000 years. Sure. Almost everybody here acknowledges that parts of North Africa, especially areas near the coast has been affected by mixture. But the difference is you claim this goes back 20,000 years which makes no sense and that not only that, but people with black skin never existed there.
So basically what you are saying is these people were never Africans to begin with and their culture has nothing to do with Africa According to you these are just Eurasians from over 20,000 years ago who just so happen to live geographically in the continent of Africa but have not connection with Africa, obviously indicated by black skin or mixture.
Smh what did I just read ? Carthage is a city not a country and I already posted quotes which showed that the amount of italian settlers was very low + all iron age north african samples are similar to modern north africans but of course and as usual you all ignore them.
Being geographically located in Africa doesn't mean all africans are the same or look the same. Do chinese and indians appear to be the same folk to you ? no so cut the crap with your "muh african" bs
"admixture" yeah it actually happened north africans absorbed much more west african "black" ancestry throughout the centuries because of the slave trade :
quote:Comparing our results with previously reported genome-wide data, we also find evidence for a sex-biased sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africans, suggesting that historical events such as the trans-Saharan slave trade mainly contributed to the mtDNA and autosomal gene pool, whereas the northern African paternal gene pool was mainly shaped by more ancient events.
quote:Previous analyzes of mtDNA lineages in North African populations suggest significant Eurasian origins [41–43] with lineages dating back to Paleolithic times [41] and with recent gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa linked to slave trade [44] ."
quote:A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." " The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations , namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."
and why do they find such a sex-biased contribution ? That's because north africans used to mostly import black females and often made them concubines :
quote:Males were sought for a variety of functions: doorkeepers, secretaries, militaries or eunuchs. Black soldiers were seen from Islamic Spain to Egypt, and in Morocco a whole generation of black young boys were bought at the age of 10 or 11 and trained to become its army. However, the bulk of the trade was in females, as domestic servants, entertainers and/or concubines: two females for every male overall, in contrast to the ratio of two males for every female overall in the Atlantic trade [15]. Some harems could be enormous, reaching even the extravagating number of 14,000 concubines. Young female slaves were instructed in household crafts and were then provided with resources to buy a home and get married."
quote:According to Mohammed Ennaji, slave ownership in Morocco was associated with prestige and high status.20 Although slaves from both sexes were involved in domestic work, the overwhelming majority were females. In addition to being concubines, female slaves were responsible for household chores and child rearing and provided entertainment for the urban elite."
You think it's a coincidence if the ancient north african samples were on a more east african cline meanwhile modern north africans are more west african shifted ? :
You're in clear denial anyway if you keep ignoring my quotes, I will no more answer like I usually do and will only spam quotes and papers. [/QB]
Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Africans have been in 'north Africa' for 300,000 years idiot. There were no white dam Eurasians 300,000 years ago. And there were black Eurasians from the very beginning. So you don't know WTF you are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans? [/QB]
Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Which metric ? Forensic datas and genetics. Again ANA doesn't peak in modern SSA ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Africans have been in 'north Africa' for 300,000 years idiot. There were no white dam Eurasians 300,000 years ago. And there were black Eurasians from the very beginning. So you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Eurasians 3,000 years ago:
Stop whining. [/QB]
alright now I hope people here will understand why I will no more waste my time with you...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You do realize we aren't a ethnically homogeneous group and the Africans we descend from don't all look like "true negroes." Yes,it is true you can spot the non-African blood but that's not why we sometimes look different.
You do realize sub-saharans here aren't from only one region or ethnicity right ? We have everything from malian to congolese.
I talking about the Black population in the Americas from the type of Africans we descend from. I know we are mostly from west and central Africa with some South Africans. I'm into DNA results videos and I've seen some Kenyan and Somali DNA from a Afro-Brazilian and a ADOS woman.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dumb ass, they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. They absorbed Eurasian mixture, including mixture with slaves during the Ottoman/Islamic period. You are talking stupid shit.
Africans have been in 'north Africa' for 300,000 years idiot. There were no white dam Eurasians 300,000 years ago. And there were black Eurasians from the very beginning. So you don't know WTF you are talking about.
Eurasians 3,000 years ago:
Stop whining.
alright now I hope people here will understand why I will no more waste my time with you... [/QB]
Yes because you are a fool who thinks that this image is Europeans blackwashing themselves. Silly idiot.
Not to mention you claim that North Africans originated in the Levant but then turn around and claim that they had no mixture with Levantines.
You are stupid and talking out both sides of your head.
Just like this isn't a black African Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. "
This sentence killed me XD
now I see with what kind of level I'm dealing here
anyway I already avoided posters like clyde winters and big_O now let's add dougM smh I wasted so much time talking to him.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: "they didn't absorb Africa because they were already Africans. "
This sentence killed me XD
now I see with what kind of level I'm dealing here
anyway I already avoided posters like clyde winters and big_O now let's add dougM smh I wasted so much time talking to him.
You wasted time because you tried to deny the obvious silly idiot. No black people in ancient North Africa. Europeans blackwashing Africans because they weren't black.
So if you are done promoting your BS then stop posting because you aren't saying anything.
BTW here is a whole book on these ancient blackwashed Eurasians so you can read it and whine some more.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans?
Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Which metric ? Forensic datas and genetics. Again ANA doesn't peak in modern SSA ? [/QB]
Why would you assume that I believe the Numidians "didn't have it." We're talking about one person! You're talking besides the point.
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: He was saying that a 200BC coastal north African could have not had the mutations passed down from from Europeans for skin pigmentation. Why can't you understand?
Which metric corroborates the idea that in the history of North Africa, Aterians were the group that looked the most like modern Black Africans?
Does that sounds realistic to you ? The isolated guanches had it but numidians didn't ? The copper age samples already had similar level of EEF ancestry as modern NAs but 200 BC numidians would lack it ? What kind of dishonesty is this ?
Which metric ? Forensic datas and genetics. Again ANA doesn't peak in modern SSA ?
Why would you assume that I believe the Numidians "didn't have it." We're talking about one person! You're talking besides the point.
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics? [/QB]
This whole idea of ancient North Africans being a different and separate "race" than other Africans comes from Europeans. They have been promoting this for over 100 years. But now they are trying to reinforce it with genetics and failing at that. This is why I doubt there will be many more examples of ancient DNA from North Africa any time soon. Because it will contradict many of the assumptions they have been making concerning DNA lineages and phenotype in Africa. Not to mention they really don't want to sample populations from the wet Sahara as it is increasingly obvious there was an important role Saharan Africans played in the Mediterranean and Levant thousands of years ago. So they will just cling to this idea of "North Africa" being exclusively along the coast and all culture and historical evolution being centered there while the Sahara gets downplayed or ignored as part of North African history.
See the following image for the fluctuations of population across North Africa compared to the areas where they have pulled DNA.
And this flux of populations also renders this idea of modern "sub saharans" being good proxy for ancient Africans Northern and Western Africa not accurate either. But again this goes back to the limitations of statistical models based on limited data and the fact that it unlikely we will get ancient DNA from West Africa any time soon.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas:
ANA hasn't been proven to be Aterian. That's your theory. Which isn't a good one as ANA peaks in North east Africa, a region where the Iberomaurasian for example should have received their most recent ancestry.
Be specific about the forensic data... You don't have to quote anything. But what have you seen that had said that Aterians were the closest in the history of north Africa to other Africans? Limb proportions? Craniometrics?
So you imply there were other populations in coastal north africa ? You also imply that the strong physical affinities between these aterians and IBM is a pure coincidence ?
What does that mean ? :
quote: "Second, qpAdm-based three-way admixture models fail to fit the data even when the minimum resolution for the sub-Saharan African ancestry was provided by adding the archaic hominin Denisovan as a sole non-Eurasian outgroup (Table S12). Therefore, we conclude that none of the South, Central and East African groups is a sister group of the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt.
quote:Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taforalt individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Levantine groups and with sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub369 Saharan African ancestry in the Taforalt individuals may have links to multiple sub-Saharan African lineages."
and this component like I said peaks in modern SSA
As for forensic datas, they are often associated with bushmen and they are definitely associated with early homo sapiens. There is also dental morphology and the fact that they were intermediate between the mousterians from djebel irhoud and iberomaurusians. There are also some reconstructions which look very much like modern SSAs
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
This whole idea of ancient North Africans being a different and separate "race" than other Africans comes from Europeans.
As far as the Iberemausrians go they were different from most Africans. The have that U6 on the female side. That is not common in most of Africa. It is mainly in the Maghreb and a little in the horn. Also many of the the Ibermausrians had limb proportions which cluster with cold adapted artic people
So if you can admit to this and you and Antalas stop talking about "North Africa" which is too broad to make generalizations about then the problems will be over
If we stop talking about "North Africa" and instead talk about the Maghreb and separately the Nile Valley then these disputes are over. Ae we can see the Ibermausrians are coastal and only in the Western half of North Africa and they were different from most Africans but so what
Antalas, if we stop talking about "North Africa" and get more particular, problem solved
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This man is a black African, regardless if some of his DNA comes from "Eurasia"
This Eurasian is black skinned and Eurasian
Primary DNA lineages do not limit skin color variation and thus:
quote: Relatively dark skin pigmentation in Early Upper Paleolithic Europe would be consistent with those populations being relatively poorly adapted to high-latitude conditions as a result of having recently migrated from lower latitudes. On the other hand, although we have shown that these populations carried few of the light pigmentation alleles that are segregating in present-day Europe, they may have carried different alleles that we cannot now detect. As an extreme example, Neanderthals and the Altai Denisovan individual show genetic scores that are in a similar range to Early Upper Paleolithic individuals (SI Appendix, Table S1), but it is highly plausible that these populations, who lived at high latitudes for hundreds of thousands of years, would have adapted independently to low UV levels. For this reason, we cannot confidently make statements about the skin pigmentation of ancient populations.
Our study focused, for reasons of data availability, on the history of skin pigmentation evolution in West Eurasia. However, there is strong evidence that a parallel trend of adaptation to low UVB conditions occurred in East Asia (15, 70, 81, 82). Less is known about the loci that have been under selection in East Asia, aside from some variants at OCA2 (80⇓–82). Similarly, multiple studies have documented selection for both lighter and darker skin pigmentation in parts of Africa (12, 13, 83). Future work should test whether the process of adaptation in other parts of the world was similar to that in Europe. The lack of known skin pigmentation loci in scans of positive selection in East Asian populations (84, 85) raises the possibility that selection may have been more polygenic in East Asians than in Europeans. Finally, the evidence for polygenic directional selection on other complex traits in humans is inconclusive (86, 87). We suggest that detailed studies of other phenotypes using ancient DNA can be helpful at more generally identifying the types of processes that are important in human evolution.
And most humans across the word going back 30,000 years would have been "black" no matter the DNA lineage. The problem is Europeans have been trying to distort this fact with their obsession on labeling DNA lineages as Eurasian as if this changes something in ancient time. Especially when it comes trying to make Neanderthals the face of non African DNA mixture as if humans come from Neanderthals. It is silly but that is what it is. Some people just don't want to accept they came from black Africans and that is what it boils down to.
And then on top of all of that, most Africans don't see themselves as "Africans" in a collective sense. They see themselves as whatever ethnic group, language and or cultural group and not as "African" or even "black". This has always been true and the only reason African Americans are able to cut across this is because they were stripped by force of any ties to their language and culture in Africa. So for them "African" is an ideal term for reclaiming ones identity over the racial terminologies and assumptions placed on them by Europeans. And this is why so many Africans now migrating to America have such a shock because they don't see themselves as "African" or "black" necessarily.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic