posted
I really don't get all the 'defending jews but not blacks' allegations.
Firstly, because if you call me a jew continually and I'm not - I'm calling you paranoid, end of story.
Secondly, because much more time has been put into posts in light of commentary by the likes of Sshaun02, Horemhem/Arro99/Celt's and others (except for dumbEuroStraws) directed at blacks.
These three threads are directly pulled out of my azz, (I always try to make sure to link redundant posts to past threads) they're not even the tip of the iceberg.
One must understand that the likes of the one I call Professor H. was one of the most inane, stupifiable, yet amnesia prone and persistant posters [actually an agent provacateur] that EVENTUALLY everyone realized that bitchin about his comments was futile.
So you new-breed puppy-trolls just now walkin your new nuts around the bloc' can assume about any of us here what you like.
I'm not even sure if either of the links link to one of Osirion's or any other Jew-centrist person's nonesense being denied or rejected.
Heck, most here aare heavily against any thing in appearance 'medocentric' or solely reliant in Biblical mtyh as a source.
First we're all African American Afrocentrists [false], next, we're Afro American's who all only take word from whitey [rofl], now we're suspected of being Jewish Jew-centrists. Ethnic comments should definitely be disreguarded.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: There is no such thing as a "Semetic" language.
It is "semitic".
You have already been given a precise definition. a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.
^ Please answer precisely the following questions?
Are you disputing the above definition, yes or no?
Are you denying the existence of the semitic language family? Yes or no?
quote: What historians consider "semetic" is nothing other than an African language.
This is consistent with the definition supplied above, but contradicts your prevoius sentense claim that there is no semitic language. Can you not see the contradiction?
quote:I don't know why they keep applying it as "semetic". Ethiopians don't speak "semetic" languages. If anything, they speak "Hamitic" language.
Wrong. There are no longer any -Hamitic- languages, and even when there were, and included languages such as Berber, Ethiopias 7 semitic languages were *never* considered Hamitic.
quote:Ethiopians'language is strictly African.
No one claimed otherwise, and this sentence and the one that follows reveals your complete confusion on this issue.....
quote: Why do non-Africans historians keep making it out to be "Semetic"?
^ *All* historians do, because of a simple clear reason that you completely fail to grasp.
Semitic is a 'language family' - therefore languages are deemed as semitic based upon linguistic analysis. It is not a race, or geography [as Afro-NAZI-nut-job akoben tries to make himself believe]
And the place of origin of the semitic language family [proto-semitic] is disputed [sited possible origins are: Ethiopia, Sudan, Lower Nile Valley and Levant]
This is why all historians, African and otherwise agree that Ethiopia has semitic languages.
If you disagree answer a third question:
Name a historian who denies that Ethiopia has semitic languages?
Note: No rheotoric, whining, attitude or excuses, please.
Three questions requiring 2 yes or no answers, and 1 name.
Thanks in advance.
Yes, I'm disputing the Semetic definition. I already told you what historians CLAIM as being Semetic is actually from the "African" continenet. Semetic language is not a "family". They call it Semetic because they believe it to be of ASIAN origins. You fail to grasp that. The so-called semetic language of Ethiopians come from Africa not Asia. "AfroAsiatic" simply applies to that of Ham and Shem. You fail to grasp that. What makes a language Semetic (from shem) and not Hamitic (from Ham). What they call Semetic came from Ham descendants not Shem descendants. Everything they claim to be "Semetic" is in reality "Hamitic". They know this; You don't. "Afroasiatic" is nothing but a code word for "too sophiscated to be "African" but we know it comes from there, so let's juice it and make it exotic".
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: There is no such thing as a "Semetic" language.
It is "semitic".
You have already been given a precise definition. a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.
^ Please answer precisely the following questions?
Are you disputing the above definition, yes or no?
Are you denying the existence of the semitic language family? Yes or no?
quote: What historians consider "semetic" is nothing other than an African language.
This is consistent with the definition supplied above, but contradicts your prevoius sentense claim that there is no semitic language. Can you not see the contradiction?
quote:I don't know why they keep applying it as "semetic". Ethiopians don't speak "semetic" languages. If anything, they speak "Hamitic" language.
Wrong. There are no longer any -Hamitic- languages, and even when there were, and included languages such as Berber, Ethiopias 7 semitic languages were *never* considered Hamitic.
quote:Ethiopians'language is strictly African.
No one claimed otherwise, and this sentence and the one that follows reveals your complete confusion on this issue.....
quote: Why do non-Africans historians keep making it out to be "Semetic"?
^ *All* historians do, because of a simple clear reason that you completely fail to grasp.
Semitic is a 'language family' - therefore languages are deemed as semitic based upon linguistic analysis. It is not a race, or geography [as Afro-NAZI-nut-job akoben tries to make himself believe]
And the place of origin of the semitic language family [proto-semitic] is disputed [sited possible origins are: Ethiopia, Sudan, Lower Nile Valley and Levant]
This is why all historians, African and otherwise agree that Ethiopia has semitic languages.
If you disagree answer a third question:
Name a historian who denies that Ethiopia has semitic languages?
Note: No rheotoric, whining, attitude or excuses, please.
Three questions requiring 2 yes or no answers, and 1 name.
Thanks in advance.
I don't know no Historian who denies Ethiopia has semitic languages. African historians believe Ethiopia to be "Afroasiatic" you fvcking idiot. This is one reason that they believe the bullshyt. The African historians who claim Ethiopia as a semetic speaking people are always those ugly fvcks from West Africa. Ethiopians don't say they speak Semetic languages. Everyone else says they speak semetic languages. I already told you semetic is not a language family but a code word for what is believed to come from "Asia". There are Hamitic languages. You stupid fvcks just confuse them for being "semetic". How does a Semetic language continues to exist but a Hamitic language doesn't? What ever happened to a "Jasphethic" language. If Hamitic language doesn't exist, why is there a such thing as Afroasiatic which implies "Hamitic-Semetic". Don't tell me you don't know that Afroasiatic stands for Ham-Shem. This is not about a so-called language family. How can someone take a language that undeniably come from Ham and apply it as Shem or Semetic. And I never contradicted my self you azzhole.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Fulani and 80-100% E3a with some 18% Eurasian mtDNA.
Who told you that? I actually just recently posted a citation that only found up to 8%, so maybe you're exaggerating in hopes of bolstering support for your already failed argument.
"We sampled four Fulani nomad populations (n = 186) in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso) and analyzed sequences of the first hypervariable segment of the mitochondrial DNA. Most of the haplotypes belong to haplogroups of West African origin, such as L1b, L3b, L3d, L2b, L2c, and L2d (79.6% in total), which are all well represented in each of the four geographically separated samples. The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total)." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200602/ai_n17186281/pg_1
^^^^^Not to mention that these lineages are not "Jew" specific [yet all these combined are still ONLY found at a total of 8%, as opposed to 18]. Such more likely represents interaction with coastal Berbers in North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:still have to explain the mtDNA
Not until YOU explain why Middle Eastern Jews are up to 20% e3b and speak an African language. Then explain why Fulani are even less mixed than AAs and don't speak any non-African languages, yet we're actually discussing their origins as opposed to mixed people like Middle Eastern Jews and southern Europeans (as if the answer isn't right in your face).
Being slaves in Egypt is nothing to be proud about but then again Jews are matrilineal. It doesn't matter what the Y-chromosomes says. What about the mtDNA. You guys keep driving me nuts with y-chromosome debates.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): While I don't dispute the definition of the language group, I do consider some terms ('Afro-Asiatic' for instance) misnomers.
I do too consider Afro-Asiatic a misnomer as you know well, but that is strawman distractor within the context of a simple and direct discussion of whether Semitic is a language family or not.
The reason I politely insist on yes or no answers is precisely to prevent this kind of evasive, irrelevant, non answer.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is not a...geography [as Afro-NAZI-nut-job akoben tries to make himself believe]…And the place of origin of the semitic language family [proto-semitic] is disputed [sited possible origins are: Ethiopia, Sudan, Lower Nile Valley and Levant]
Check this confused babbling fool saying it is not connected to geography then proceeds to locate possible geographical/ethnic origins. LMAO! Little rasolowitz, does the Semitic "language family" include Yiddish? LOL
quote: The African historians who claim Ethiopia as a semetic speaking people are always those ugly fvcks from West Africa.
^ The only uglyness in this conversation is that which is coming out of your foul mouth.
quote:Ethiopians don't say they speak Semetic languages. Everyone else says they speak semetic languages.
Everyone else, but Ethiopians?
And you speak for Ethiopia in this regard?
This is both a false statement, and a change of your story. Your post and position are equally ridiculous.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How does a Semetic language continues to exist but a Hamitic language doesn't?
Any linguist can answer this. You can't because you don't study linguistics. You get your miscomprehensions from the Bible, only.
As proven by...
quote:What ever happened to a "Jasphethic" language.
^ There is no such thing. This term comes from the Bible, which is not a linguistic textbook, and is not trying to classify languages.
Nor did linguists ever use the term "Jasphethic", to discribe a group of related languages.
quote:If Hamitic language doesn't exist, why is there a such thing as Afroasiatic which implies "Hamitic-Semetic".
Because it doesn't. For such a twofold schizm to exist, there would have to be a clear separation within the language family such that every language within it, would be classed as either one or the other, for some reason based on LINGUISTICS, and not on Bible stories.
For instance, some linguists believe that Proto Berber langauge derives from Chadic, others that Proto Berber derives from Semitic. Some believe that Proto Semitic derives from Egyptian, and others say it derives from Cushitic.
There is no logical division of the language family into classes - especially - such that Semitic, which is one of the youngest, and most derived members, can be placed at the root of it.
Semitic is no more privledged therein than Berber, nor can all non Semitic languages within this family be lumped together based on linguistics.
So what you have in effect is a
Cushitic/Omotic/Chadic/Ancient Egyptian/Semitic and Berber language family. Semitic is merely one of six sub-groups. And there is no linguistic logic in lumping the other 5 together and separating them from Semitic either.
The Biblical use of Hamitic is folk ethnene, *not* a language.
For the Bible - West Africans, whom you hate, are just as "Hamitic".
Also there are some Asiatics of Palestine and Mesopotamia [!] who are classed as Hamites.
The Bible writers knew nothing in general of structure of the langauges of these peoples.
quote: Don't tell me you don't know that Afroasiatic stands for Ham-Shem.
Only in your ill educated mind, where the Bible is imagined as the definitive linguistic text, [and and excuse for not having to pick a text book and learn something] even though its writers had absolutely *no knowledge* of the overwhelming majory of the languages of Africa or relationships between them.
quote:This is not about a so-called language family. How can someone take a language that undeniably come from Ham and apply it as Shem or Semetic.
^ Boring nonsense.....repetition of same error.
All Semitic langauges stem from common African langauge.
There is no division between mythical sons of Noah Ham and Shem....in *linguistics*.
The bible is is not a language text.
PLEASE PICK UP A TEXT BOOK ON *LANGUAGE*.
Until you understand this, you will continue to make basic errors.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO @ the humiliation Rasol peddles from these crazed trolls, and we all know Bettybloop is a racist anti-African from her statements made here. Are Africans inferior? Nope, but Betty sure is judging by her ignorant comments.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: There are parts of Southern Europe with greater than 10% L1,3 African maternal haplotypes alone. {not to mention the greater frequencies of male African haplotypes}
Using the template troll-thesis of this thread - we should be discussing the Bantu origins of the Spanish, Italian, Portugese and Greeks.
^ This last quote here should have been the end of this thread by the way.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LMAO @ the humiliation Rasol peddles from these crazed trolls, and we all know Bettybloop is a racist anti-African from her statements made here. Are Africans inferior? Nope, but Betty sure is judging by her ignorant comments.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: There are parts of Southern Europe with greater than 10% L1,3 African maternal haplotypes alone. {not to mention the greater frequencies of male African haplotypes}
Using the template troll-thesis of this thread - we should be discussing the Bantu origins of the Spanish, Italian, Portugese and Greeks.
^ This last quote here should have been the end of this thread by the way.
Why should it be the End? Egtypsearch is not Afro-Centric search! Being Jewish centric and looking for all things Jewish around the world is no different than what Afrocentrics do. So if I look up a group of people called the Fulani who there is some claim to Jewish ancestry why shouldn't I be interested in finding out more?
You guys don't care - fine. But there are Jews throughout Africa! Lemba's are just the tip of the ice berg. Considering the mtDNA found in Fulani that is clearly non-African and is Eurasian I am not going to dismiss the Jewish origins of these people so readily. Perhaps Fulani should be brought to Israel!
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Again Osirion, why'd you fabricate your claim of Fulani having 18% maternal Eurasuan ancestry when I gave a direct citation finding only 8%, and of different haplotypes [not exclusive to Jews]? Of course this isn't "Jew-centric" search either, and Egypt is in Africa so any African-centered discussions are well with in context, as opposed to nut job Jewish diffusion theories. You must absolutely be ashamed of your Jewish ancestry and historical Jewish accomplishments to the point where you need to attribute an imaginary Jewish presence where ever there's interest. Disgusting and pathetic.
As stated, the extremely minimal contribution from Eurasia is accounted for by documented contacts with coastal North Africans and Arabs through the Saharan trade route.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Why should it be the End? Egtypsearch is not Afro-Centric search! Being Jewish centric and looking for all things Jewish around the world is no different than what Afrocentrics do. So if I look up a group of people called the Fulani who there is some claim to Jewish ancestry why shouldn't I be interested in finding out more?
Actually it makes more sense for Afrocentrics to look for things African in Africa which is what most folks do. As for looking for things Jewish, would it not make sense to look where actual historical evidence states so? Last time I checked Fulani having Jewish origins is not rooted in any historical evidence or ANYthing factual at all but is purely an empty claim based on observations of people's features. There was also popular claim among Westerners that the Tutsi of Central Africa had Arab ancestry because of their features which aren't much different from the Fulani. Of course historical, archaeological, and recently genetics have refuted such claims.
There is nothing wrong with finding Jewish ancestries, but why go on a wild goose chase??
quote:You guys don't care - fine. But there are Jews throughout Africa! Lemba's are just the tip of the ice berg. Considering the mtDNA found in Fulani that is clearly non-African and is Eurasian I am not going to dismiss the Jewish origins of these people so readily. Perhaps Fulani should be brought to Israel!
LOL Yes there are Jews throughout Africa but last time I checked, being a Jew can mean only religious implications not genetic. The largest Jewish population in Africa are the Falasha or Beta-Israel of Ethiopia. Truth be told they have nil Southwest Asian J ancestry but overwhelmingly African lineages. Which supports historical records that they recieved their relgion from traders the same way Somalis willingly accepted Islam from Arabs without any intermarriage or significant population change.
And it has been explained to you that what very little maternal ancestry 8% since you like to exaggerate is associated with European maternal ancestry which contradicts Jewish origins in Southwest Asia.
Again, your quest to find Jewish lineages in Africa seem no different than past Eurocentrics quest to find Cacasian origins in Africa.
Get over it!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - 5 pages on a BS subject with out any credible sources whatsoever. Man you guys are suckers!
Jewish Fulani - huh! Thats funny.
However, I suppose the idea of White Slavery is very touchy with Europeans. But the simple truth is that women were for sale in those days. So if you had money - which the Fulani had, then you could by women of lighter skin. Make sense to me.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not until YOU explain why Middle Eastern Jews are up to 20% e3b and speak an African language. Then explain why Fulani are even less mixed than AAs and don't speak any non-African languages, yet we're actually discussing their origins as opposed to mixed people like Middle Eastern Jews and southern Europeans (as if the answer isn't right in your face).
Being slaves in Egypt is nothing to be proud about but then again Jews are matrilineal. It doesn't matter what the Y-chromosomes says. What about the mtDNA. You guys keep driving me nuts with y-chromosome debates.
Please cite your evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Ancient Egypt...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Wow - 5 pages on a BS subject with out any credible sources whatsoever. Man you guys are suckers!
Jewish Fulani - huh! Thats funny.
However, I suppose the idea of White Slavery is very touchy with Europeans. But the simple truth is that women were for sale in those days. So if you had money - which the Fulani had, then you could by women of lighter skin. Make sense to me.
Dude, I think you're bi-polar, seriously.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no historical records of traders, or any other transients, transmitting any kind of religion to the Beta Israel.
What is true is that the current level of population genetic findings does not support a Levantine origin for the Beta Israel.
The Chief Sephardic rabbinate long ago ruled the Beta Israel to be the seed (spawn) of the Israelite tribe of Dan. But the same rabbinate did not say the Beta Israel professed or practiced Hokhmath Yisra'el as per Talmud and Shulhhan Arukh.
In other words, for the Chief Sephardic rabbinate, the Beta Israel followed some other religion but are Jews by descent. Neither Chief Rabbinate, be it Sephardic or Ashkenazic, uses mtDNA nor nrY-DNA to aid in determining who is a Jew.
Nor are self-proclaimed "Jews" validated by either rabbinate. All the Jewish prayerbooks and 'Bibles' in the world will never make Jews out of those who use them in worship. Only the criterion of having a Jewish mother or a record of converting via orthodox auspices -- naturalized citizenship to `Am Yisra'el -- can validate one's belonging to the Jewish people.
quote: ... historical records that [Beta Israel] recieved their relgion from traders ...
. . . .
... being a Jew can mean only religious implications ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: How does a Semetic language continues to exist but a Hamitic language doesn't?
Any linguist can answer this. You can't because you don't study linguistics. You get your miscomprehensions from the Bible, only.
As proven by...
quote:What ever happened to a "Jasphethic" language.
^ There is no such thing. This term comes from the Bible, which is not a linguistic textbook, and is not trying to classify languages.
Nor did linguists ever use the term "Jasphethic", to discribe a group of related languages.
quote:If Hamitic language doesn't exist, why is there a such thing as Afroasiatic which implies "Hamitic-Semetic".
Because it doesn't. For such a twofold schizm to exist, there would have to be a clear separation within the language family such that every language within it, would be classed as either one or the other, for some reason based on LINGUISTICS, and not on Bible stories.
For instance, some linguists believe that Proto Berber langauge derives from Chadic, others that Proto Berber derives from Semitic. Some believe that Proto Semitic derives from Egyptian, and others say it derives from Cushitic.
There is no logical division of the language family into classes - especially - such that Semitic, which is one of the youngest, and most derived members, can be placed at the root of it.
Semitic is no more privledged therein than Berber, nor can all non Semitic languages within this family be lumped together based on linguistics.
So what you have in effect is a
Cushitic/Omotic/Chadic/Ancient Egyptian/Semitic and Berber language family. Semitic is merely one of six sub-groups. And there is no linguistic logic in lumping the other 5 together and separating them from Semitic either.
The Biblical use of Hamitic is folk ethnene, *not* a language.
For the Bible - West Africans, whom you hate, are just as "Hamitic".
Also there are some Asiatics of Palestine and Mesopotamia [!] who are classed as Hamites.
The Bible writers knew nothing in general of structure of the langauges of these peoples.
quote: Don't tell me you don't know that Afroasiatic stands for Ham-Shem.
Only in your ill educated mind, where the Bible is imagined as the definitive linguistic text, [and and excuse for not having to pick a text book and learn something] even though its writers had absolutely *no knowledge* of the overwhelming majory of the languages of Africa or relationships between them.
quote:This is not about a so-called language family. How can someone take a language that undeniably come from Ham and apply it as Shem or Semetic.
^ Boring nonsense.....repetition of same error.
All Semitic langauges stem from common African langauge.
There is no division between mythical sons of Noah Ham and Shem....in *linguistics*.
The bible is is not a language text.
PLEASE PICK UP A TEXT BOOK ON *LANGUAGE*.
Until you understand this, you will continue to make basic errors.
The bible is NOT a language text-- I know that! The bible also never use the term "semetic" or "Hamitic". Mankind came up with such things. Why not a "Jasphethic" language. They get these names from the bible you fvcking idiot! The so-called SEMETIC people or a Hamitic people is derived from the bible you fvcking idiot. How did a "Semetic" language come about? Why is it called "SEMETIC"? You missed the point you fvcking idiot. If the so-called linguistics want to fabricate or make a language family-- why choose to call it "Semetic". I am telling you that the word "Semetic" or any of its so-called languages is nothing other than CLAIMING a language to be of Asian origin. Afro-Asiatic means African and Asian origin. The so-called Linguistics use Afroasiatic when they believe something is of Ham and Shem comprising Hamosemetic you fvcking idiot. Where did all of this "Semetic", "Hamitic" comes from? What makes one believe a language is "Semetic"- deriving from Shem who was of Asian origin and a language "Hamitic"- deriving from Ham who was of "African" origin? They didn't pull this theory of languages from thin air you fvcking idiot. If it wasn't for the bible indicating a Shem family or a Ham family, scholars, historians, and linguistics could not come up with anything "Semetic" or "Hamitic". I would ask you again, what every happen to a Jasphethic language? Why there is no language family in that avenue? You are a fvcking idiot. If they are just comprising languages, it can be called anything. Call it the "Chi-Chi" or "Pee-Pee" family of languages. Why choose "Semetic"? Where did that word come from? Hmmm... sounds similar to "Shem". How do you know that West Africans are Hamitic? If so, I suppose their language are Hamitic. You are a fvcking idiot. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I will school you one last time. "Semetic" is an adjective. It means pertaining to or relating to Shem. When used as a language it indicates a language of "Asiatic" origin. When scholars, historians, and linguistics use "Afroasian" or Afro-Asiatic they are simply saying "of African and Asian origin or 'Ham or Shem' origin. The garbage you wrote about a language "family" is the racist, nonsense stealth that is an informal/formal theory. It is all BULLSHYT! You have a lot to learn child.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Wow - 5 pages on a BS subject with out any credible sources whatsoever. Man you guys are suckers!
Jewish Fulani - huh! Thats funny.
However, I suppose the idea of White Slavery is very touchy with Europeans. But the simple truth is that women were for sale in those days. So if you had money - which the Fulani had, then you could by women of lighter skin. Make sense to me.
Dude, I think you're bi-polar, seriously.
Bored, yes. Sick of discussing African tribes with people and having them come back with crap about them originating from Euroep, yes. Sick of how African studies is so weakly taught to people of African descent in American, yes. Sick of the white washing of everything Black, yes. Frankly you all mostly misunderstand why I play devil's advocate. It seems that the only way to get information at of this forum is to come across as EuroCentric or Jewish Centric else I would get no where. This is the only way to motivate many of the types that come here.
Fulani are no different than many Arabicized Africans. Full of crap about Semitic origins but there were cultural influences that we can attribute to Semites. The same can be said in Europe and else where.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes I have heard of this theory before, but it seems to be based on the same type of evidence that Obenga or Diop's Negro-Egyptien phylum-- basically that of some elements held in common with Afrasian even though the language as a whole is Niger-Congo.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There are no historical records of traders, or any other transients, transmitting any kind of religion to the Beta Israel.
What is true is that the current level of population genetic findings does not support a Levantine origin for the Beta Israel.
The Chief Sephardic rabbinate long ago ruled the Beta Israel to be the seed (spawn) of the Israelite tribe of Dan. But the same rabbinate did not say the Beta Israel professed or practiced Hokhmath Yisra'el as per Talmud and Shulhhan Arukh.
In other words, for the Chief Sephardic rabbinate, the Beta Israel followed some other religion but are Jews by descent. Neither Chief Rabbinate, be it Sephardic or Ashkenazic, uses mtDNA nor nrY-DNA to aid in determining who is a Jew.
Nor are self-proclaimed "Jews" validated by either rabbinate. All the Jewish prayerbooks and 'Bibles'in the world will never make Jews out of those who use them in worship. Only the criterion of having a Jewish mother or a record of converting via orthodox auspices -- naturalized citizenship to `Am Yisra'el -- can validate one's belonging to the Jewish people.
Well I stand corrected, but you're right that it does not mean having actual Levantine ancestry as the author of this thread is desperate to trace in other peoples, particularly Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
Yes this is also my opinion, they need to take more accurate genetic tests, I think the ones they took are sampled in a wrong way, i've seen fulanis who look no different than other west africans, they should test the original undiluted fulanis.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That's unscientific...there is no original Fulani or Tuareg or Berber for that matter, genetics indicate that Fulani are almost 100% West Africans genetically on the Y chromosome side. The problem with some posters and pseudo-scientist they read is we are in 2008 and we made enough progress in genetics to place Fulani solely in West Africa...but either they don't understand genetics or they choose to ignore genetics...Semitic origin of Fulani or East African origin of Fulani is totally unscientific...Even physically it's very simple to explain their features: they live in hot and dry areas, they have elongated physical characteristic to survive in the Sahara-Sahel environment...
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
^ There is no genetic evidence to support a pre E3a East African origin of the Fulani.
There is no linguistic evidence to support this either.
There are Ethiopians who look no different than stereotypical West Africans, and Nigerians who look no different than stereotypical Ethiopians.
The notion that you can determine East vs. West African ancestry solely by physical appearance is irrational.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cosign...some posters have been here for a couple of years they obviously don't understand anything about bio-anthropology or genetics for that matter...it's like wasting your time...they repeat the same mistake or choose to ignore scientific facts willfully....
Posts: 461 | From: Kilimanjaro | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Like what you posted. Why are people still trying to figure out the Fulanis for. We know what they are. They are west African. Fulanis have upwards of 100% *E3A*. Instead of people taking the genetic factor as Fact we have naysayers who are still desperate to say that Fulanis are not really west African. We have Yonis saying lets sample undiluted Fulanis, when if you think about it. These studies were done by Europeans you really think they did not make sure to get the Fulanis with the socalled "Caucasiod" features? Really some people need to think before they type.
To end I will say Fulanis are West African period, stop with the myth making.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always thought Yonis hated West Africans which is why it's so odd of him to desperately try and associate himself with the Fulbe, by way of some long lost Cushitic nomad proxy.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still you guys seem to avoid mtDNA and discussion about non-African mtDNA.
Why is that?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Are you joking?? I've already told you about your Bi-polar behavior! Certainly I've tried to have you address my post concerning this for some time now. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That is the correct belief. Fulani are a subfamily from the Cushitic people. They are originally from North and East Africa mainly the sahara. Plenty of them still reside in the Sudan.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Still you guys seem to avoid mtDNA and discussion about non-African mtDNA.
Why is that?
What about the mtDNA? No study published links any Fulani mtDNA with Jews you moron.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That's unscientific...there is no original Fulani or Tuareg or Berber for that matter, genetics indicate that Fulani are almost 100% West Africans genetically on the Y chromosome side. The problem with some posters and pseudo-scientist they read is we are in 2008 and we made enough progress in genetics to place Fulani solely in West Africa...but either they don't understand genetics or they choose to ignore genetics...Semitic origin of Fulani or East African origin of Fulani is totally unscientific...Even physically it's very simple to explain their features: they live in hot and dry areas, they have elongated physical characteristic to survive in the Sahara-Sahel environment...
You are wrong. Fulanis are of the Northern and Eastern part of Africa. They mainly come from the Sahara. Saying someone is from East or North Africa does not make them Afroasian or "semetic". They are most definitely not Asian or so-called "semetic". They are just as North African and East African as they are West African. Fulanis are a branch of families or sub-families. They are not the trunk.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
^ There is no genetic evidence to support a pre E3a East African origin of the Fulani.
There is no linguistic evidence to support this either.
There are Ethiopians who look no different than stereotypical West Africans, and Nigerians who look no different than stereotypical Ethiopians.
The notion that you can determine East vs. West African ancestry solely by physical appearance is irrational.
No it is not irrational. West Africans look different than East Africans. The Nilotic people even look differently than West Africans. In general, on average, people can tell the difference between an Ethiopian and a West African. Most people wouldn't confuse the two.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Still you guys seem to avoid mtDNA and discussion about non-African mtDNA.
Why is that?
What about the mtDNA? No study published links any Fulani mtDNA with Jews you moron.
No one can't publish any links of Fulani to mtDNA. Jewish is a faith. Those who were part of the Jewish faith raised their children in the Jewish faith, but that had nothing to do with DNA.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are wrong. Fulanis are of the Northern and Eastern part of Africa.
^^Betty Boo, Fulani are west Africans who speak a west African language, practice west African culture, live in west Africa, and have West African DNA. You know not what you're talking about so please refrain from making baseless claims based on absolutely nothing but your own ignorance and wishful thinking.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are wrong. Fulanis are of the Northern and Eastern part of Africa.
^^Betty Boo, Fulani are west Africans who speak a west African language, practice west African culture, live in west Africa, and have West African DNA. You know not what you're talking about so please refrain from making baseless claims based on absolutely nothing but your own ignorance and wishful thinking.
These are not baseless claims. What the hell is a west african language and culture? Fulanis are found in the Northern and Eastern part of Africa even if it lies more to the West. Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Senegal, Niger,Mali, Nigeria, Cameroon are all North. Even if it is Northwest or North Central. I already said they are found mainly in the Sahara.Fulanis do come from the West but NorthWest. They do not only come from the Western part of Africa. They are from Sudan, too. Fulanis are nothing but a bunch of sub-families or branches. They are not the trunk.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A west African language are languages mostly spoken in west Africa. Fulani speak a niger-congo language most closely related to other west African's and share traditions and cultural practices of other west Africans. Fulani have a DNA profile most similar to other West Africans. Fulani do not predominantly reside in North and East Africa, whoever told you that is a loon bin. Nearly every country you named above is in geographical west Africa, none are in East Africa. Fulani also reside heavily in Nigeria, Guinea, The Gambia, Sierra Leon, Ghana, Liberia, and even Central Africa. They are all over West Africa, not east or North, their context is the west side of the African continent. Most of West Africa its self is literally North of the equator so your point concerning that is immaterial and that still alludes to nothing by way of East Africa. You don't know what you're talking about.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That's unscientific...there is no original Fulani or Tuareg or Berber for that matter, genetics indicate that Fulani are almost 100% West Africans genetically on the Y chromosome side. The problem with some posters and pseudo-scientist they read is we are in 2008 and we made enough progress in genetics to place Fulani solely in West Africa...but either they don't understand genetics or they choose to ignore genetics...Semitic origin of Fulani or East African origin of Fulani is totally unscientific...Even physically it's very simple to explain their features: they live in hot and dry areas, they have elongated physical characteristic to survive in the Sahara-Sahel environment...
You are wrong. Fulanis are of the Northern and Eastern part of Africa. They mainly come from the Sahara. Saying someone is from East or North Africa does not make them Afroasian or "semetic". They are most definitely not Asian or so-called "semetic". They are just as North African and East African as they are West African. Fulanis are a branch of families or sub-families. They are not the trunk.
Somebody here flunked African history class, Fulani are Native to West Africa, not North Africa nor East Africa.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Still you guys seem to avoid mtDNA and discussion about non-African mtDNA.
Why is that?
What about the mtDNA? No study published links any Fulani mtDNA with Jews you moron.
No one can't publish any links of Fulani to mtDNA. Jewish is a faith. Those who were part of the Jewish faith raised their children in the Jewish faith, but that had nothing to do with DNA.
There are studies of Fulani mtDNA and the Bass has personally viewed them. None of the so-called "Eurasian" mtDNA can be linked nor traced to any historical contact with Jews, which is why this thread is boneheaded and pathetic to begin with.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Still you guys seem to avoid mtDNA and discussion about non-African mtDNA.
Why is that?
What about the mtDNA? No study published links any Fulani mtDNA with Jews you moron.
The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).
Jews defined as a ethnic group rather than as a religion poses some issues but in general if we consider the origins of the Jewish faith then we essentially have Semitic speaking people of the Levant. These are Western Eurasian people. So if you are looking for Jewish origins of a people you would look for genetic material having a Western Eurasian signature.
Afro-Nuts are always looking at Y-chromosomes primarily because they come from societies that are patrilineal.
Explain the mtDNA that could possibly indicate a Jewish link! Explain how it got there - in sub-Saharan Africa.
Almost 10%. Isn't that about how much E3b is in SouthEastern Europe. Isn't that about how my maternal DNA frequency that is African in Greece and Afronots love to point that out.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That is the correct belief. Fulani are a subfamily from the Cushitic people. They are originally from North and East Africa mainly the sahara. Plenty of them still reside in the Sudan.
Please cite your evidence...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: if you are looking for Jewish origins of a people you would look for genetic material having a Western Eurasian signature.
Correct, but this truth would make you as foolish as your fellow judeophilic rasolowitz who, in order to authenticate his white Jewish masters, thinks that "Semitic" is simply speaking a Semitic langauge. Both of you are pathetic judeophiles, seems it makes people say stupid things... Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
^^You are a bi-polar whack job! What kind of spin distortion is this, while you propose some kind of Jewish contact in the heart of west Africa among the Fulbe when no historical evidence WHATSOEVR alludes to such contact. It is unbelievably ironic that you consider ANYBODY a "nut job" when you lie to promote your diffusion theories. First they have 18% maternal Jewish DNA, now it's 8% of VARIOUS [non-exclusive to Jewish] maternal genes. SE Europeans actually have up to 20 to 25% e3b, so such is open to more inquiry, plus historical contacts are noted, though at the same time I don't see too many people saying Greeks are Black as [you want to believe] Fulani are descendant of Jews. You are a loon and a racist. Even IF we're to bicker over that 8% maternal foreign ancestry, why are you IGNORING the 92% indigenous maternal ancestry? Why are you ignoring it? Are Blacks so inferior that 8% is more important than 92?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with this post 90%. It's the most factually accurate post yet to be contributed to this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Habari:
quote:After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That's unscientific...there is no original Fulani or Tuareg or Berber for that matter, genetics indicate that Fulani are almost 100% West Africans genetically on the Y chromosome side. The problem with some posters and pseudo-scientist they read is we are in 2008 and we made enough progress in genetics to place Fulani solely in West Africa...but either they don't understand genetics or they choose to ignore genetics...Semitic origin of Fulani or East African origin of Fulani is totally unscientific...Even physically it's very simple to explain their features: they live in hot and dry areas, they have elongated physical characteristic to survive in the Sahara-Sahel environment...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please, they got there well after the Islamic era.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Agluzinha: After claiming that Fulani were of Dravidian and Ethiopian origin, West-Indian Egyptologist Alain Anselin now seems to believe that they are "Cushitic nomads" who have settled among Niger-Congo speakers, mostly relying on linguistics.
That is the correct belief. Fulani are a subfamily from the Cushitic people. They are originally from North and East Africa mainly the sahara. Plenty of them still reside in the Sudan.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ethnic comments should definitely be disreguarded.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic