posted
I think those hadiths were written because of the annoying way Mahomed sucked up to the Ethiopians. Mahomed was an uncle Tom and the Arabs wanted to make something of themselves and didn't want to live in the shadow of the same people who had colonized them
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
no wonder this forum get alot of haters. there are too many self hating people in this forum who dont know what the heck they talking about. All i hear is I think and maybe he was black without bringing any text or proof if the text is authentically checked by scholars. This issue of muhammad's skin color has been talked about by islamic scholars and nobody here brought any of their statements.
Markellion, the sqalabi, why are u talking about someone u dont even know. u are a sqlab and your people are majoosi abeed-un naar khabeethul alqarood. I can write a freaking book with proof. keep his name out your yuck mouth ya-looti. no wonder u guys end up like sheep in iraq. wow no respect at all damn athiest.
-------------------- لا اله الا الله و محمد الرسول الله Posts: 495 | From: anchorage, alaska | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's obvious the certain Hadiths that portray black people in a negative light are to counter that ancient tradition that goes back to Homer in his Iliad:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is no doubt that the first Arabians came from Africa. But that was many,many thousands of years ago. What is in question is when the Asiatic whites became the predominant population of this region. Some may say 2,000 years ago others 500 and still others 5-10,000. But the fact remains that the aboriginal population of Arabia was black and that later waves of migrations from Europe and Asia are what have created the diversity in features found in Arabia today.
The first Arabians didn't come from Africa. They were always in Asia.
The first migrations out of Africa into the rest of the world followed a few main routes, one of which was ARABIA. Therefore, the first populations of Arabia were Africans, because ALL humans came from Africa and in order to LEAVE Africa and get to the East one of the most direct routes was through Arabia. But you are right though, as since then Arabia HAS been subject to migrations from central Asia, but these migrations took place THOUSANDS of years after Arabia was first settled by black Africans and these new migrants are the reasons for the populations you see in Arabia today.
Whether they migrated directly across the red sea or indirectly from the Levant, the first populations of Arabia came from Africa:
quote: A Southern Route That modern humans left the continent via the Horn of Africa and followed what’s been dubbed a “southern route” as they migrated through Arabia on their way eastward is an idea that’s been “tossed around since the 1980s,” says Michael Petraglia of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. But it’s only recently gained traction, thanks to genetics.
Most recent studies of mitochondrial DNA — DNA inherited from the mother — indicate that modern human populations outside of Africa can be traced back to one genetic lineage that originated in Africa roughly 85,000 years ago, according to Peter Forster of Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom. Sometime between 85,000 and 55,000 years ago, members of this founding lineage left the continent and branched out into the three main genetic lineages that are found in Eurasian populations today. By studying the diversity within these genetic lineages, researchers can estimate how far back in time these lineages evolved. Such studies indicate that humans reached South Asia very early, before Europe or North Asia. For example, Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom and colleagues reported May 13, 2005, in Science that the origins of the mitochondrial lineages of aboriginal populations living in Malaysia date to nearly 60,000 years ago. Because humans reached Southeast Asia and Australia before more northern locations, some researchers suggest humans likely followed a migration path along the coastlines of South Asia after initially leaving Africa and only later traveled through the interior parts of the continent.
To reach the coasts of South Asia, humans had two possible African exit strategies. They could have left via a northern route from the Sinai Peninsula, heading north into the Levant, and traveling east across modern Iraq’s Zagros Mountains before turning south toward modern Iran. Alternatively, they could have left via a southern route from the Horn of Africa, crossing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and traveling across southern Arabia before heading directly into Iran. Leaving Africa via the southern route, proponents claim, explains why humans colonized South Asia so quickly in comparison to Europe and North Asia.
posted
The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is no doubt that the first Arabians came from Africa. But that was many,many thousands of years ago. What is in question is when the Asiatic whites became the predominant population of this region. Some may say 2,000 years ago others 500 and still others 5-10,000. But the fact remains that the aboriginal population of Arabia was black and that later waves of migrations from Europe and Asia are what have created the diversity in features found in Arabia today.
The first Arabians didn't come from Africa. They were always in Asia.
The first migrations out of Africa into the rest of the world followed a few main routes, one of which was ARABIA. Therefore, the first populations of Arabia were Africans, because ALL humans came from Africa and in order to LEAVE Africa and get to the East one of the most direct routes was through Arabia. But you are right though, as since then Arabia HAS been subject to migrations from central Asia, but these migrations took place THOUSANDS of years after Arabia was first settled by black Africans and these new migrants are the reasons for the populations you see in Arabia today.
Whether they migrated directly across the red sea or indirectly from the Levant, the first populations of Arabia came from Africa:
quote: A Southern Route That modern humans left the continent via the Horn of Africa and followed what’s been dubbed a “southern route” as they migrated through Arabia on their way eastward is an idea that’s been “tossed around since the 1980s,” says Michael Petraglia of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. But it’s only recently gained traction, thanks to genetics.
Most recent studies of mitochondrial DNA — DNA inherited from the mother — indicate that modern human populations outside of Africa can be traced back to one genetic lineage that originated in Africa roughly 85,000 years ago, according to Peter Forster of Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom. Sometime between 85,000 and 55,000 years ago, members of this founding lineage left the continent and branched out into the three main genetic lineages that are found in Eurasian populations today. By studying the diversity within these genetic lineages, researchers can estimate how far back in time these lineages evolved. Such studies indicate that humans reached South Asia very early, before Europe or North Asia. For example, Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow in the United Kingdom and colleagues reported May 13, 2005, in Science that the origins of the mitochondrial lineages of aboriginal populations living in Malaysia date to nearly 60,000 years ago. Because humans reached Southeast Asia and Australia before more northern locations, some researchers suggest humans likely followed a migration path along the coastlines of South Asia after initially leaving Africa and only later traveled through the interior parts of the continent.
To reach the coasts of South Asia, humans had two possible African exit strategies. They could have left via a northern route from the Sinai Peninsula, heading north into the Levant, and traveling east across modern Iraq’s Zagros Mountains before turning south toward modern Iran. Alternatively, they could have left via a southern route from the Horn of Africa, crossing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and traveling across southern Arabia before heading directly into Iran. Leaving Africa via the southern route, proponents claim, explains why humans colonized South Asia so quickly in comparison to Europe and North Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: no wonder this forum get alot of haters. there are too many self hating people in this forum who dont know what the heck they talking about. All i hear is I think and maybe he was black without bringing any text or proof if the text is authentically checked by scholars. This issue of muhammad's skin color has been talked about by islamic scholars and nobody here brought any of their statements.
Markellion, the sqalabi, why are u talking about someone u dont even know. u are a sqlab and your people are majoosi abeed-un naar khabeethul alqarood. I can write a freaking book with proof. keep his name out your yuck mouth ya-looti. no wonder u guys end up like sheep in iraq. wow no respect at all damn athiest.
You have to remember that certain people on here post off of information floating around the net, they don't care or bother to read or devote time to research. If they had they would know if the prophet was black or not...the closest I have come was he was Half Black from his uncle or father according to Al-Jahiz...other than that he seems to be a Normal Arab if there is a such thing. I mean what matter does it make...key figures such as Baliao and Umm ayman were key fiures in the life of the prophet. You don't have to insult black people as a whole..
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: no wonder this forum get alot of haters. there are too many self hating people in this forum who dont know what the heck they talking about. All i hear is I think and maybe he was black without bringing any text or proof if the text is authentically checked by scholars. This issue of muhammad's skin color has been talked about by islamic scholars and nobody here brought any of their statements.
Markellion, the sqalabi, why are u talking about someone u dont even know. u are a sqlab and your people are majoosi abeed-un naar khabeethul alqarood. I can write a freaking book with proof. keep his name out your yuck mouth ya-looti. no wonder u guys end up like sheep in iraq. wow no respect at all damn athiest.
You have to remember that certain people on here post off of information floating around the net, they don't care or bother to read or devote time to research. If they had they would know if the prophet was black or not...the closest I have come was he was Half Black from his uncle or father according to Al-Jahiz...other than that he seems to be a Normal Arab if there is a such thing. I mean what matter does it make...key figures such as Baliao and Umm ayman were key fiures in the life of the prophet. You don't have to insult black people as a whole..
I should point out if your talking about "the prides of blacks over the whites" Jahiz is clearly not stating his own opinion but recounting the "boasts of the Sudan"
Introduction of the essay:
quote:In the name of the Almighty, Merciful God ; May God protect and keep you; let He make you obey Him and make you part of his favorites. You mentioned – may Allah protect you from deception – that you read my treatise (kitab) on the refutation of the pure Arabs to those of mixed parentage, the replies of the mixed ones and the answers of their maternal uncles. But I did not mention in it anything about the boasts of the Sudan. So know, - may Allah preserve you – that I postponed that intentionally. And you mentioned that you would like me to write to you the boasts of the Sudan, so I have written what I recall of their boasts.
The Hadiths and "historical accounts" can be understood when one knows it's all about politics.
For example in "Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World: A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty" by Jay Spaulding the author points out writing referring to a "Baqt tribute" that Nubians had to pay only shows up centuries after the failed attempt to conquer Nubia.
The "blacks" would of course be a big threat since Arabs were able to make so few conquests south of the Sahara
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
The first Arabians were Asiatic because they came from Asia and always been there. There were never journeys out of Africa. If there was a journey out of Africa it was the first and the last. The original, indigenous Arabs were always in Asia and yes they were black. I am not speaking of the "central-asian" and/or "indo-european" groups. Though they are indigenous to Asia they are not indigenous to the land area of the original, indigenous Arabs; so, you are not teaching anything on that part. Trust me, the Arabs were always in Asia, nonetheless, they were black people.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
The first Arabians were Asiatic because they came from Asia and always been there. There were never journeys out of Africa. If there was a journey out of Africa it was the first and the last. The original, indigenous Arabs were always in Asia and yes they were black. I am not speaking of the "central-asian" and/or "indo-european" groups. Though they are indigenous to Asia they are not indigenous to the land area of the original, indigenous Arabs; so, you are not teaching anything on that part. Trust me, the Arabs were always in Asia, nonetheless, they were black people.
The first people of Arabia were Africans period. You said it yourself. The first people of Arabia cannot be Africans and then ALWAYS have been Asians at the same time. You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. The first people of Arabia were there BEFORE any humans even arrived in Asia, so they COULD NOT have been Asians. So no matter how you try and twist it, your logic does not make any sense. People from Asia, including central Asia did indeed migrate into Arabia and this is partly the basis for the term Asiatic. It is a reference to the central Asian nomadic peoples that swept down through Asia and into Europe repeatedly over many thousands of years. Asiatics did not originate in Arabia because Arabia PHYSICALLY part of Africa and not part of Asia at all. The people of Arabia are a combination of the aboriginal black African population along with later migrations of Northern populations, including the true Asiatics of Asia.
You haven't refuted this as opposed to talking in circles and not making any sense.
Yemenis from Aden showing the features of what the original Arabians would have looked like (East African):
Of course the first migrations of Arabians was thousands and thousands of years ago and today there are Yemenis and Arabians of all types and complexions.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: no wonder this forum get alot of haters. there are too many self hating people in this forum who dont know what the heck they talking about. All i hear is I think and maybe he was black without bringing any text or proof if the text is authentically checked by scholars. This issue of muhammad's skin color has been talked about by islamic scholars and nobody here brought any of their statements.
Markellion, the sqalabi, why are u talking about someone u dont even know. u are a sqlab and your people are majoosi abeed-un naar khabeethul alqarood. I can write a freaking book with proof. keep his name out your yuck mouth ya-looti. no wonder u guys end up like sheep in iraq. wow no respect at all damn athiest.
You have to remember that certain people on here post off of information floating around the net, they don't care or bother to read or devote time to research. If they had they would know if the prophet was black or not...the closest I have come was he was Half Black from his uncle or father according to Al-Jahiz...other than that he seems to be a Normal Arab if there is a such thing. I mean what matter does it make...key figures such as Baliao and Umm ayman were key fiures in the life of the prophet. You don't have to insult black people as a whole..
I should point out if your talking about "the prides of blacks over the whites" Jahiz is clearly not stating his own opinion but recounting the "boasts of the Sudan"
Introduction of the essay:
quote:In the name of the Almighty, Merciful God ; May God protect and keep you; let He make you obey Him and make you part of his favorites. You mentioned – may Allah protect you from deception – that you read my treatise (kitab) on the refutation of the pure Arabs to those of mixed parentage, the replies of the mixed ones and the answers of their maternal uncles. But I did not mention in it anything about the boasts of the Sudan. So know, - may Allah preserve you – that I postponed that intentionally. And you mentioned that you would like me to write to you the boasts of the Sudan, so I have written what I recall of their boasts.
The Hadiths and "historical accounts" can be understood when one knows it's all about politics.
For example in "Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World: A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty" by Jay Spaulding the author points out writing referring to a "Baqt tribute" that Nubians had to pay only shows up centuries after the failed attempt to conquer Nubia.
The "blacks" would of course be a big threat since Arabs were able to make so few conquests south of the Sahara
Actually, Al-Jahiz makes it clear when he is reciting the Boasts of Sudanic people or Zanj or when he is stating his opinion...He usually names the person and gives their opinion or he just gives his opinion. You seem to have the Kitab of The Glory of the Blacks over the Whites avaliable, yet you seem to not have read it.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
The first Arabians were Asiatic because they came from Asia and always been there. There were never journeys out of Africa. If there was a journey out of Africa it was the first and the last. The original, indigenous Arabs were always in Asia and yes they were black. I am not speaking of the "central-asian" and/or "indo-european" groups. Though they are indigenous to Asia they are not indigenous to the land area of the original, indigenous Arabs; so, you are not teaching anything on that part. Trust me, the Arabs were always in Asia, nonetheless, they were black people.
The first people of Arabia were Africans period. You said it yourself. The first people of Arabia cannot be Africans and then ALWAYS have been Asians at the same time. You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. The first people of Arabia were there BEFORE any humans even arrived in Asia, so they COULD NOT have been Asians. So no matter how you try and twist it, your logic does not make any sense. People from Asia, including central Asia did indeed migrate into Arabia and this is partly the basis for the term Asiatic. It is a reference to the central Asian nomadic peoples that swept down through Asia and into Europe repeatedly over many thousands of years. Asiatics did not originate in Arabia because Arabia PHYSICALLY part of Africa and not part of Asia at all. The people of Arabia are a combination of the aboriginal black African population along with later migrations of Northern populations, including the true Asiatics of Asia.
You haven't refuted this as opposed to talking in circles and not making any sense.
Yemenis from Aden showing the features of what the original Arabians would have looked like (East African):
Of course the first migrations of Arabians was thousands and thousands of years ago and today there are Yemenis and Arabians of all types and complexions.
Why waste you time on her...she actually thinks she sounds intellectual. Ill bet she is the same poster as American Patriot
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
The first Arabians were Asiatic because they came from Asia and always been there. There were never journeys out of Africa. If there was a journey out of Africa it was the first and the last. The original, indigenous Arabs were always in Asia and yes they were black. I am not speaking of the "central-asian" and/or "indo-european" groups. Though they are indigenous to Asia they are not indigenous to the land area of the original, indigenous Arabs; so, you are not teaching anything on that part. Trust me, the Arabs were always in Asia, nonetheless, they were black people.
The first people of Arabia were Africans period. You said it yourself. The first people of Arabia cannot be Africans and then ALWAYS have been Asians at the same time. You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. The first people of Arabia were there BEFORE any humans even arrived in Asia, so they COULD NOT have been Asians. So no matter how you try and twist it, your logic does not make any sense. People from Asia, including central Asia did indeed migrate into Arabia and this is partly the basis for the term Asiatic. It is a reference to the central Asian nomadic peoples that swept down through Asia and into Europe repeatedly over many thousands of years. Asiatics did not originate in Arabia because Arabia PHYSICALLY part of Africa and not part of Asia at all. The people of Arabia are a combination of the aboriginal black African population along with later migrations of Northern populations, including the true Asiatics of Asia.
You haven't refuted this as opposed to talking in circles and not making any sense.
Yemenis from Aden showing the features of what the original Arabians would have looked like (East African):
Of course the first migrations of Arabians was thousands and thousands of years ago and today there are Yemenis and Arabians of all types and complexions.
You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a change of views but a change of politics:
"Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament"
-Al-Jahiz
The people who wrote all that stuff were angry because nig@^$s were taking their jobs. This is hilarious!
"and when they heard him call—which was often—they even prayed that they could die, so as not to have to hear the Ethiopian’s voice (Azan) ever again"
quote:Originally posted by Kamburr: Bilal may gave been black, and he may have been set free. But the Prophet did not go on to free thousands of his other black brothers. Their lot was to keep getting enslaved and dying under the brutal Arab slave regime. Indeed, as a prosperous merchant, Mohammed himself must have traded in black bodies.
He also said that dreams of black women were an evil omen, a foreshadowing of disease. Contrast with Moses, who did not run black women down, but actually married one.
All was not hunky-dory when the black man Bilal issued his call to prayer. Indeed one PRO Islamic website tells a different story. When the black man tried to do his job, a lot of his Arab "brothers" apparently tried to stab him in the back. Maybe they felt he was "too black".
But some Muslims could not bear to accept Bilal as a rightful Muezzin because he was black- skinned, and when they heard him call—which was often—they even prayed that they could die, so as not to have to hear the Ethiopian’s voice (Azan) ever again.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of "brotherhood" among contemporaries of the Prophet.
Generous as Mohamed is claimed to be, Mecca still remained a major slave trading center in black flesh, and millions of blacks still made the dismal trek to Islamic lands, with few surviving, necessitating constant replenishment. And the notion of "kindler, gentler" Islamic slavery and blacks is a hollow myth. One of the biggest black slave rebellions of all time was against Arab oppressors, the Zanj rebellion in Iraq, circa 869, where thousands of black slaves beaten down in the malarial salt marshes of Iraq by their Arab "brothers", struck for freedom.
Blacks did however find suitable employment in Mohammed's Mecca. The black saggas, or slave men, are reported in olden times to be of use in providing mineral water to city residents at dusk during Ramadan.
And yet, black folk are urged by Arab Muslims to make pilgrimages and worship at the grave of a Caucasian slave-trader, whose people devastated black Kemet.. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The first migration out of Africa had to be the first and the last. There were no journeys out of Africa. The 'original', 'indigenous' Arabs was certainly black but they were not "African". They were always Asiatic people.
The first people of Arabia were not Asiatics because they did not come from Asia. The first people of Arabia were Africans and the Asiatics came later and the Asiatics most likely were similar to the invading bands referred to by the Egyptians. And if Asians from central Asia can make it thousands of miles to Arabia then OF COURSE Africans can make it less than hundred miles across the gulf of Aden. Africans have been migrating to Arabia on a regular and consistent basis throughout history. One example of this is that Tihama complex that arose both in the horn of Africa and Yemen, followed by the various civilizations of Southern Arabia which spanned both sides of the gulf.
The first Arabians were Asiatic because they came from Asia and always been there. There were never journeys out of Africa. If there was a journey out of Africa it was the first and the last. The original, indigenous Arabs were always in Asia and yes they were black. I am not speaking of the "central-asian" and/or "indo-european" groups. Though they are indigenous to Asia they are not indigenous to the land area of the original, indigenous Arabs; so, you are not teaching anything on that part. Trust me, the Arabs were always in Asia, nonetheless, they were black people.
The first people of Arabia were Africans period. You said it yourself. The first people of Arabia cannot be Africans and then ALWAYS have been Asians at the same time. You are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. The first people of Arabia were there BEFORE any humans even arrived in Asia, so they COULD NOT have been Asians. So no matter how you try and twist it, your logic does not make any sense. People from Asia, including central Asia did indeed migrate into Arabia and this is partly the basis for the term Asiatic. It is a reference to the central Asian nomadic peoples that swept down through Asia and into Europe repeatedly over many thousands of years. Asiatics did not originate in Arabia because Arabia PHYSICALLY part of Africa and not part of Asia at all. The people of Arabia are a combination of the aboriginal black African population along with later migrations of Northern populations, including the true Asiatics of Asia.
You haven't refuted this as opposed to talking in circles and not making any sense.
Yemenis from Aden showing the features of what the original Arabians would have looked like (East African):
Of course the first migrations of Arabians was thousands and thousands of years ago and today there are Yemenis and Arabians of all types and complexions.
Why waste you time on her...she actually thinks she sounds intellectual. Ill bet she is the same poster as American Patriot
Fvcker please...You KNOW I sound intellectual. Jealousy won't get you know where. But you are right, he is indeed wasting his time.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more.
What is this a contest to see how many times you can say fVck? Why don't you simply address the issue, which is if AFRICANS were the first to settle Arabia then how were they Asiatics or Asians?
I don't see much coming from you in terms of FACTS or EVIDENCE concerning the FIRST people of Arabia being anything OTHER than Africans.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more.
What is this a contest to see how many times you can say fVck? Why don't you simply address the issue, which is if AFRICANS were the first to settle Arabia then how were they Asiatics or Asians?
I don't see much coming from you in terms of FACTS or EVIDENCE concerning the FIRST people of Arabia being anything OTHER than Africans.
NO, this is a contest to prove that your "Out of Africa" folklore is wrong. I don't see anything from you or the article you posted that negate or debunk anything I said. The Original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian and they always been there. They owe their stock to Asiatic groups. Suppose I consider the stupid article you post to be true, it is just the same ole' same ole' that Humans came from Africa so we are all "African". Your belief about the Indigenous Arabs as African is no differently than Europeans as Africans, after all they did come from "Africa". I'm not debating that everyone in some point in time came from 'black' people. The confusion lies between the belief of an African and the belief that black people equates being an "African". I disagree. Not only is it irrational but believers like yourself put your foot in your mouth when you post articles implying "We are all Africans, thus we are all Black". Uh-huh, I say not! I can use the article you posted agaisnt you, but I am being very lenient with you because I know you don't understand anything if it don't refer to your beloved "African" and their "Journey out of Africa". Like I said, the original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian in origin. They always been there and they owe their stock to Asiatic groups. There was never an migration of Africans populating Asia. I already address the issue in my first response to you, you dumb fvck. You need to read the article you posted again and this time take your time. Your article can't even make up its mind. The people who wrote it is just as confused as you.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
BettyBoo is probably not TheAmericanPatriot. They both have the same objective though. Betty's actually more a case of acting than is Patriot. Still, Patriot actually acknowledges points but then 'forgets' to annoy everyone so.... to counter him we pay him attention primarily in threads that have to do with important Eurocentric-dominated topics.
Plus Patriot's been here like forever while Betty 'appeared' at the exact time this site caught a few neo nazi people's attention. [I seee youu ]
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more.
What is this a contest to see how many times you can say fVck? Why don't you simply address the issue, which is if AFRICANS were the first to settle Arabia then how were they Asiatics or Asians?
I don't see much coming from you in terms of FACTS or EVIDENCE concerning the FIRST people of Arabia being anything OTHER than Africans.
NO, this is a contest to prove that your "Out of Africa" folklore is wrong. I don't see anything from you or the article you posted that negate or debunk anything I said. The Original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian and they always been there. They owe their stock to Asiatic groups. Suppose I consider the stupid article you post to be true, it is just the same ole' same ole' that Humans came from Africa so we are all "African". Your belief about the Indigenous Arabs as African is no differently than Europeans as Africans, after all they did come from "Africa". I'm not debating that everyone in some point in time came from 'black' people. The confusion lies between the belief of an African and the belief that black people equates being an "African". I disagree. Not only is it irrational but believers like yourself put your foot in your mouth when you post articles implying "We are all Africans, thus we are all Black". Uh-huh, I say not! I can use the article you posted agaisnt you, but I am being very lenient with you because I know you don't understand anything if it don't refer to your beloved "African" and their "Journey out of Africa". Like I said, the original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian in origin. They always been there and they owe their stock to Asiatic groups. There was never an migration of Africans populating Asia. I already address the issue in my first response to you, you dumb fvck. You need to read the article you posted again and this time take your time. Your article can't even make up its mind. The people who wrote it is just as confused as you.
Like I said, nothing from you but rhetoric and more misspelling of a curse word. I asked you to provide any sort of evidence for a separate migration of people to Arabia OTHER THAN the migrations of Africans into Arabia and you provide NONE. Arabia is next to Africa and one of the EARLIEST places settled by migrations out of Africa. Therefore, these first Arabians were NOT Asians. So, I simply wait for you to explain HOW the first people of Arabia were ASIANS when no Asians EXISTED when the first modern humans left Africa and settled Arabia. Again, I am waiting for you to provide citations and sources for your claims, but I am not holding my breath.
Of course maybe by misspelling curse words again you will think you are proving something:
quote: The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey.
The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey.
quote: "Based on the mutations, we estimated that they must have migrated about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, taking the southern sea route," he said.
Vincent Macaulay, a genetic statistician at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, led a separate genetic study. The results, which were also based on ecological and archaeological evidence, led Macaulay and his colleagues to conclude that modern humans left Africa via a southern migration route.
The researchers say evidence suggests modern humans could not have taken a northern route prior to 50,000 years ago, as one competing theory suggests. That's because the whole of North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East into Central Asia was desert up until that time. The scientists also cite evidence of human settlement in Australia dating back to 63,000 years ago.
For modern humans to leave Africa via a southern route, as Macaulay and his colleagues argue, modern humans would have had to master ocean travel.
Macaulay said that crossing the Red Sea, which separates North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula, would not have been impossible. It was only a few kilometers across and modern humans "would have been able to see across to the other side. So [it was] perhaps not quite swimmable, but certainly floatable on a raft.
So I guess all these people above are Afrocentrists for saying that the first humans in Arabia came from Africa.
LOL! So I guess all these scientists and geneticists who say Africans first settled the ENTIRE planet are spreading folklore now huh? And I guess Asians have just always been in Asia before humans even left Africa and that they just were ALWAYS in Arabia, just grew up there naturally without any migrations of the FIRST humans from Africa, like sprouts of cabbage out of a cabbage patch. Yep, the only one spreading folklore my friend seems to be YOU.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest some people here need to go read about the origin of Arabs here.
Posts: 26369 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True true. But note, I am talking of the first inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula which goes back 60,000 years or more. This is not the same thing as the origin of Arab identity, language and culture which only goes back about 3 - 4,000 years.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: no wonder this forum get alot of haters. there are too many self hating people in this forum who dont know what the heck they talking about. All i hear is I think and maybe he was black without bringing any text or proof if the text is authentically checked by scholars. This issue of muhammad's skin color has been talked about by islamic scholars and nobody here brought any of their statements.
Markellion, the sqalabi, why are u talking about someone u dont even know. u are a sqlab and your people are majoosi abeed-un naar khabeethul alqarood. I can write a freaking book with proof. keep his name out your yuck mouth ya-looti. no wonder u guys end up like sheep in iraq. wow no respect at all damn athiest.
LOL Imagine an African American in Alaska that has spent half of his life learning Arabic and studying the Quran calling someone self hating!!!
Hey, when you speak Arabic to yourself in the mirror does Allah speak back to you LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African!
Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts.
You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia.
And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans.
quote: Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.
Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa.
Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.
I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more.
What is this a contest to see how many times you can say fVck? Why don't you simply address the issue, which is if AFRICANS were the first to settle Arabia then how were they Asiatics or Asians?
I don't see much coming from you in terms of FACTS or EVIDENCE concerning the FIRST people of Arabia being anything OTHER than Africans.
NO, this is a contest to prove that your "Out of Africa" folklore is wrong. I don't see anything from you or the article you posted that negate or debunk anything I said. The Original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian and they always been there. They owe their stock to Asiatic groups. Suppose I consider the stupid article you post to be true, it is just the same ole' same ole' that Humans came from Africa so we are all "African". Your belief about the Indigenous Arabs as African is no differently than Europeans as Africans, after all they did come from "Africa". I'm not debating that everyone in some point in time came from 'black' people. The confusion lies between the belief of an African and the belief that black people equates being an "African". I disagree. Not only is it irrational but believers like yourself put your foot in your mouth when you post articles implying "We are all Africans, thus we are all Black". Uh-huh, I say not! I can use the article you posted agaisnt you, but I am being very lenient with you because I know you don't understand anything if it don't refer to your beloved "African" and their "Journey out of Africa". Like I said, the original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian in origin. They always been there and they owe their stock to Asiatic groups. There was never an migration of Africans populating Asia. I already address the issue in my first response to you, you dumb fvck. You need to read the article you posted again and this time take your time. Your article can't even make up its mind. The people who wrote it is just as confused as you.
Like I said, nothing from you but rhetoric and more misspelling of a curse word. I asked you to provide any sort of evidence for a separate migration of people to Arabia OTHER THAN the migrations of Africans into Arabia and you provide NONE. Arabia is next to Africa and one of the EARLIEST places settled by migrations out of Africa. Therefore, these first Arabians were NOT Asians. So, I simply wait for you to explain HOW the first people of Arabia were ASIANS when no Asians EXISTED when the first modern humans left Africa and settled Arabia. Again, I am waiting for you to provide citations and sources for your claims, but I am not holding my breath.
Of course maybe by misspelling curse words again you will think you are proving something:
quote: The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey.
The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey.
quote: "Based on the mutations, we estimated that they must have migrated about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, taking the southern sea route," he said.
Vincent Macaulay, a genetic statistician at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, led a separate genetic study. The results, which were also based on ecological and archaeological evidence, led Macaulay and his colleagues to conclude that modern humans left Africa via a southern migration route.
The researchers say evidence suggests modern humans could not have taken a northern route prior to 50,000 years ago, as one competing theory suggests. That's because the whole of North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East into Central Asia was desert up until that time. The scientists also cite evidence of human settlement in Australia dating back to 63,000 years ago.
For modern humans to leave Africa via a southern route, as Macaulay and his colleagues argue, modern humans would have had to master ocean travel.
Macaulay said that crossing the Red Sea, which separates North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula, would not have been impossible. It was only a few kilometers across and modern humans "would have been able to see across to the other side. So [it was] perhaps not quite swimmable, but certainly floatable on a raft.
So I guess all these people above are Afrocentrists for saying that the first humans in Arabia came from Africa.
LOL! So I guess all these scientists and geneticists who say Africans first settled the ENTIRE planet are spreading folklore now huh? And I guess Asians have just always been in Asia before humans even left Africa and that they just were ALWAYS in Arabia, just grew up there naturally without any migrations of the FIRST humans from Africa, like sprouts of cabbage out of a cabbage patch. Yep, the only one spreading folklore my friend seems to be YOU.
Oh, come on Doug, you are better than that. You can't possibly believe you posted something that's credible. And why you keep posting that cartoonish map. You posted two articles that contradicted each other. You can't be serious. 70 millenia ago or 1.8 millions years ago - there was no "Africa". East "Africa" and "Arabia" was connected and one land. There weren't no need for "Africans" to leave "Africa" and settle in "Arabia" because they were already there. Not only they was already there, land mass was much closer, there weren't no red sea 70 millenia or 1.8 million years ago. The so-called first migration was not your "human beings" it was literally some pre-human like creatures. The human being supposedly evolved in the new places that these first "pre-human" like creatures settled according to your science and folklore. If that is true, Arabians always been in Arabia and their stock is owe to those "Asiatic" stock. Yes, you and your scientist got it all wrong. You keep posting articles about history that took place million years ago, but posting a damn modern map. If we go as far back as your articles, Arabia and your beloved "Africa" was one land and much closer without any separation and it was populated with like indigenous groups. Now lets say that the "Human Being" migration took place only a few hundred thousand years ago, it is still flawed because what is Africa and what is Arabia was One Land and those areas were already settled with like indigenous groups. The "Africans" didn't need to 'migrate' there because they were already there. A fvcking shallow river don't separate like human beings if indeed some damn "red sea" parted your beloved Africa from the Arabian peninsula. Did the nile separate Africans? What make you think the so-called "red sea" millions or hundred of thousands years ago did? So what there was water. How do you know the Arabian Peninsula wasn't already populated when it and "Africa" was one land? What make you think that all the people existed on the African side and when the red sea existed that's when the Africans decided to 'migrate'. How do you know they weren't settled in the "Arabian Peninsula" before the red sea? Is there a possibility that "East Africa" and the "Arabian Peninsula" was already settled and populated with indigenous tribes when there was indeed one land, or the Arabian Peninsula became populated when 'water' separated the two land areas? There was never no "out of Africa" journeys. It is all folklore. The blacks of Arabia always been there. There was never no migration. To answer your question -Yes, I believe all those "scientists" got it all wrong. Their theory is screwed.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The so-called first migration was not your "human beings" it was literally some pre-human like creatures. The human being supposedly evolved in the new places that these first "pre-human" like creatures settled according to your science and folklore.
Wrong, humans evolved in one place, and that is Sub Saharan East Africa, you talk sh*t out of your ass, with absolutely no knowledge on the subject. You shouldn't even be posting in this section, seriously!! When humans left Africa, they were humans, they weren't pre-human like creatures. Anatomically modern humans were around in Africa for 140ky before a group of East Africans even left Africa to populate the world.
Try reading, and then make some real accusations about real facts, not made up distorted nonsense, you dimwitted troll!!
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa. To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why bother explaining anything scientific to a person who doesn't even 'believe' that dinosaurs existed??! Posts: 26369 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The so-called first migration was not your "human beings" it was literally some pre-human like creatures. The human being supposedly evolved in the new places that these first "pre-human" like creatures settled according to your science and folklore.
Wrong, humans evolved in one place, and that is Sub Saharan East Africa, you talk sh*t out of your ass, with absolutely no knowledge on the subject. You shouldn't even be posting in this section, seriously!! When humans left Africa, they were humans, they weren't pre-human like creatures. Anatomically modern humans were around in Africa for 140ky before a group of East Africans even left Africa to populate the world.
Try reading, and then make some real accusations about real facts, not made up distorted nonsense, you dimwitted troll!!
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa. To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
You dumb fvck! And who are you? I don't remember talking to you. So another stupid theory. They can prove that modern humans come from a single population from 'sub-sahara' "Africa" based on SKULLS! HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! One minute the skull theory is racist and the next minute it is legitimate. These fvcking scientists don't know what to believe. If you don't know, there are a lot of theories out there and they all have their own story. Besides the skull theory, and originating in 'sub-sahara' "Africa", the article is pretty convincing. Fvck off you stupid, emotional, fvck. So I guess the theories before the homo sapiens is no longer is use. Why did this stupid article use the term "modern" human anyway. And who the fvck said The Cambridge Researchers have the final answer. And by the way, I don't believe in multiple 'origins' so this thesis you posted just rolled off my back - you dumb fvck. And how did humans 'evolve' in one place and what or whom did they 'evolve' from. I'm quite stupid when it comes to science so please explain to me the 'origination' and the 'evolution' of these "modern" humans. Oh, by the way, some will argue that the Arabian Peninsula is "East Africa".
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: They can prove that modern humans come from a single population from 'sub-sahara' "Africa" based on SKULLS!
...and genetics (DNA). This is called a multi-disciplined approach, both anthropology and genetics prove this fact.
This is why I told you to read, you insignificant cow...
quote:The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: They can prove that modern humans come from a single population from 'sub-sahara' "Africa" based on SKULLS!
...and genetics (DNA). This is called a multi-disciplined approach, both anthropology and genetics prove this fact.
This is why I told you to read, you insignificant cow...
quote:The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! The research came from one source - The Cambridge University. Everyone is working together in one accord for one belief. Who gave Cambridge the final answer. You are a dumb fvck. Genetics can't prove 'origins', well at least it can't be proved when land area is involved. And if it can, they don't need any skull theory. So if something is multidisciplinary does that make it settled. The article is multi-disciplined from the same source - The Cambridge Universtiy. You are a dumb fvck.
QUOTE: "Some will argue that the Arabian Peninsula is East Africa".
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
another study, different scientists, same results, too bad, sucks to be you.....
quote: Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
Lia Betti1, François Balloux2, William Amos1, Tsunehiko Hanihara3, Andrea Manica1
December 02, 2008
Abstract
The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Genetics can't prove 'origins', well at least it can't be proved when land area is involved.
Origins, is in accordance with land area, you dumb imbecilic dimwitted baby garden gnome troll. Please explain thoroughly how genetics is wrong, and can't trace ancestry?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: another study, different scientists, same results, too bad, sucks to be you.....
quote: Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
Lia Betti1, François Balloux2, William Amos1, Tsunehiko Hanihara3, Andrea Manica1
December 02, 2008
Abstract
The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Genetics can't prove 'origins', well at least it can't be proved when land area is involved.
Origins, is in accordance with land area, you dumb imbecilic dimwitted baby garden gnome troll. Please explain thoroughly how genetics is wrong, and can't trace ancestry?
You are a real fvcking idiot. The 'article' you posted is not what we are discussing. They are discussing "phenotype". But what about those who are not distance from "sub-sahara" africa but possess different phenotype. This article is comical. Of course bone structure determines phenotype; this shyt don't need scientific studies, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You're a fvcking idiot. Different studies, Different theorists, Different results. And phenotype don't come from being "distance" from Africa, and for them to say that climate don't have no role in phenotype is an automatic pink slip.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: another study, different scientists, same results, too bad, sucks to be you.....
quote: Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
Lia Betti1, François Balloux2, William Amos1, Tsunehiko Hanihara3, Andrea Manica1
December 02, 2008
Abstract
The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Genetics can't prove 'origins', well at least it can't be proved when land area is involved.
Origins, is in accordance with land area, you dumb imbecilic dimwitted baby garden gnome troll. Please explain thoroughly how genetics is wrong, and can't trace ancestry?
I think something is wrong with you. I never said genetics is wrong or can't trace "ancestry". "origins" has nothing to do with "Land Area". I think you are interpreting this another way, lets say, something like 'origins' is the country where you are from. If this is what you are thinking then I'm through with you. I'm beginning to think you're a troll.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You are a real fvcking idiot. The 'article' you posted is not what we are discussing. They are discussing "phenotype". But what about those who are not distance from "sub-sahara" africa but possess different phenotype.
Of course you're the idiot. As this article is in accordance with the other one I posted which confirms that humans originated in a single area in Africa. Which is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic diversity within a population the farther that population moved from Africa, as a result of bottlenecks(decrease in population size).
quote: This article is comical. Of course bone structure determines phenotype; this shyt don't need scientific studies, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
This study says nothing about bone structure determining phenotype, so where did you read that? Once again showing your illiteracy as well as your delusional state of mind.
quote: You're a fvcking idiot. Different studies, Different theorists, Different results. And phenotype don't come from being "distance" from Africa, and for them to say that climate don't have no role in phenotype is an automatic pink slip.
Within population phenotypic and genetic diversity is greater in Africa, than outside amongst non Africans, this was determined genetically, and through studying 6000 skulls around the world, which concluded phenotypic variability (diversity) is determined by distance from Africa, of course there are adaptations to the environments, but that has nothing do with within population phenotypic diversity.
All non Africans carry genetic marker M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population from which they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans to begin with, represented by this East African marker M168 which indicates all non Africans carry but a small subset of African diversity.
This original OOA population who left to populate the world over 60kya, went through subsequent population bottlenecks (decrease in population size), and hence the loss of phenotypic and genetic diversity due these subsequent decreases in population size, AGAIN, which is represented by, and proves the fact yet again, that all non Africans descend from a small subset of East Africans. Note, if the continents were populated by subsequent migrations, or if humans arose around the world independently from homo Erectus(as you propose), than the genetic diversity of non Africans should be much greater than what it is, but this is not the case, and all non Africans lose diversity phenotypically, and genetically, the farther the population is from Africa.
"The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Genetics can't prove 'origins', well at least it can't be proved when land area is involved.
Origins, is in accordance with land area, you dumb imbecilic dimwitted baby garden gnome troll. Please explain thoroughly how genetics is wrong, and can't trace ancestry?
I think something is wrong with you. I never said genetics is wrong or can't trace "ancestry". "origins" has nothing to do with "Land Area". I think you are interpreting this another way, lets say, something like 'origins' is the country where you are from. If this is what you are thinking then I'm through with you. I'm beginning to think you're a troll.
Geneticists prove origin through analysis of uni-parentals, maternal and paternal DNA. I.e, haplogroup J arose in Asia. So someone carrying Y haplogroup J, this will indicate the individuals origin is from Asia.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: I’m reading about Iran, as I expect it will be the next victim of American imperialism. Obama was pushed on us to facilitate an attack on Iran. Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution there is a fight about the place of pre-Islamic Iranian history. Like streets and squares which were named after Darius might now be called Towhid Street. Because the clerics regard King Darius as a heathen and a homosexual. Well he shtubbed Bagoas, before Alexander took his place in Bagoas’ bed, so they might have a point there. Anyway, the Blacks suffer from this Muslim historiography which regards pre-Islamic time as the age of JAHILLIYA, the Age of Ignorance. Even educated Arabs today regard many things African as backward and heathen. They believe that nothing worth mentioning happened in Africa, before Islam. I might mention too that many Arabs as well as Christians are creationist and believe in (a white!) Adam and Eve, and nothing about the first humans starting in East Africa and being Black and whites coming out of Blacks and all that stuff. So the idea of a Black Prophet Mohamed is like a insult to them. To them, only Bilal was Black, not his master.
Iranians are non Arabs and mostly Shia Muslims.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You are a real fvcking idiot. The 'article' you posted is not what we are discussing. They are discussing "phenotype". But what about those who are not distance from "sub-sahara" africa but possess different phenotype.
Of course you're the idiot. As this article is in accordance with the other one I posted which confirms that humans originated in a single area in Africa. Which is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic diversity within a population the farther that population moved from Africa, as a result of bottlenecks(decrease in population size).
quote: This article is comical. Of course bone structure determines phenotype; this shyt don't need scientific studies, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
This study says nothing about bone structure determining phenotype, so where did you read that? Once again showing your illiteracy as well as your delusional state of mind.
quote: You're a fvcking idiot. Different studies, Different theorists, Different results. And phenotype don't come from being "distance" from Africa, and for them to say that climate don't have no role in phenotype is an automatic pink slip.
Within population phenotypic and genetic diversity is greater in Africa, than outside amongst non Africans, this was determined genetically, and through studying 6000 skulls around the world, which concluded phenotypic variability (diversity) is determined by distance from Africa, of course there are adaptations to the environments, but that has nothing do with within population phenotypic diversity.
All non Africans carry genetic marker M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population from which they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans to begin with, represented by this East African marker M168 which indicates all non Africans carry but a small subset of African diversity.
This original OOA population who left to populate the world over 60kya, went through subsequent population bottlenecks (decrease in population size), and hence the loss of phenotypic and genetic diversity due these subsequent decreases in population size, AGAIN, which is represented by, and proves the fact yet again, that all non Africans descend from a small subset of East Africans. Note, if the continents were populated by subsequent migrations, or if humans arose around the world independently from homo Erectus(as you propose), than the genetic diversity of non Africans should be much greater than what it is, but this is not the case, and all non Africans lose diversity phenotypically, and genetically, the farther the population is from Africa.
"The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes."
That fvcking article is not in accordance with the previous article(s) you fvcking idiot. We are not discussing PHENOTYPE or PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES. We are discussing whether "ARAB" 'origins' lies in "Africa" or not.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic