A carry over from a thread I started on the various ethnic groups of Egypt. This thread will focus on the indigenous North African Black people that live in Egypt to this day.
Ababda - indigenous North African (US Black politically)
Bisharin - indigenous North African (US Black politically)
Hedareb - another indigenous Black African people similar to Horn Africans
Nubians
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ this grouping of Southern Egyptians doesn't identify ethnic groups.
Not a helpful post.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Don't you know that you are dealing with the idiot Lion?
That is a cherry-picked potpourri from Mathilda with no particular meaning. That is why the idiot included no text.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
"politically black" is a ridiculous term
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ I really like the term since it has a lot of merit. Simple question is this - if you were to run for public officer what race would you claim to be?
I think a lot of modern day Egyptians would simply claim to be Arab/Muslim. Some would even claim to be White. Any Somalian, Ethiopian, Sudanese, etc - would not even consider claiming to be anything but Black if they were running for office in the US.
This is the litmus test for racial identity.
What political affiliations would this person have in the US?
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
This is the litmus test for racial identity.
there is no litmus test
Posted by Jari-Matamoros (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ this grouping of Southern Egyptians doesn't identify ethnic groups.
Not a helpful post.
LOL, yeah that EVERY UPPER EGYPTIAN represented and lets not forget the history of Bedouin Arabs settleing in Egypt. I have to agree with Mike111 on this, nothing but a cherry picking of photos by Mathilda propped by lion cuase she is ignorant on such issiues.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Africans are not stupid, most African-Americans wouldn't be pointed out by any group of African for being "different" physically, since most of them look very "African". And Africans also identify "mixed raced" people, therefore mixed raced people in Africa would be considered just that... "mixed race", not white. Black South Africans don't consider Coloured populations "white", even though most of them look "Hispanic" and much more multiracial then the lightest of African-Americans.
Also, skin color isn't a indicator for how Africans classify people, there are pure Africans who are lighter then people who are 50% white. It all depends on the particular ancestry that individual possesses and the society in which he identifies. For example my Senegalese-French friend is often called "white" by some peoples in his country, due to the way he acts and talks, i.e. since he was raised in France.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Africans are not stupid, most African-Americans wouldn't be pointed out by any group of African for being "different"
it occurs frequently
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Actually the concept of Political Blackness makes us a much more formidable group to deal with and avoids the ethnic strife that we see in Africa today. Blacks of various backgrounds recognize each other as equals which provides a platform of identity and unity. Afrangi's like you actually have taught Blacks to dislike each other. Blacks like me have learned to transcend the ignorance that you would have us wallowing in.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Actually the concept of Political Blackness makes us a much more formidable group to deal with and avoids the ethnic strife that we see in Africa today. Blacks of various backgrounds recognize each other as equals which provides a platform of identity and unity. Afrangi's like you actually have taught Blacks to dislike each other. Blacks like me have learned to transcend the ignorance that you would have us wallowing in.
is being dark brown political?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Actually the concept of Political Blackness makes us a much more formidable group to deal with and avoids the ethnic strife that we see in Africa today. Blacks of various backgrounds recognize each other as equals which provides a platform of identity and unity. Afrangi's like you actually have taught Blacks to dislike each other. Blacks like me have learned to transcend the ignorance that you would have us wallowing in.
is being dark brown political?
Your posts are a waste of time and are not helpful to the thread.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
what's the point of selecting pictures Egyptian people and deciding where you think they would fit into into a U.S. based racial system? I don't get the value in this.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ helps people realize why we say Egypt was a Black civilization. People seem to not understand what Black means.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^That's quite a mouthful F_B, got anything to back it up with?
I mean, I could say that White people come from Mars, and find lots of people who will agree with me, but it would still be bullsh1t.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Africans are not stupid, most African-Americans wouldn't be pointed out by any group of African for being "different"
it occurs frequently
most african americans still look very african.most look no different than the africans.stop the bull, lion.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Africans are not stupid, most African-Americans wouldn't be pointed out by any group of African for being "different" physically, since most of them look very "African". And Africans also identify "mixed raced" people, therefore mixed raced people in Africa would be considered just that... "mixed race", not white. Black South Africans don't consider Coloured populations "white", even though most of them look "Hispanic" and much more multiracial then the lightest of African-Americans.
Also, skin color isn't a indicator for how Africans classify people, there are pure Africans who are lighter then people who are 50% white. It all depends on the particular ancestry that individual possesses and the society in which he identifies. For example my Senegalese-French friend is often called "white" by some peoples in his country, due to the way he acts and talks, i.e. since he was raised in France.
I agree.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster:
Ozzy
Modern Genetic Studies prove that the Ancient Egyptians are almost the same people as the modern Egyptians and have mostly Native DNA
almost?
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
THE AVERAGE ADMIXTURE IN AFRICAN AMERICANS lower then we thought.most african americans have 12.5% admixture. you need about 20% admixture from another race more to look slighty different and in some cases this may take up to 50% admixture,but there are some pure africans that many might consider mixed or having some admxture because the nose shape ect.
most african american americans would not be considered mixed if they do not say where they come from if they were over seas for example.
i rememeber a african american lady was upset that a white american lady said to her on tvwhat country you come from in africa? it was one of those home shows i think,so from all whites most african americans look like they come from africa.
even howard stern on his show said the cosby show family look like they came from africa,well it's true even if he is a racist.
it' only african americans or many of them that get upset when they are told they still look clearly african. i do not see the reason why many get upset.
it's many of them like to bring up the point they do not look african,but they do and to whites they do as well despite most having admixture of varied degrees.
I guess it's that brain washing in america to not have anything to do with africa.
african will point out to most african americans THEY look african and i am not talking just about recent african americans.
anyway has you know black africans vary in features.
when a white person has 10% or 15% admixture they still look unmixed,because the admixture is not strong enough to change the basic look of them. this goes for any race.
mark shriver and genes expert agrees with this when i had a talk with him. he has 10% black admixture but still looks clearly white or unmixed white.
this goes for any race.the admixture must be high enough to change the look abit of that group,that's why you could say that yes most african americans are mixed but but not not mixed race,they most still look very african since most have admixture lower then 20% and even if it's higher like close to 30 or 49% they still could clearly look black some would have a slighty different look from the group they came from some may hardly not,but if admixture is around 20 or higher there is a chance of a slightly different look but still they will look black. like i said ther are unmixed africans that do not have the average african look,but they could still be unmixed or not depending on the the person
by the way even when i say the average african look this could vary,even lighter skin africans(brown skin or lighter) could still be unmixed and still have the average african features.
another point up to 80% of african americans have some form of admixture.
it's higher in some regions in america like up to 20% and up,other regions 10% or 12.5 etc...
some other regions in the u.s. it's even lower then 10% like 3 or 4% or lower. and some regions there are some african americans that have no admixture. so there up to 20% of african americans that are unmixed,and these includes blacks in america that are recent,but most of the unmixed blacks are african americans that been in america since slavery,of course many of the blacks that are recent are unmixed or most are.
let's not forget blacks or whites that have minor admixture would like clearly black or white.
another point, if a mixed race person goes only with unmixed whites and live in a region full of them,in time there will not be any signs of black genes in that family of unmixed whites they have kids with,the same with any race.
their genes of another race could get wipe out in time if they only marry unmixed types of any race. this is called mendal's law.
the only way you would know if you had someone of another race in you background is if by word of mouth or a record of it,but in time that does not mean you have the genes or you have any admixture. that admixture will go away in time.
here is the breakdown
Admixture
On census forms, the government depends on individuals' self-identification. Due in part to a centuries-old history within the United States, historical experiences pre- and post-slavery, and migrations throughout North America, contemporary African Americans possess varying degrees of admixture with European ancestry. A lesser percentage also have Native American ancestry.
With the help of geneticists, the historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. put African American ancestry in these terms:
# 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
# 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
# 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
# 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).
___________________________-
so see african americans are not mixed race,most are mixed but most not mixed raced.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
white americans
Some whites have varying amounts of Native American ancestry; this admixture is claimed by white celebrities such as Chuck Norris, Cher, Megan Fox, Johnny Depp, and Jessica Biel. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's mother (Jennie Jerome) and singer Elvis Presley had partial Native American ancestry. There are also some white people who are or were descendants of Pocahontas, including First Ladies Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan, astronomer Percival Lowell, as well as Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, the wife of King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom.
In a recent study, Gonçalves et al. 2007 reported Sub-Saharan and Amerindian mtDna lineages at a frequency of 3.1% (respectively 0.90% and 2.2%) in White Americans of European descent. In another study, about 30% of all White Americans, approximately 66 million people, have a median of 2.3% of Black African admixture.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is not a historian. He is an uncle tom English teacher from Harvard.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
black varied features without admixture or any admixture in certain groups not making a impact on there basic look. ____________________________________
Africoid peoples
A broad usage of the term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent alveolar prognathism[citation needed], a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are sometimes considered pseudo-Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, and Chancellor Williams. Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism, non-kinky hair texture, and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet (1.4 m), and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet (2.0 m) and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism.
Some critics suggest that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid.
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences.
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa.
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.[13]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there[14], while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world.[15] Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."
Many anthropologists have observed that Caucasoid is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called Caucasoid Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well.
Many contend that affixing the Caucasoid label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term Africoid as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora.
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color—characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa.
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton,[20] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types[22] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids?
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races.[24] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern."[25] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples.[26]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe.
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Africoid as an approach to overcome bias in previous scholarship
Supporters of the term Africoid claim that there has been bias in previous scholarship on African or Africoid peoples and that this pattern is demonstrative of the need for more accurate terminology in describing African populations. These scholars assert that variations of phenotype found in places like Northeast Africa are simply examples of the natural biodiversity of indigenous populations, and that the definition of "African" should not be confined to a region south of the Sahara (Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization). Among the points advanced:
# Bias seems to define Africoids as narrowly as possible while incorporating as much as possible in groupings labeled as Causacoid
# Shifting terminology and labeling of African peoples to downplay their diversity
Africoid as an approach to show population diversity
Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency to sometimes minimize variability within certain northeast African populations. This range of variation is the building block of the concept of Africoid populations, as opposed to their rigid separation into groupings like so-called "Caucasoid" and sub-Saharan Negroes. According to one recent re-evaluation of studies on the ancient Egyptians:
An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. (Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships")
In the classification of so-called "Negroid" peoples, traditional scholarship has established a baseline phenotype for a "true Negro" (generally a sub-Saharan type). Nonconforming characteristics in some Northeast African populations have been cause for incorporation of these peoples into a "Caucasoid" cluster. However, the same selective classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized as Negroid. Writers such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean" remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits, but do not mention the opposite. Nor do such scholars apply the same selective definition approach with populations of the Levant, Maghreb or those farther north. For example, scholars generally have made no similar attempt to define a "true white." [31] Others surveys of African peoples in the Nile Valley, Sahara and Sudan confirm the cultural, skeletal and material links between them from the earliest times.
Lumping of Africoid population data under labels such as 'Mediterranean'
Re-analyses of scholarship also show a tendency to sometimes lump certain types of data, such as skeletical remains under broad clusters or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers often describing substantially Negroid remains. Often this type has been lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term "Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet classification systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean grouping.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers.. The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947)..
Use of racial categories in modern DNA studies
Some supporters of the term Africoid point to modern DNA studies (Templeton, Lewotinin, et al.) that show a broad range of physical variation organic to African peoples, maintaining that classifications like Caucasoid, Mediterranean and 'true' sub-Saharan negroes are artificial and stereotypical, and involve presorting ahead of time, rather than letting the DNA data speak for themselves.[34] This broad mix of African genetic variation shown by DNA analysis, it is asserted, calls for inclusive concepts like Africoid to capture the genetic complexity on the ground.
Other DNA studies in turn throw doubt on "classical" racial categories. The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example, suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their supposedly hybrid origins.
Anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous methodological and conceptual problems with using DNA sequencing and other phylogenetic methods to support concepts of race. They hold for example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began assuming the validity of race (Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242)
Whatever the approach used, modern DNA studies have in many ways undermined traditional racial categories in favor of a population variant/gradient or continuum approach. This continuum/gradient approach is embraced by supporters of the term Africoid [39] as more accurate and realistic than various models that allocate peoples like Ethiopians to "Caucasoid" groupings.
[edit] Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some people argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia.[40] Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.
[edit] Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations
Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual."
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Fraud_Buster: I have to agree with Ms lion on this issu"e. There is no litmus test and people's racial identification is fluid and can change from nation to nation, such that many African Americans can be considered Mixed overseas and some with lighter skin can even be "White" in some places, and even by Native Black Africans.
Ozzy Boy is projecting his own Inferior Training since childhood and how, "Being a Sheep", can help one avoid trouble and just getting along in life without using one's potential brain-power and questioning the False Afrotopia Info.
Actually the concept of Political Blackness makes us a much more formidable group to deal with and avoids the ethnic strife that we see in Africa today. Blacks of various backgrounds recognize each other as equals which provides a platform of identity and unity. Afrangi's like you actually have taught Blacks to dislike each other. Blacks like me have learned to transcend the ignorance that you would have us wallowing in.
is being dark brown political?
No it dosen't, most people mistake "white" as if it means anything racial. Africans are not blind, and they can tell the difference between a white person and a mixed person, black South Africans don't lump Coloured and white South Africans into the same category. And most West Africans are aware of their westernmost mixed raced cousins in Cape Verde. "White" can pretty much equal Western culture in most African cultures, for example: when one of my Senegalese friends from France visited his country of origin, his family members constantly called him "white"... it had nothing to do with his race, since he's obviously a brown skinned Senegalese. But the culture he grew up in.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
kenndo
Thanks for that long read.
It seems Africoid would be a better term to use for ALL Africans in the continent.
What we need is europeans that are not ashamed of the TRUTH. Sometime TRUTH Hurts but you gotta respect it. Europeans are doing a decent job of not letting their bias cloud their ideas of Africa. Slow and steady we see more and more studies coming out that promotes Africans as travellers in the Ancoent World and not just static. Now all Africa needs is a revolution by the Mass to oust all those Uncle Tom presidents who kiss and Bow at the europeans feet and screw over their own people. Sad really
Peace
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
African-Americans are not a Mulatto population, they are a largely African population with a small European input.
The avg African-American phenotype falls into the indigenous African variational pheological scale, i.e. the average African-American has features that are found inside Africa, indigenous African features ( note: Africans are the most diverse people in the world, both physically and genetically). Scientist have already applied that any non-African admixture amoung African-Americans had little to no affect on their features. For the most part, African-Americans look like other Africans. Africans are not limited to comical streotypes, Africans can posses very fair skin (yellow or even creamy colored skin), lighter eyes, straight or narrow features, curly/wavy/straight hair, and most other features (other then extremely white ( albinos not counted)skin) without admixture from non-Africans, due to the fact that Africans being the oldest population, supplied Eurasia and the America's with modern human populations.
Back on topic...
"African Americans can be classed into two types for genetic purposes, based on ancestry: those who are "mostly African" (less than 25% non-African) and those who are "mostly mixed" (over 25% non-African); according to a 2006 study, African Americans fall primarily into the first group with 80% of the population being "mostly African". 20% of the AA population has more than 25% non-African ancestry, reflecting long history of both groups in the U.S. The "mostly African" group is substantially African, as 70% of African Americans in this group have less than 15% non-African ancestry. The 20% African Americans in the "mostly mixed" group (2.7% of US population) are almost entirely between 25% and 50% non-African."
Therefore, only 20% of the African-American population can be classified as Mulatto, but even then they're more African, since most of them lean more towards the 75% African extreme then the 50% mulatto or equally mixed extreme.
70% of the African-American population = 85-100% African/ 15-0% non-African
- 42% of the African-American population = 100% African/ 0% non-African
- 38% of the African-American population = 85-99% African/ 15-1% non-African
10% of the African-American population = 75-84% African/ 25-16% non-African
20% of the African-American population = 50-74% African/ 50-26% non-African
5% of the African-American population = any amount of native American ancestry, usually lesser then 12.5%
Total European contribuation to the African American community = 12.5%
Total African contribution to the African American community = 87.5%
African-Americans are therefore 87.5% African and only 12.5% European, thats NOTHING, and no where near the window of ancestry to be consider "mulatto".
Comparison to other populations, who arn't called Mulatto... mostly due to the fact of the bias, in that these below populations are of significant European ancestry.
"An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European. There is basic agreement between these conclusions and historical data on Hungary. Less is known about Finns and very little about Lapps."
Eastern Europeans have an almost equal amount of non-European contribution as the African-American community and their small European contribution.
European Europeans = 85-87% European / 15-12% non-European
Northern Europeans, i.e. Finns, are only slightly lesser... 10%
Lapps are almost almost half non-European or Asian, 51% European/ 49% Asian
Southern Europeans like their Eastern European counterparts are on average 15% non-European, but unlike Eastern Europeans they have an African rather then Asian composite.
In regard to White Americans
The European input into the white American population is 90% European, the non-European input is 10%, mostly Native American and African.
So in this regard if African-Americans are Mulatto, so as well are white Americans. Also, 30-40% of the white American population surpasses 10% in non-european ancestry.
Other populations
90% of the Brazilian population is atleast 10% African, 45% of the population is 90-100% African. Again most Brazilian pardos are really predomiantly African.
The avg white Brazilian is 10-38% African.
Conclusion
African-Americans are not a mulatto population!!!the vast majority of the population, 70%, are no less then 85% African ... being 15% European isn't going to drastically change your features at all.
Chris Rock and Don Cheadle are both 20% European... none of them resemble mulatto's. Oddly, they both originated in what is now Cameroon... and for both Rock and Don amoung Chadic speakers with high levels of African R, so likely that some of the European admixture is instead African.
People who overplay the European or non-African contribtion to the AA and general African disporian population are mostly if not always Mulattocentrics, AAs who see non-African admixture as a form of advanced statues or an increased distanced between them and the African continent, and others who can't seem to grasp Africa's immense genological and phenological variation.
AAs are an African population with a small European component.
Slavery was only practiced amoung 2-5% of the white population during that time period, making it unlikey that forced intercource led to any massive amounts of European admixture in AAs... FYI, it's unlikely that most sexual relationships between slaves and masters 10 minutes ago
The Khoisan people and near by Khoisan admixed Bantu groups are rather very fair skinned with "Asiatic" looking features. But they're not mixed with East Asians, far from it, they are the oldest and most genetically isolated African and human population, with NO admixture with non-Africans.
Lastly, the ancient community of the Horn of Africa. People like the Amhara, Tigray, and Somali, etc. are some of the most indigenous and genetically isolated people in Africa. They are very diverse with a wide array of features, but some of them have very fair skin and wavy hair... some people used to assume that these people were mixed, but science disagrees. THESE PEOPLE ARE 100% AFRICAN, with no recent or historic admixture.
THANKS, there is a new gen. of younger african leaders that are doing better for thier folks in africa.has awhole things are better in africa today then they were 10 years ago or even 20,but still africa away to go. think of progress in africa has a slow motion picture,there is going to be some setbacks,and ther is going to be progress,but overall there is progress .in some states things are going faster then others ,other states things are slower but still moving.
oh,i wonder who else thinks about the term africoid by the way. i read about this a few months ago and i guess this was the time to post it here.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Doctoris Scientia
Nice Job Doc.
I especially like the brazillian words. Brazil is home to people who have about 90% african genes. I also think that The number of Africans in Brazil that are 80% African is higher then 45%. The sad thing is that Brazil shows it's selfhating roots on in the Entertainment field where there soap operas are played by people who look scandanavian. Brazil needs to take pride in there Blackness and not try to cover it up all the time. Revolution is something that needs to be taken by the Brazillians also to fight for there rights. I hope unlike Africa and India that Skin bleaching is not something that affects the Brazillians, sadly though since brazil is a country known for plastic surgery It would not surprise me if they do bleach their skin like that fool sammy sosa.
Peace
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: African-Americans are not a Mulatto population, they are a largely African population with a small European input.
The avg African-American phenotype falls into the indigenous African variational pheological scale, i.e. the average African-American has features that are found inside Africa, indigenous African features ( note: Africans are the most diverse people in the world, both physically and genetically). Scientist have already applied that any non-African admixture amoung African-Americans had little to no affect on their features. For the most part, African-Americans look like other Africans. Africans are not limited to comical streotypes, Africans can posses very fair skin (yellow or even creamy colored skin), lighter eyes, straight or narrow features, curly/wavy/straight hair, and most other features (other then extremely white ( albinos not counted)skin) without admixture from non-Africans, due to the fact that Africans being the oldest population, supplied Eurasia and the America's with modern human populations.
70% of the African-American population = 85-100% African/ 15-0% non-African
- 42% of the African-American population = 100% African/ 0% non-African
- 38% of the African-American population = 85-99% African/ 15-1% non-African
10% of the African-American population = 75-84% African/ 25-16% non-African
20% of the African-American population = 50-74% African/ 50-26% non-African
5% of the African-American population = any amount of native American ancestry, usually lesser then 12.5%
Total European contribuation to the African American community = 12.5%
Total African contribution to the African American community = 87.5%
African-Americans are therefore 87.5% African and only 12.5% European, thats NOTHING, and no where near the window of ancestry to be consider "mulatto".
Comparison to other populations, who arn't called Mulatto... mostly due to the fact of the bias, in that these below populations are of significant European ancestry.
"An analysis of genetic admixture between Uralic and European ancestors shows that Lapps are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European. There is basic agreement between these conclusions and historical data on Hungary. Less is known about Finns and very little about Lapps."
Eastern Europeans have an almost equal amount of non-European contribution as the African-American community and their small European contribution.
European Europeans = 85-87% European / 15-12% non-European
Northern Europeans, i.e. Finns, are only slightly lesser... 10%
Lapps are almost almost half non-European or Asian, 51% European/ 49% Asian
Southern Europeans like their Eastern European counterparts are on average 15% non-European, but unlike Eastern Europeans they have an African rather then Asian composite.
In regard to White Americans
The European input into the white American population is 90% European, the non-European input is 10%, mostly Native American and African.
So in this regard if African-Americans are Mulatto, so as well are white Americans. Also, 30-40% of the white American population surpasses 10% in non-european ancestry.
Other populations
90% of the Brazilian population is atleast 10% African, 45% of the population is 90-100% African. Again most Brazilian pardos are really predomiantly African.
The avg white Brazilian is 10-38% African.
Conclusion
African-Americans are not a mulatto population!!!the vast majority of the population, 70%, are no less then 85% African ... being 15% European isn't going to drastically change your features at all.
Chris Rock and Don Cheadle are both 20% European... none of them resemble mulatto's. Oddly, they both originated in what is now Cameroon... and for both Rock and Don amoung Chadic speakers with high levels of African R, so likely that some of the European admixture is instead African.
People who overplay the European or non-African contribtion to the AA and general African disporian population are mostly if not always Mulattocentrics, AAs who see non-African admixture as a form of advanced statues or an increased distanced between them and the African continent, and others who can't seem to grasp Africa's immense genological and phenological variation.
AAs are an African population with a small European component.
Slavery was only practiced amoung 2-5% of the white population during that time period, making it unlikey that forced intercource led to any massive amounts of European admixture in AAs... FYI, it's unlikely that most sexual relationships between slaves and masters 10 minutes ago
The Khoisan people and near by Khoisan admixed Bantu groups are rather very fair skinned with "Asiatic" looking features. But they're not mixed with East Asians, far from it, they are the oldest and most genetically isolated African and human population, with NO admixture with non-Africans.
Lastly, the ancient community of the Horn of Africa. People like the Amhara, Tigray, and Somali, etc. are some of the most indigenous and genetically isolated people in Africa. They are very diverse with a wide array of features, but some of them have very fair skin and wavy hair... some people used to assume that these people were mixed, but science disagrees. THESE PEOPLE ARE 100% AFRICAN, with no recent or historic admixture.
right,it's myth that most african americans have lot of european admxiture,and even less then 9% have any native american admixture.you are on point most african americans still look clearly african. most have less then 13% admixture,not 40 or 50%. 12.5% is not enough to change the features of african americans. the same for whites.white with 20 or lower then 20% still would look clearly white and not mixed raced.
19.6% of the african ameriacns would have 25% european ancestry ,58% would have it etc etc,that is still clearly african,but if you have 20% or less admixture that would clearly not change you features.it will have no impact.some folks can't get it in thier thick heads.
oh nad at least 20% are unmixed african americans meaning no admixture.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
another point to put this one to rest too,it was impossible for most african americans to have any native american admixture,most african american have not been here for that long and african americans in america had a larger population then native americans and most were isolated from each other. this was talked about on the show african american lives on pbs. ____________________________________________- quote- How many black Americans really have Native American ancestors?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Very interesting question! According to a man who has performed DNA testing on black Americans, only approximately 10 percent have Native American ancestors:
He said many blacks wrongly believe they are descendents of Native Americans.
"If you ask 10 African-Americans if they have Native American ancestry, eight of them will say yes, but when we actually test them, it's less than 10 percent," Kittle said.
The historians and archaeologist and anthropologist have shown that the bulk of the enslaved Africans came from northern Nigeria to southern Angola's parts of western central area, and so we have a database that encompasses that area and so when we test these African-Americans, they pretty much match to there about 95 percent of the time," Kittle said.
Other Answers (7)
Due to stigma and discrimination, MANY persons have been known to claim Native Amer. ancestry, instead of admitting to African American.
I would estimate that probably 1/2 of those that think they have Native Amer. , really do not (not limited to those with African Amer. ancestry), and many become very upset, when they do the actual research.
If you want to know if it is true or not, you can always do the actual research of your ancestors, and find out what the records show. There is no need at all to guess what "might" be true or not.
______________-
so the other post i posted mentions only about 5% of african american have any native american admixture or about that.before folks thought it was it was 80 or 90% but most historians always thought it was 25% now it is lower then 9% or around 5%
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
kenndo,
Have you ever had sex?
The reason I ask is because most "they be mixed" obsession loons seem to have very unintelligent perceptions of social interactions between males and females. It all seems to be based on fantasy that really doesn't exist in the real world.
And you seem to be at the very best, naive. At the worst, you are so inexperienced socially with women that, as we all can see, you post things that would make a person who has gotten left in jr high twice laugh hysterically.
Posted by Mind0verMatter718 (Member # 17548) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Doctoris Scientia
Nice Job Doc.
I especially like the brazillian words. Brazil is home to people who have about 90% african genes. I also think that The number of Africans in Brazil that are 80% African is higher then 45%. The sad thing is that Brazil shows it's selfhating roots on in the Entertainment field where there soap operas are played by people who look scandanavian. Brazil needs to take pride in there Blackness and not try to cover it up all the time. Revolution is something that needs to be taken by the Brazillians also to fight for there rights. I hope unlike Africa and India that Skin bleaching is not something that affects the Brazillians, sadly though since brazil is a country known for plastic surgery It would not surprise me if they do bleach their skin like that fool sammy sosa.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)