posted
I'm new to this forum and I'd like to know about the Khoisan. I've read some sources that said they were not black and are not genetically related to blacks in Africa. Other sources say something different. Anyone here can clear this up for me please?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi. Not only African but in some senses, along with the Mbuti, the original Africans with a language the New York Times reports, dates back nearly 100,000 years. They were the first to Upper Paleolithic Northern Europe and are those people referred to as those early Europeans - but not European in the today's phenotypic sense.
Some (not all) with their almond-shaped eyes (and also in Northern Europe over to Mongolia) became the ancestors of the Mongoloid people. Now, take an African person with woolly hair and a white person with straight hair who parent a child. What will that child be like? They won't have woolly hair. And that's just the first generation. My take on the situation is that the original so-called Mongoloid had woolly, peppercorn hair and mixing with the whites in the Steppes near 3000 BC or so gained their straight hair characterizing them today. But, to answer you question, yes, the Khoisan (these are Khoi mixed with Bantu) and Khoi are African. But, this has wider implications than the question implies.
Best regards,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
My take on the situation is that the original so-called Mongoloid had woolly, peppercorn hair and mixing with the whites in the Steppes near 3000 BC or so gained their straight hair characterizing them today. But, to answer you question, yes, the Khoisan (these are Khoi mixed with Bantu) and Khoi are African. But, this has wider implications than the question implies.
Best regards,
Marc Washington
First of all, Africa's question is right on the money, where the parent topic issue is concerned.
That aside, with regards to what is cited above, are you [Marc] suggesting that what you call 'Mongoloid' people, were the product of miscegenation between Khoisans and northern Eurasians? Are these "Mongoloids" Asians? If so, what genetic assessment led you to your conclusion?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all, Africa's question is right on the money, where the parent topic issue is concerned.
cosign.
misinformation is often spreaded by heresay.
i didn't expect the poster to answer africa's question, and they haven't.
quote: Marc writes, Mongoloid - mixing with the whites in the Steppes near 3000 BC or so gained their straight hair characterizing them today.
^ speaking of misinformation.
not only does the above make absolutely no sense, as Generally:
* East Asian and American Indian hair are the straightest in the world.
* South African Khoisan hair are the curliest in the world.
* white hair is variable and intermediate, so you'd be less obviously wrong, arguing that whites are the 'mixed hair' folk.
But what is of greater interest here is the way in which self proclaimed afrocentrists simply end up channeling the same racist rhetoric of reactionary white supremacy.
Marc attributes the straight hair of East Asians to whites.
Kenndo attributes the narrow noses of Tutsi to whites.
Dr. Winters attributes the Berber languages to whites.
If one looks past the Afro-posturing note how much they actually credit to imagined "white" influences.
Afrocentrism is a self defeating joke.
It is ultimately and intellectually reactionary bastard child - a defense mechanism of Blacks who have suffered too much mental-abuse at the feet of white mind masters, and therefore end up channeling the very racist ideology which they ostinsibly oppose.
Of course they will cry to the contrary, but only by seeing the world as white supremacist see it can they harbor the extremely ill informed views expressed above.
Howls of protests [and complete lack of logical answers for above] expected...... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been shown elsewhere that east Asians are a result of a first wave OoA exode of beachcombers hugging the Indian Ocean shores to arrive at the Pacific Ocean and a later expansion across the Taurus and on into Central Asia before arriving in East Asia. Only after elements of that group made a grand westward movement toward Europe did the first forebeares of what would become today's Europeans come into existence. I.e., Asians and their phenotype preceed the appearance of the typical European phenotypes.
Diop was also one of those who before 1990's genetic revelations proposed both far east Asians and "Semites" to be a mix of primordial blacks with pristine whites.
But more on topic to the threads header, howzabout some Khoi-Khoi and San genetics and anthropology?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Ebony. Please arrive at your own conclusions, but considering the "appearance" of Khoi and Khoisan, look at real examples [1, 3]. As stated, Upper Paleolithic European populations came from Africa. How did they represent themselves in art? Please consider 11 such examples [18 - 29]. How did early Asian populations portray themselves? See [14, 15]. What do all of these have in common? They are all steatophygous and such a trait belongs to the African Khoi and Khoisan. You ask if Khoi are (you use the word 'black' - I think Africans can be described with enough traits so that the contentious war cry of color can be avoided); you ask if Khoi are African? I'd say that the images that you see here, not to be facetious, don't resemble Sarah Fawcet, Mrs. Bush, Lady Thatcher, or Madonna - they resemble the African women seen in [1, 3]. The conclusion is yours to draw.
All the best,
Paul Marc Washington (this is personal but my father's name was Paul. He's gone now and as my first name is also Paul, sometimes I use it in memory of and respect for him)
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm new to this forum and I'd like to know about the Khoisan. I've read some sources that said they were not black and are not genetically related to blacks in Africa. Other sources say something different. Anyone here can clear this up for me please?
Hopefully this might help you to understand this group of Afrikans.
quote: Khoisan (increasingly commonly spelled Khoesan or Khoe-San) is the name for two major ethnic groups of southern Africa . From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than 40 inches (1016mm)—and today's San and Khoi people resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. Both share physical and linguistic characteristics, and it seems clear that the Khoi branched forth from the San by adopting the practice of herding cattle and goats from neighboring Bantu groups. The Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu migrations—coming down the east and west coasts of Africa—and later European colonization.
Culturally they are divided into the hunter gatherer Bushmen (sometimes known as San, although this can be seen as derogatory) and the pastoral Khoi (sometimes known as Hottentots, although this is considered obsolete and offensive). The Khoisan languages are noted for their click consonants.
Over the centuries the many branches of the Khoisan peoples have been absorbed or displaced by Bantu peoples migrating south in search of new lands, most notably the Xhosa and Zulu, who both have adopted the Khoisan clicks and some loan words. The Khoisan survived in the desert or in areas with winter rains which were not suitable for Bantu crops. During the colonial era they lived in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, and were massacred in great numbers by Dutch, British, and German settlers in acts of genocide (e.g. the Herero and Namaqua Genocide). They contributed greatly to the ancestry of South Africa's coloured population.
Today it is in portions of the Kalahari Desert where San people live most nearly as their hunter-gatherer ancestors did.
According to neutral (autosomal) gene analysis, the Khoisan are similar to other sub-Saharan African populations. The study of their Y-chromosomes however shows that their original Y-haplogroup A is the oldest human lineage and could have diverged from the evolutionary tree of other humans more than 100 000 years ago (Knight et al. 2003). Khoisans thus actually represent the most archaic human group that was largely isolated from the rest of mankind for tens of thousands of years. A long time ago, a part of their ancestors headed for north and gave birth to modern Nilotes, which is evident from the presence of a subclade A3b2 in East Africa. According to Knight et al. (2003) Y-haplogroup A is today present in various Khoisan tribes at frequency of 12-44%. The rest is formed by recent admixture of Bantu male lineages E3a (18-54%) and in some tribes, noticeable Pygmy traces are visible (B2b). The Khoisan also show the largest genetic diversity in mtDNA of all human populations. Their original mtDNA haplogroups L1d and L1k are one of the oldest female lineages as well. The San people themselves say they came first of all human beings, and while many cultures bear that same myth, each of themselves, not only genetic but archaeological evidence bears the Khoisan out
They speak a Afrikan Language and live in Afrika plus share similar genes to Afrikans, if that doesn't make them Afrikan then the earth must be flat also.
Rasol wrote:
quote: ^ speaking of misinformation.
not only does the above make absolutely no sense, as Generally:
* East Asian and American Indian hair are the straightest in the world.
* South African Khoisan hair are the curliest in the world.
* white hair is variable and intermediate, so you'd be less obviously wrong, arguing that whites are the 'mixed hair' folk.
But what is of greater interest here is the way in which self proclaimed afrocentrists simply end up channeling the same racist rhetoric of reactionary white supremacy.
Marc attributes the straight hair of East Asians to whites.
Kenndo attributes the narrow noses of Tutsi to whites.
Dr. Winters attributes the Berber languages to whites.
If one looks past the Afro-posturing note how much they actually credit to imagined "white" influences.
Afrocentrism is a self defeating joke.
It is ultimately and intellectually reactionary bastard child - a defense mechanism of Blacks who have suffered too much mental-abuse at the feet of white mind masters, and therefore end up channeling the very racist ideology which they ostinsibly oppose.
Of course they will cry to the contrary, but only by seeing the world as white supremacist see it can they harbor the extremely ill informed views expressed above.
Howls of protests [and complete lack of logical answers for above] expected......
rasol that comment towards Afrocentrism was totally uncalled for and for ignorant, let us look at the dictionary for Afrocentrism.
quote: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
Afrocentric
SYLLABICATION: Af·ro·cen·tric PRONUNCIATION: fr-sntrk ADJECTIVE: Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence: “a string of small black-owned art galleries in Los Angeles's Afrocentric cultural district” (Kristal Brent Zook, NYT Magazine November 12 1995). OTHER FORMS: Afro·centrism —NOUN Afro·centrist —ADJECTIVE & NOUN
rasol the definition is quite clear what Afrocentrism is, now are you implying that Afrikan people did not have the idea of writing a historical and cultural presence of those Afrikans who preceded them?
rasol you are implying that until Eurocentrics began writing historical records of the past then Afrikans decided to counteract that idea with one of their own, which is just as silly and racist as those who try to deny the importance of Afrocentric scholars. Afrikan people like many other groups have been documenting their past and culture before they ever came in contact with any Europeans or non-Afrikans for that matter, so you are incorrect about your assumptions of Afrocentrism. Afrikan people are unique in their own way and Afrocentrism documents that, if you rasol have a problem with some Afrocentric writers then take up your problem with that specific writer.
I have said it before, some Afrocentric writers do a good job and some don't, some Afrocentric writers have their own theories that's not accepted by the mainstream and some don't, just like any other groups or subjects their are good and bad participants of the subject matter, so lets not attack the entire subject because you don't like the comments of one writer. Afrocentrism is here to stay so love it or leave it alone.
quote: rasol the definition is quite clear what Afrocentrism is, now are you implying that Afrikan people did not have the idea of writing a historical and cultural presence of those Afrikans who preceded them?
rasol you are implying that until Eurocentrics began writing historical records of the past then Afrikans decided to counteract that idea with one of their own, which is just as silly and racist as those who try to deny the importance of Afrocentric scholars. Afrikan people like many other groups have been documenting their past and culture before they ever came in contact with any Europeans or non-Afrikans for that matter, so you are incorrect about your assumptions of Afrocentrism. Afrikan people are unique in their own way and Afrocentrism documents that, if you rasol have a problem with some Afrocentric writers then take up your problem with that specific writer.
I have said it before, some Afrocentric writers do a good job and some don't, some Afrocentric writers have their own theories that's not accepted by the mainstream and some don't, just like any other groups or subjects their are good and bad participants of the subject matter, so lets not attack the entire subject because you don't like the comments of one writer. Afrocentrism is here to stay so love it or leave it alone.
There are four philosophical schools associated with the afrocentric study of ancient history: perennialist, essentialist, existentialist, and progressivist. The taxonomic system we use to classify the various afrocentric philosophical positions and related values affecting afrocentrism are modeled on philo-sophical developments associated with education.
We can use taxonomies of educational philosophies to discuss any proposed afrocentric curriculum because both education and philosophy are "cultural experiences". Moreover, because afrocentrism seeks to explain and delineate the story of African people, it clearly is a field of study which encompasses all aspects of the culture of Black and African people (Asante, 1990, 1991; Winters, 1994).
The perennialist afrocentrists study the great works. The adherents of this school include Martin Delaney (1978), Cornish and Russwurm (1827), Frederick Douglas (1966), and Edward Blyden (1869). These Afrocentrists see knowledge as truth, which is eternal.
The essentialist afrocentric school emphasize in their writing data that is well established through scientific research. Afrocentrists of this philosophical school include W. E. B. DuBois (1965, 1970), John Jackson (1974), C.A. Winters (1985, 1989, 1991, 1994) and Leo Hansberry (1981). They believe that as new research is published, it should be analyzed to discover how it relates to the ancient history of African and Black people to enrich our understanding of the past.
The existentialist afrocentrists believe that africalogical studies should thrive to teach African people to know more about themselves so we can have a better world. The afrocentric existentialists include J.A. Rogers, Anta Diop (1974, 1991), G.M. James (1954), Marcus Garvey (1966) and A.A. Schomburg (1979).
The final afrocentric philosophical school is the progressivist. The afrocentric school of progressivism believes that we should have knowledge of the process and futuristic focus on afrocentric studies. The major exponent of this frame of reference is Molefi K. Asante (1991).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It's been shown elsewhere that east Asians are a result of a first wave OoA exode of beachcombers hugging the Indian Ocean shores to arrive at the Pacific Ocean and a later expansion across the Taurus and on into Central Asia before arriving in East Asia.
But that's scholarship and science. It means absolutely nothing to those with a superstitious belief system which they call "race", and which allows them to conjure complete fantasy systems which fly in the face of fact, and even sanity itself.
Meaning - your facts will have zero effect on Winters/Marc, et al.
quote:But more on topic to the threads header, howzabout some Khoi-Khoi and San genetics and anthropology?
I won't provide any info to the thread-starter until they answer Africa's question.
I like to know who's crap I'm debunking 1st, rather than let them hide in the shadows and urinate in the public drinking water.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
not only does the above make absolutely no sense, as Generally:
* East Asian and American Indian hair are the straightest in the world.
* South African Khoisan hair are the curliest in the world.
* white hair is variable and intermediate, so you'd be less obviously wrong, arguing that whites are the 'mixed hair' folk.
But what is of greater interest here is the way in which self proclaimed afrocentrists simply end up channeling the same racist rhetoric of reactionary white supremacy.
Marc attributes the straight hair of East Asians to whites.
Kenndo attributes the narrow noses of Tutsi to whites.
Dr. Winters attributes the Berber languages to whites.
If one looks past the Afro-posturing note how much they actually credit to imagined "white" influences.
Afrocentrism is a self defeating joke.
It is ultimately and intellectually reactionary bastard child - a defense mechanism of Blacks who have suffered too much mental-abuse at the feet of white mind masters, and therefore end up channeling the very racist ideology which they ostinsibly oppose.
Of course they will cry to the contrary, but only by seeing the world as white supremacist see it can they harbor the extremely ill informed views expressed above.
Howls of protests [and complete lack of logical answers for above] expected......
quote:rasol that comment towards Afrocentrism was totally uncalled for
I will modify it to Afrocentrism as represented by Dr. Winters and Marc Washington.
Unfortunately I don't know of any sound/self proclaimed Afrocentric discourses in history.
I do respect a signficant amount of the historical work of Asante, although I think his core idea of turning history into a formalized ideological tenant was a huge mistake.
I don't consider Diop and Afrocentric, and I don't think the present crop of self proclaimed Afrocentrists are anywhere near Diop's league.
Diop was a scientist and intellectual of the highest order.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caucasians who take it upon themselves to tell blacks how to think and themselves act as moral policemen I think are far better served cleaning up their own act and the act of the less than perfect communities they come from. Please put your spare time in those areas. Be sure, we don't need any such people getting on the case of black people.
To address once again, however, the issue of Khoisan being African, good posts in this thread have made the point abundantly clear that they are.
Peace and Blessings,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Caucasians who take it upon themselves to tell blacks how to think and themselves act as moral policemen I think are far better served cleaning up their own act and the act of the less than perfect communities they come from.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic