posted
I like to describe Arabs and Hebrews and many others from the Levant and the Arab Peninsula as "lost Africans", first of all they speak languages that originated in Africa, they practice many customs similar to Africans like circumcision. Although they are more related to pastoralist African societies especially the Arab bedouins from Sinai and Saudi Arabia : in their traditions women are separate from men, it is very similar to many pastoralist cultures. I would like to dedicate this thread to the common features of both societies: Levant people, Arab Peninsula people and Africans...basically what is the commonality?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ I too am interested in the Afrasian/African commonality Semitic speaking South Asians have.
posted
My man Djehuti, the most number of semitic languages are in ethiopia, so is ethiopia the birth place of semitic, or is Arabia? get back to me mahne, peace. .
AFRICA I Member # 13222
posted South Semitic is one of the three macro-classifications in Semitic linguistics, the other two being East Semitic (e.g. Akkadian) and West Semitic (e.g. Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew). Semitic itself is considered a branch of the larger Afro-Asiatic language family found, as indicated in the name, both in (northern and eastern) Africa and (southwestern) Asia. (See Joseph Greenberg's classification of African languages.)
South Semitic is again divided into two main branches: South Arabian, on the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula, and Ethiopian Semitic, found across the Red Sea in the Horn of Africa, mainly in modern Ethiopia and Eritrea. The Ethiopian Semitic languages have by far the greatest numbers of modern native speakers. Eritrea's main languages are mainly Tigrinya and Tigre which are North Ethiopic languages while Amharic (South Ethiopic) is the main language spoken in Ethiopia (along with Tigrinya in the northern province of Tigray). Southern Arabian languages have withered at the expense of the more dominant Arabic (also a Semitic language) for more than a millennium. The Ethnologue lists six modern members of the South Arabian branch and 14 members of the Ethiopian branch.
The "homeland" of the South Semitic languages is widely debated, but is believed to have been Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea or the southwest corner of the Arabian Peninsula. The modern and historic presence of South Semitic Ethiopian languages (and Ethiopic script) in Africa is believed by some to be due to a (backwards) migration of South Arabian speakers from Yemen within the last few thousand years. Such a migration would be a "backwards" one in that Afro-Asiatic languages are assumed to have arisen in Africa originally and moved into the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula in the form of Proto-Semitic, since all major branches of the larger Afro-Asiatic are found in Africa). Others, such as A. Murtonen (1967), dispute this view, suggesting that Semitic may have originated in Ethiopia.
Obelisk_18 Member # 11966
posted
^So its pretty much a coin toss between ethiopia and Yemen .
AFRICA I Member # 13222
posted
South Semitic languages seem to be more diverse in Ethiopia than in the Arab Peninsula...by inference it is highly probable that that branch of semitic languages originated in Ethiopia...
PrincessJin Member # 13954
posted
Of course semitic languages originated in Ethiopia.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally edited by Djehuti: ^ I too am interested in the Afrasian/African commonality Semitic speaking West Asians have.
^ Is what I meant to write.
By the way Obelisk, your question has been answered several times before. Semitic is a branch of the Afrasian phylum which originated in Africa. Many scholars think proto-Afrasian diverged in Africa before it made its way into Arabia. As far as where in Africa, linguistics tend to make the area in northeast Africa around Egypt, since grammatically Semitic is closely related to both Egyptian and Berber. There is a belief that once proto-Semitic entered Arabia it diversified there more but through demic expansion reached back to Africa via Ethiopia.
Ask Yom about it.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Where in Asia do people speak any Semitic language except where Islam introduced Arabic? And no, I don't accept Arabian Peninsula/Levant/Mesopotamis as any part of Asia whatsoever for reason I've layed out numerous times.
SW Asia is as much a ruse as Middle East.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Of course where else in Asia but Southwest Asia (Levant and Arabia).
I don't see how Southwest Asia is a ruse unless you are getting at plate tectonics and Arabia being part of the African rift. Is not Arabia and the Levant merged with the Iranian plateau and Turkey?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Who decided where Africa ends and Asia begins? The mountains of Turkey and Iran make the natural boundary defining the end of Asia. Now ask yourself when and how Syria and Iraq merged with these mountains or, better yet, what act formed those mountains? And then, pray tell how the Sinai is Africa but the adjoining peninsula of which it is truly a part is not?
And while you're at it why don't we retain the original definition of those who invented Asia as a continent and return everything east of the Nile to Asia?
Being Asian you have a stake in claiming this real estate that doesn't belong to you. As an African I demand, and once I have the strength will retake, each millimetre of land that belongs to me and mine from any and every one who now has it or dare say it is not mine. In this matter of land ownership you are my enemy. Africa vs Asia.
That's the bottom line. No intellectual exercise involved.
There's nothing fukqing Asian about the people, language, geography, etc., of Sinaic Egypt, Palestine Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Arabia, and Jordan. They are part and parcel of Africa and that is why they along with Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco make up the Middle East ruse.
We have to remember and teach the fact that Semites are Africans instead of promoting the tectonic split of the Arabian plate from its parent African plate as mimicked by the Arabs who since Islam have cut tether with any kind of African identity.
Aluta continua!
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Neither the Arabian plate nor the Indian plate/sub-continent are the same as the Eurasian tectonic plate so are not geological parts of the Eurasian supercontinent.
Why do we continue to group them and the languages, haplogroups, etc., originating on them -- vs the ones that expanded to them -- as Eurasian?
Granted they assumed their present positions long before any hominid walked the earth but certain paleolithic migrations to them and peoples living there never set foot on Eurasia, unless you count the passage through the Zagros Mts fold enroute to India.
Accordingly, the following NRY lineages are not Eurasian in origin though most of their subclades are rightfully Eurasian as they diverged there. It's uncertain whether the first two arose in Africa or diverged in India or maybe Indonesia, if in the latter they would be Eurasian.
C-M130 D-M174
F arose in the Arabian peninsula or per a minority opinion came over from East Africa. All the next on the list (except for L) coalesce to F.
F-M89 G-M201 H-M69 I-M170 K-M9 L-M20 (? -- some say it crossed the Hindu-Kush Mts making it Eurasian) J-M267 & M172 (all J subclades diverged on Arabian plate lands)
The remainder haplogroups M N O P Q and R all definitely arose in Eurasia. Note, there is some question about a part of R (R1*-M173).
Semino et al (2004) in Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74; see figure 2.
Underhill (2003) in Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Bio. Vol. 68; -- see commentary on maps 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Wells (2002); chapter 6 and figure 10.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
There is no geological connection between the African and Eurasian tectonic plates such as there is between the African and Arabian plates. The Arabian plate is nothing but a splinter off of the African plate and its separating movement continues today.
Unlike the Rift Valley which is even geographically African/Arabian, there is no topography shared by the African and Eurasian plates.
At the time there was anything like a connection between the two continents of Africa and Europe, the continents as we know them were not yet formed.
Very unlike the time -- the Miocene c. 14mya -- when the African/Arabian plates were still conjoined and the continents were delineated precisely as at present.
Plate tectonic maps and Continental drift animations by C. R. Scotese, PALEOMAP Project (http://www.scotese.com). See the map index page http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm for more info on earlier ages and continental drift (http://www.scotese.com/pangeanim.htm).
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
posted 08 August, 2007 01:42 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decided where Africa ends and Asia begins? The mountains of Turkey and Iran make the natural boundary defining the end of Asia. Now ask yourself when and how Syria and Iraq merged with these mountains or, better yet, what act formed those mountains? And then, pray tell how the Sinai is Africa but the adjoining peninsula of which it is truly a part is not?
And while you're at it why don't we retain the original definition of those who invented Asia as a continent and return everything east of the Nile to Asia?
"Being Asian you have a stake in claiming this real estate that doesn't belong to you. As an African I demand, and once I have the strength will retake, each millimetre of land that belongs to me and mine from any and every one who now has it or dare say it is not mine. In this matter of land ownership you are my enemy. Africa vs Asia."
This has to be among the most ignorant babble ever put on a piece of paper."
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Yepper, right up there with Manifest Destiny or the Monroe Doctrine or ...
quote:Originally posted by Blatella Germanica: This has to be among the most ignorant babble ever put on a piece of paper.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ LOL. So Pat's only response to this thread is the one above?? I wonder what he makes of Europe not even being a continent??
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
The problem Takruri is that we had the military power to pull off Manifest Destiny. We also rolled over a very thinly populated area. In Africa the situation is quite different. Instead of worrying about attacking Israel, Syria and Iraq andy African nationalist should be concerned with survival INSIDE africa. Long term trends may well find africa over run with people from Asia and India.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
If you don't have anything relevant to the subject matter please shut the fuqk up and quit ruining a decent thread. At the very least be gentleman enough to start a thread of your own to discuss why only white people aren't engaged in ignorant babble when They intend to take up arms to hold onto land that was never theirs to start with but black men are ignorant babblers when they intend to keep their land and retrieve their lost land.
I assure you once we have the power we will reclaim all of our God given landmass and I hope you don't like it you german cockaroach.
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
You will never have the power Takruri. You have a full time job just trying to survive.
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Long term trends may well find africa over run with people from Asia and India.
Evergreen Writes: AmericanPatriot, you're not very well read for a "profesor". The long term trend is what Chuck D from the Hip-Hop group Public Enemy refered to as "Fear of a Black Planet".
What's in a name? Ask José and Muhammad Demographic data confirm the world is changing, but in unexpected ways
The Christian Science Monitor's Editorial Board from the May 29, 2009 edition
"....sub-Saharan Africa....By 2050, the region could grow from 800 million people today to 1.7 billion. By the end of the century, it could be home to one-third of the human race. "
Of course this number doesn't count the 300 million plus African diaspora or the 100 million plus Blacks in North Africa or the Middle East at that time.
Not sure how China, with its DECLINING fertility rate will overrun Africa? Africa will be a net provider of humans to Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You will never have the power Takruri. You have a full time job just trying to survive.
I never knew you had such intimate knowledge of Takruri's life. Or are you just making outlandish presumptions and lies as usual?? I think I'll go with the latter.
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
i was refering to his black nationalism, and yours. He seemed to want to say that the most backward section of the world will somehow transform itself from a disease ridden cultural sewer to a world power.
How much welfare would the first world nations of the world have to give them to bring that about?
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: He seemed to want to say that the most backward section of the world will somehow transform itself from a disease ridden cultural sewer to a world power.
Evergreen Writes: Isn't this what happened when Europe came out of the Dark Ages?
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
Actually no. In realtive terms Europe was much more advanced compared to other areas than Africa is today. Besides Europe had just come out of an extended eight hundred year golden era before it fragmented between 400-900. Bad example Evergreen. Africa is currently headed in the wrong direction. Low IQ's and corruption have not been overcome to this point.
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Actually no. In realtive terms Europe was much more advanced compared to other areas than Africa is today.
Evergreen Writes: This is not the question nor is it a apples to apples comparison. A proper comparison would be between Africa and Europe during Europe's Dark Age period. We know that Africa was more advanced and that the most sophisticated parts of Europe (ie, Iberia) were under the colonial yoke of Africans.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Besides Europe had just come out of an extended eight hundred year golden era before it fragmented between 400-900.
Of course it did. I would assume you are refering to the Roman Empire and the Greeks. Both of these cultures of course are off shots of the much older civilizations of Africa.
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
you are simply a nut Evergreen. No historian who writes a history of Europe are going to leave out Greece and Rome nor are they going to call it an off shoot of africa. Your ignorance is astounding.
Spain was not colonized by Africans in the Dark Ages.
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: you are simply a nut Evergreen.
Evergreen Writes: No need for name calling. This is childish. Simply present any evidence you have and allow it to stand on its own.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: No historian who writes a history of Europe are going to leave out Greece and Rome...
Evergreen Writes: And they souldn't leave it out. It was the earliest form of civilization in Europe. It was much younger than African civilizations and was likewise influenced by the civlizations of the African Nile.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: nor are they going to call it an off shoot of africa.
Evergreen Writes: Classical Greece was an off shoot of Mycenaen Greece. Mycenaen Greece in turn was an off shoot of Neolithic Greece. Neolithic Greece was an off shoot of the mesolithic cultures of Africa. Can it be any clearer.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Spain was not colonized by Africans in the Dark Ages.
Evergreen Writes: Of course it was. You've never heard of the "Moorish conquest"?
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
Evergreen, Don't give me this black mumbo jumbo about Greece. It makes you look like a complete idiot. You guys have invented this silly construct concerning Greece and Rome that is a literal joke in academic circles. In fact, it is so silly people have stopped even talking about it.
There was no black African Moorish invasion of Spain. We have been all through this. The only people who believe it are a few black nationalists on egyptsearch.
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Evergreen, Don't give me this black mumbo jumbo about Greece.
Evergreen Writes:
This statement is incoherent. What are you trying to say? Speak English.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: It makes you look like a complete idiot.
Evergreen Writes: Again, no need to insult me. Simply state your facts and hold a civilized debate. You're reverting back to the old cave man ways.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You guys have invented this silly construct concerning Greece and Rome.
Evergreen Writes: Specifics, please?
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: There was no black African Moorish invasion of Spain.
Evergreen Writes: The Moorish conquest of Spain is common knowledge in history. If you don't believe the Moors conquered Spain then I need to speak to you at a very elementary level.
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
How do you state facts to an ideologue Evergreen. You make up your own facts and live in a little historical fantasy world. Look, I am not going to argue this garbage with you. We have all been down this black nationmalist yellow brick road since the 90's.
I know the Moors conquored Spain and I also know, and you know, that it was not a black african driven event. By the way, it was also halted in northern Spain and was on the defensive by AD 1000
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: I know the Moors conquored Spain and I also know, and you know, that it was not a black african driven event.
Evergreen Writes: We've peeled back the onion a bit here. You admitt that the Moors conquered Spain, but seem not to believe that the Moors were primarily Black. Is this your position?
TheAmericanPatriot Member # 15824
posted
That is exactly my position. The arab invasion of spain was part of the Muslim conquest that swept across the near east and north africa. It was centered in Syria and arabia , not black africa. Has the arab conquest not taken place beginning in the near east Spain would not have been attacked. To answer your question, it was not primarily black.
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: That is exactly my position. The arab invasion of spain was part of the Muslim conquest that swept across the near east and north africa.
Evergreen Writes: What evidence do you have that indicates it was Arabs that invaded Spain?
Sundjata Member # 13096
posted
LMAO @ the "Arab invasion of Spain".. That is the most historically illiterate claim I've read on here in a while as even those only slightly interested know that these people were a confederation of predominantly Saharan Africans. False dichotomies based on the fantasy of "black and non-Black" geographies are irrelevant as it concerns Africa.
In any event,
Remains from Moorish Spain reveal that:
quote:Mitochondrial DNA sequences and restriction fragment polymorphisms were retrieved from three Islamic 12th to 13th century samples of 71 bones and teeth (with >85% efficiency) from Madinat Baguh (today called Priego de Cordoba, Spain). Compared with 108 saliva samples from the present population of the same area, the medieval samples show a higher proportion of sub-Saharan African lineages that can only partially be attributed to the historic Muslim occupation. In fact, the unique sharing of transition 16175, in L1b lineages, with Europeans, instead of Africans, suggests a more ancient arrival to Europe from Africa. The present-day Priego sample is more similar to the current south Iberian population than to the medieval sample from the same area. The increased gene flow in modern times could be the main cause of this difference.
posted
^ Of course. It's been repeated to the silly Texan red-neck hundreds of times that the Moores were not Arabs but blacks and that the very word 'Moor' means BLACK!! But of course the poor 'professor' just can't comprehend anything that ruins his white man's fantasies of inferior Africans.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: i was refering to his black nationalism, and yours. He seemed to want to say that the most backward section of the world will somehow transform itself from a disease ridden cultural sewer to a world power.
How much welfare would the first world nations of the world have to give them to bring that about?
LOL And exactly how am I a black nationalist??! I'm not even black! Is it just because I acknowledge Africa's significant presence in history including ancient Egypt??! Your disdain and contempt for Africa is rooted in your own ignorance of the continent combined with your white supremacist ideology that is nothing more than a remnant of euro-imperialist legacy. You bothered to educate yourself about Africa's history and culture you would know that Africa is the richest continent in terms of natural resources and at one time was the wealthiest as well as being a superpower before the advent of Euro-imperialist expansion. And of course the native cultures are beautiful and sophisticated.
We've told you all this many times before but your warped and twisted pion mind is too stubborn to accept this. You fail to realize that it is YOU who is backwards-- mentally living in the lies propogated by European colonial fascists!
Evergreen Member # 12192
posted
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE] I would assume you are refering to the Roman Empire and the Greeks. Both of these cultures of course are off shots of the much older civilizations of Africa.
Evergreen Writes:
Diop gave us a broader view in his work The Cultural Unity of Black Africa.
The Cultural Unity of Black Africa
By Cheikh Anta Diop
Before the attacks of the Northerners, war was not a prerogative of the south, neither was agriculture that of the North. It was therefore, in all probability, on contact with the Southern world of the Aegean that the Northern invaders of Greece and Italy acquired, little by little, the habit of practising, of respecting and even finally of considering agriculture as something sacred, as is the custom in the southern cradle. There is indeed something contradictory in nomads making the cultivation of the earth into something divine. Thus many proofs exist to show that on the Italian peninsula it was the Etruscans who initiated the Romans, even including the ritual marking out of towns by means of the plough. In Greece, tradition says that it is to Cecrops and Egyptos, both sons of Egypt, that one must go back for the adoption of agriculture as a national activity."
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Au contraire. I don't merely survive, I thrive.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You will never have the power Takruri. You have a full time job just trying to survive.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Perfect description of NW Europe's/England's history.
If I thought you'd get it I'd explain I'm about Pan-Africanism. Black Nationalism is for those blacks who have no nation.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: i was refering to his black nationalism, and yours. He seemed to want to say that the most backward section of the world will somehow transform itself from a disease ridden cultural sewer to a world power.
How much welfare would the first world nations of the world have to give them to bring that about?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
White supremacist Lothrop Stoddard recognized such eight decades ago and notes it in his Rising Tide of Colour.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Long term trends may well find africa over run with people from Asia and India.
Evergreen Writes: AmericanPatriot, you're not very well read for a "profesor". The long term trend is what Chuck D from the Hip-Hop group Public Enemy refered to as "Fear of a Black Planet".
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)