^^Forgive me if this was already posted but I looked and didn't see it. Nothing new here really, but interesting nonetheless as I haven't seen Keita synthesize the various data like this in a while, nor have I read anything of his published in 2008. The fact that this is posted on NatGeo is also noteworthy. Maybe it can help others see through the garbage by reading an objective analysis from a respected scientist.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The fact that this is posted on NatGeo is also noteworthy.
Hopefully this would lead to progress, since NatGeo is an organization no one would accuse of Afrocentrism.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL How could they, when it is an organization that was historically and still is Eurocentric?!
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita's writings are as usual brilliant and insightful and only reaffirm what mainstream scholarship has been saying all along for the past several decades-- that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans.
The question now is how many idiots are still going dissociate this status with being black? i.e. the moronic argument made that they are indigenous Africans but not 'black' or 'Sub-Saharan'. LOL the same type of argument made by Hawass and his ilk.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow this is posted on Natgeo. This is a major step in the right direction for a magazine that is as biased as Natgeo is. Thanks for posting Sundjata.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still a little too soft. I havent been able to find out who comes from "EUROPE" in pre-history.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita has always posted in the leading peer-review anthropology journals.
Nat Geo is a good potential 'popularizer' of some of his work.
There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. - Keita.
^ I would like it more if he clarified with "Ancient Egyptian" population, since Keita makes it clear that modern Egypt is not Ancient Egypt.
This is one of facts that the Arab Republic of Egypt is most anxious to obscure.
Even though the original Arabs who gained control of Egypt had no use for or empathy with a pagan African culture.
Neither do the modern rulers of Egypt care about Ancient Egyptian heritage - but they do have an imperialist need to deny that they are not, in the main, descendants of the Kemetians [Blacks] of Ancient Egypt but rather the Amu, Asiatics of the Levantine, as well as Greeks, Romans, etc..
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct. Keita's emphasis that the populace of modern Egypt is different from that of ancient Egypt is can't be enough considering the fiasco that Hawass and his ilk put on when they say that modern Egyptians are the descendants of ancient Egyptians. This is only partially true, but one cannot deny the significan foreign immigrations that have taken place in the last thousand years after the fall of the native pharaonic dynasties. As well as the sham that Egyptians are African but North African and therefore 'not black'. LOLPosts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Keita's writings are as usual brilliant and insightful and only reaffirm what mainstream scholarship has been saying all along for the past several decades-- that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans.
The question now is how many idiots are still going dissociate this status with being black? i.e. the moronic argument made that they are indigenous Africans but not 'black' or 'Sub-Saharan'. LOL the same type of argument made by Hawass and his ilk.
The real question is why are some racist, anti-Black elements obsessed with removing the word "Black" from the word "African" yet feel comfortable associating the word "Asiatic" with "Afro" (when Black Africans and their language are not Asian)? Is because these certain elements feel that by removing the word "Black" from "African" it gets them closer to plagiarizing on Black African history? Or is it because these elements feel like their next in line after White/Jews and Arabs to plagiarize on Black African history? Which ever one it is, I'd like to make a statement which may cause further dismay to these certain anti-Black human elements. Dr. S. O. Y. Keita's use of the term "African" is well in line with a certain awareness of lexical compromise used within the Eurocentric dominated academic/scientific system. These kind of generalized term are used on a regular basis. I would assume Keita would like to be more explicit in this descriptions, but being aware of this lexical-compromise he opts for a mixture of terms instead; hence Keita's use of "indigenous Africans". For the rest of us, "indigenous Africans" translates to "Black Africans". So no matter how racist, anti-Black elements try to dissect and massage straight forward logic, logic always seems to get the best of them. With that, I conclude by saying, Ancient Kemetians were 100%, native born Black Africans from head to toe, and not different from Black Africans in West Africa and elsewhere today.
The next time you decide to call people "idiots" make sure you don't make yourself to be one also. A clearly blind person claiming to leads others he assumes are blind is not a leader.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Well Keita says it but i dont think he hammers it home to the lay persons. Prime example
"Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans"
Which Europeans?
The thing Keita is trying to get across is that Supra Saharan Africans have features that are seen in other Africans, Near Easterners and Europeans, but he's saying these features are indigenous. Keita uses the intermediate biological characteristics, which actually is gradients of differentiation, or environmental adaptation, instead of actual admixture(hybridization).
Keita says this because humans have been living in Africa over 140kya before leaving Africa, so the diversity succeeded in that time in Africa has been immense, phenotypically and genetically. Keita is not saying Ancient Egyptians were Europeans or Near Easterners, only that Ancient Egyptians have indigenous African biological characteristics that can be found in all three mentioned populations.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct, unlike the case of Europe whose heterogeneity is the result of hybridization between Asians and Africans, with Europeans being derived from prehistoric Asians but later mixing with emmigrant Africans during the Neolithic.
Unfortunately there are some people who uncomfortable with this fact. Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ actually the "prehistoric Asians" from which they are derived and the "emmigrant Africans during the Neolithic" were both black. Can't have a "hybrid" resulting from two black popualtions, unless you are a Jamie type fool. Second, in any event, Europeans clearly were not created from any union or merging of these two groups. A "hybrid" cannot exsit before it is created.... Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ whats the point of posting that clueless718? Are you saying he's referring to Asian and African differentiation as according to Bowcock (1991)? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Can't have a "hybrid" resulting from two black popualtions, unless you are a Jamie type fool...
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
And nobody said Europeans were black in the first place when that hybridization happened!! Again YOUR dumbass words not ours.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Well Keita says it but i dont think he hammers it home to the lay persons. Prime example
"Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans"
Which Europeans?
The thing Keita is trying to get across is that Supra Saharan Africans have features that are seen in other Africans, Near Easterners and Europeans, but he's saying these features are indigenous.
Evergreen Writes:
Some of these features are indigenous and some are not. Many modern Berbers have light skin and eyes because they are primarily non-indigenous.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ actually the "prehistoric Asians" from which they are derived and the "emmigrant Africans during the Neolithic" were both black.
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct, as evidenced by the Hofmeyr and Omo crania.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ He means to say that by the time of the neolithic both groups were black. Of course by that time Europeans were not black but were likely of lighter complexion. But of course the ancestral paleolithic Asian population from which they were derived were black.
Posts: 26267 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ He means to say that by the time of the neolithic both groups were black. Of course by that time Europeans were not black but were likely of lighter complexion. But of course the ancestral paleolithic Asian population from which they were derived were black.
Evergreen Writes:
It looks like the earliest Europeans had phenetic affinity with Africans, but by the LGM had more or less adapted to Europe.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
Evergreen Writes;
This depends on which Berber groups,which Europeans and which similarities Keita is refering to.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Evergreen Writes:
"Racial types" are psuedo-scientific contructs.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
Evergreen Writes;
This depends on which Berber groups,which Europeans and which similarities Keita is refering to.
Well of course. Also what needs to be made clear about this is that pale skin, blond hair etc.. amongst Berber speakers is not what he is talking about. But cranio-facial structure, such as the imaginary "Caucasoid" morphology, which doesn't come from admixture with non Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
The hybrids in this context was referenced to confirm that European have a hybrid (mixed) origin, between two genetically and morphologically differentiated populations Asians and Africans. Since Asia and Africa were considered alleged racial groups, therefore because of this hybrid(mixed)origin. Under a racial classification, if were validated, Europeans would be a secondary type or race.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
This Keita who was taught by a European Geneticist still is beating around the bush.
He knows damn well the question is whether Egyptians were black. He fails to answer the question by saying they were North East African. The world believes North East Africa is not a home for blacks yet he stays ambiguous with his claims.
Also why did he say that Egyptians resembled people from Europe and Near East? What was that supposed to solve or address? That allows Europeans to infer that they were just "mixed" with Africans if they looked like two groups that aren't African.
Africa is a Geopolitical term and can easily be misconstrued with the biological term of Africa which is negligible to laymens.
Either he did a poor job or he has an agenda to mitigate the Eurocentric vs. Afrocentric debate about Egypt being ambiguously African without explaining in thorough detail what a biological African entails.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences.
It does not help the argument that modern populations are distinct from ancient egyptions. Don't modern Egyptians have a very heavy Near Eastern influence based on mtdna? How then can the genetic profile of the modern population be similar to the ancient profile if ancient egyptians were supposedly more free of Near Eastern genetic influence?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
The hybrids in this context was referenced to confirm that European have a hybrid (mixed) origin, between two genetically and morphologically differentiated populations Asians and Africans. Since Asia and Africa were considered alleged racial groups, therefore because of this hybrid(mixed)origin. Under a racial classification, if were validated, Europeans would be a secondary type or race.
You say the context (Keita quote re Bowcock) doesn't have to do with race yet you go right on to admit that Bowcock et al. did see the Asian and the African as two differentiated "races", which only confirms what I said re the context in which the word was used. You desperate Puerto Rican jackass. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
The hybrids in this context was referenced to confirm that European have a hybrid (mixed) origin, between two genetically and morphologically differentiated populations Asians and Africans. Since Asia and Africa were considered alleged racial groups, therefore because of this hybrid(mixed)origin. Under a racial classification, if were validated, Europeans would be a secondary type or race.
You say the context (Keita quote re Bowcock) doesn't have to do with race yet you go right on to admit that Bowcock et al. did see the Asian and the African as two differentiated "races", which only confirms what I said re the context in which the word was used. You desperate Puerto Rican jackass. lol
Wrong, whiteboy aka Wolofi aka gaykoben aka argyle et al.
Keita, not Bowcock is the one who said Europe, Asia, Africa etc.. were alleged racial groups as currently defined by some scholars, therefore according to Bowcocks data Europeans would be a secondary type or race, due to them being mixed between two alleged racial groups. But since the alleged racial groups, are simply just alleged. Europeans are not a secondary type or race, but this doesn't take away from their mixed (hybrid) origin. You dumb cracka. Totally Asian and African derived.
Unrefuted in, truthfully, I'm not even sure how many attempts by you to distort it???
quote: A Dravidian sample from Southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.-- Keita
The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by scholars --Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeh, you're right, that's why Bowcock choose as samples an Asian (stereotypically defined) and an African (stereotypically defined) because they didnt see the groups in racial terms.
As I said, you desperate Puerto Rican jackass.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I know I am, which is why you're so upset. So desperate to distort something in their methodology. I get it. So far you've only failed 1000 times and better trying to prove otherwise. Too bad.
No matter how many twists, turns and flips you do Europeans will always be hybrids of Asians, and post OOA Africans.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:No matter how many twists, turns and flips you do Europeans will always be hybrids of Asians, and post OOA Africans.
But you said they (Europeans) were the ones that mixed with the incoming Africans. They existed before they were created? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
^^^Lmao, look at what you're reduced to. You pathetic trolling cracka.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You finally admitted Europeans were the ones that mixed with the incoming Africans (Scientists identify these Asian derived individuals as first Europeans). A hybrid cannot exist before it is created.
quote:But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
Yes I know it annoys you that your own (contradictory) words are being thrown back in your face. That's why I do it! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twist and distort it as many ways as you want. Europeans are still hybrids of Asians, and post OOA Africans in the end.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
^^^Lmao, look at what you're reduced to. You pathetic trolling cracka.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
[/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
Yes I know it annoys you
Actually it's funny seeing as you're supposed to be some kind of intellectual, albeit, in all debates you're never sure on anything you're always distorting, and at the end, you're reduced to saying but but but but but but but.......
Bwahahahahahahahaahaaaa Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Also he could have just placed the Nail in the coffin and spoke about Genetics. -Who are their genetic Ancestors? -Who are their modern genetic brethren? -When have the major genetic changes happened since downfall.
We all know what would have happened if he DID speak about the above: He wouldnt be on the Nat Geo Site.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Also he could have just placed the Nail in the coffin and spoke about Genetics. -Who are their genetic Ancestors? -Who are their modern genetic brethren? -When have the major genetic changes happened since downfall.
We all know what would have happened if he DID speak about the above: He wouldnt be on the Nat Geo Site.
Evergreen Writes:
Much of the phenetic diversity now found in Africa, SW Asia and Europe derived during and post the Last Glacial Maximum. In fact, the post-LGM period is known as the 'Holocene' which literally means the recent epoch. The Sahara was depopulated during the LGM and human occupation in NE Africa was generally restricted to the area now known as "Nubia" (i.e., southern Egypt and northern Sudan). **ALL** of the crania from LGM era NE Africa have affinities with modern West Africans. We see consistency in the early holocene out-flow around the circum-Mediterranean basin with cranial affinities in early neolithic Anatolia, Greeece and the mesolithic Levant.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are absolutely correct. I guess i should rephrase what I am trying to say:
Keita is only preaching to the EDUCATED choir. I guess I am unsure if they pulled this DIRECTLY from things he has written OR if this is is paraphrased from his previous works. I couldn't tell if they were Quoting him or paraphrasing.
I am also thinking of a video entitled "What Genetics Tells Us" where he was also soft and spoke to an educated audience. I guess we should expect nothing less..............But unless this is broken down for a dummy to understand the status quo stays the same as it is now:
Egypt = African in educated circles. Egypt = Non-African in non educated and social circles.
PRIME EXAMPLE : Even in educated circles. I searched "Africa" on the Cambridge site where the Keita videos are listed.
Why did advanced material civilizations not first develop in Africa
quote: In answer to David Dugan, Joel Mokyr tries to answer the puzzle of why it was not in Africa, the home of humans, that the first advanced technologies emerged. Among the factors considered are tropical soils, disease and philosophies.
Link: Here ________________________________________
Anyway, other things that may be of interest on that site: Migrating Genes, Surnames and Y Chromosomes here
This week were exploring how populations come by their genes including the surprise finding of African DNA in a remote village in Yorkshire. Oxford Universitys Bruce Winney explains how studying rural populations in Britain is helping to uncover genes linked to different diseases, and Turi King, from Leicester University, discusses what your Y chromosome says about your surname. Plus well be hearing how Cambridge scientist Mike Majerus is putting evolution to the test with the help of the peppered moth, and in kitchen science, more jam tomorrow as Ben and Dave show you a trick with a rolling jar.
The Evolution of Human Diversity
Genetics and archaeology have established that all living humans are descended from a local population in Africa. In this lecture we will explore the patterns and processes by which this 'small beginning' led to the diversity of peoples we see today. herePosts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Also he could have just placed the Nail in the coffin and spoke about Genetics. -Who are their genetic Ancestors? -Who are their modern genetic brethren? -When have the major genetic changes happened since downfall.
We all know what would have happened if he DID speak about the above: He wouldnt be on the Nat Geo Site.
Evergreen Writes:
Much of the phenetic diversity now found in Africa, SW Asia and Europe derived during and post the Last Glacial Maximum. In fact, the post-LGM period is known as the 'Holocene' which literally means the recent epoch. The Sahara was depopulated during the LGM and human occupation in NE Africa was generally restricted to the area now known as "Nubia" (i.e., southern Egypt and northern Sudan). **ALL** of the crania from LGM era NE Africa have affinities with modern West Africans. We see consistency in the early holocene out-flow around the circum-Mediterranean basin with cranial affinities in early neolithic Anatolia, Greeece and the mesolithic Levant.
Again its all vague and misleading. He does not mention Nubia as a precursor to Egypt, which is what Williams suggests. If by "southern Egypt" he meant "Nubia" why did he speak about Nubia separately? Instead when Nubia is mentioned it is in relation to Egypt in the form of cultural "interactions" or that "some evidence suggests" that they both had ties to early Saharan cultures. Or they "shared some insignia with Egypt" and finally it is in the stereotypical mode as a "rival" to Egypt. Is he saying the notion that Nubia as a precursor to Egypt is wrong?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: PRIME EXAMPLE : Even in educated circles. I searched "Africa" on the Cambridge site where the Keita videos are listed.
Why did advanced material civilizations not first develop in Africa
Evergreen Writes:
The old "Jared Diamond" scam.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic