3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western AsiaPosts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
The reason why this Perahu is now tripping over and contradicting himself is because the man is Senegalese.
This particular race loon is trying to save face by using geography to trump even his debunked racial typology.
You see he figures that if he says the Senegalese man is "caucasoid" then African Americans will have a link to the rest of "non-Negroid" Africa. Since obviously the man would link "west" Africa to the imaginary "caucasoid" race taxonomy group. This is because west euros have created the bogus "west African" term to try and sandbox AAs to a certain section of Africa.
This is how some of these loons differ. Most of his race typology nimrods would stick to their pseudoscience and claim the man was part caucasoid. This perahu doesn't because he is trying to seal most of Africa off from of all people African Americans. If the man was from any other part of Africa you can bet he would be called "caucasoid".
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The high frequency of J1 is recent, and R1b they likely aqquired from Afro-Asiatic speakers. You use Hassan et al's data yet you don't pay attention to their interpretation
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How the hell would modern Egyptians manage to be related more closely to Moroccans than ancient Egyptians? There's something wrong there.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Many Europeans were taken into slavery by Muslim North African pirates, this is true. The idea that fair skinned Berbers descend from these European captives, however, is belied by the fact that the peoples Libya and the Maghreb were characterized as fair skinned caucasoids by the ancient Egyptians. There are also medieval images of white Moors as well as black ones.
Berbers have admixture due to slavery and invasions. This shows in the autosomal.
The Berber gene arose in Northwest Africa. After the dispersal from Northeast- East Africa. As a downstream.
You may want to sum up and show the many haplotypes found within Berber populations. So we can verify them one by one correlating with recent historic events.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Why are you running from me...............Argyle................the mighty?
Sample of Nubians taken:
Nubians
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western AsiaPosts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ish Gebor wrote: ---------------------------------- You may want to sum up and show the many haplotypes found within Berber populations. So we can verify them one by one correlating with recent historic events. ----------------------------------
Another example of the berbers that were brought as slaves to the Americas.
Your image is a perfect example.
Don't cry now Ish Gebor. We all know how upset you get at the thought of slaves being anyone but people whom you think are "negroid".
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
You do Realize that Brace's 1993 study was extremely flawed, RIGHT? As a matter of fact, you have yet to explain why his RECENT study found the exact opposite:
So in his 2005 study he found that modern Egyptian occupy a different twig than the Ancient Egyptians and that ancient Egyptians cluster with Sub-Saharan Somalis, Tanzania Haya Dahomey Congo and modern and Ancient Nubians. His '93 study has been criticized by so many.
quote:Keita:
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
All this means is that the range of phenotypes was always present. It doesn't mean the modern populations looks identical to the ancient. What we see instead is a demographic shift in phenotype so that one eventually becomes more common than before.
Minor migration rates can cause a drastic difference in only a few thousand years.
quote:A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). .
--Schillaci MA et al. (2009)
And then we have:
quote:Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to **ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region**.
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Explain all of this point by point. You see folks this is how the race loons work. They cut and paste gibberish in hopes of someone blindly believing that they actually defended their point.
I'm calling his bluff by making him explain each detail of what he has just posted.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: How the hell would modern Egyptians manage to be related more closely to Moroccans than ancient Egyptians? There's something wrong there.
Nothing is wrong. It is actually an expected result. The modern population has experienced diffusion from non-Africans, influencing their phenotype and causing them to cluster with another hybrid population. Now you can go ahead and admit your lack of understanding on what a pooled sample does.
@Perahu- yeah, but the ancient Egyptians descend from sub-Saharan Africans NOT West Asians. Subsequently, Early west Asians resembled Africans.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaDumHo1000: Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
WRONG. Mostly EGYPTIANS, Siwa BERBERS and an albino baby.
By the way, I noticed you ignored most of my responses to you. No problem, bloke. LOL
Does history repeat itself?
Nigerian couple’s white baby for genetic tests. This a good sign that should put the minds of Nigerians to rest. Note that the parents are cock sure that infidelity is out of the equation.
The white baby girl Nimanchi, born to black parents is to undergo full genetic tests as her parents, Ben and Angela Ihegboro are seeking to discover whether they have any white ancestry.
The couple who are devout Christians believe there are no whites on either side of their families that could have led to four_day_old Nmachi’s skin colour.
Ben and Angela agreed to let experts study Nmachi as geneticist Dr Mark Thomas, of University College, London, said the odds of the baby’s white colouring were “between many millions to one and a million to one”.
He said: “I suspect there’s been a mixture of a mutation, like albinism, combined with a dormant white gene.” But other experts hintthat there are three possible explanations for the birth of Nmachi _ albinism, a genetic mutation or some dominant white genes that entered her parents’ backgrounds some generations ago.
Doctors have already said that they do not believe Nmachi is an albino, but it is possible that both of her parents carried light skin genes and they mutated in the correct way to produce a light skinned baby. However, her parents say they do not have any white ancestry in their backgrounds.
A genetic scientist at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) and College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Idi Araba, said the rare occurrence is most likely to be a genetic mutation, which could cause more genetic mutations down the line.
The bottom line from most medical experts is that more research will have to be done to find out if Nmachi has even a form of albinism that could be described as a genetic mutation, but for now she is healthy and happy and that is all her parents are concerned about.
But there are curiosities. Ben’s mother Amebo, 70, is unusual in having blue eyes.
The 44-year-old customer services adviser, said: “It doesn’t matter to us quite how she came about but we will do what we can to find answers. She’s a beautiful, miracle baby and we love her. She could be green and yellow _ we would love her the same.”
It’s an unusual case, but it’s not unheard of. Skin and eye colour are determined by melanin, and the amount or type of melanin is controlled by about a dozen different genes, For the Ihegboros, Nmachi’s blue eyes and blond hair must be the result of a trace of white ancestry from each of her parents’ genes.
It is known that in mixed race humans, the lighter variant of skin tone may come out in a child and this can sometimes be startlingly different to the skin of the parents.
This is not the first instance that a couple of one race has given birth to a baby of another race, but it is certainly not common.
All that other stuff about the pop of Egypt was correct.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: North Sudanese - 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian)
But if they are 50% Caucasoid?
How come he has, from a "purely" cranium base point of few more so called Caucasoid features? And even in visual appearance he has smaller features. While he is 100% negroe?
On purpose I picked his picture, as dark as him, he of course is not the only one with this phenotype. I hope you can understand that.
Now, when are you going to explain what causes these phenotypes what is the condition required to mutate to this?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote: ---------------------------------- Please, stop dreaming. ----------------------------------
What is it that you want me to stop dreaming?
That vague crap won't cut it with me. Point to the post in question.
We're waiting...........................
You don't have to wait..... All you have to do is check the valid peer reviewed links I have posted. International db''s and such, ya' know?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
How come he has, from a "purely" cranium base point of few more so called Caucasoid features? And even in visual appearance he has smaller features. While he is 100% negroe?
Because as I said earlier Perahu thinks he has no choice at this point. If he says the Senegales man is "caucasoid", in his mind that opens the flood gates for African Americans to have an association with everything else in Africa, especially Ancient Egypt. Which is what this is all about for Perahu.
His racial hierachy fantasyland with AAs at the bottom is in outright jeopardy if that Senegalese man is considered "caucasoid". This is why he is making a fool out of himself by his hypocrisy and contradiction.
This Perahu creature would have been better off debatewise if he had stuck with his pseudoscience and claimed the man was "caucasoid". He wouldn't come off as a contradicting hypocritical imbecille. LOL!
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senegal was within the reach of the most southerly-ranging Berbers, and being coastal was also likely to be visited by European mariners, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking! If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Another way to look at it?
That map is a bit of a distortion. Egypt never ruled Punt or that much of Nubia.
Anyway I think you're missing the concept of an empire...
Maybe it's because you don't know, but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
Tribes moved from East to West and vice versa. The Sahelian played a major part in these movements.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
posted
Ish Gebor wrote: ------------------------------------- Maybe it's because you don't know, but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
Tribes moved from East to West and vice versa. The Sahelian played a major part in these movements. -------------------------------------
Tribes?
Tribes?
Folks, I rest my case. This fool has clearly had his mind sodomized by racist western scholars.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Senegal was within the reach of the most southerly-ranging Berbers, and being coastal was also likely to be visited by European mariners, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking! If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
Anyway,
Scandals of Ancient Egypt Home Documentary Scandals of Ancient Egypt?
Appears to be the tittle of that program?
Who made it.
Where is that image located at in Egypt?
By the way, you don't have to show me pictures of Egypt. I have so many I can dazzle you. But I don't put personal pics online. you keep trying and trying.
Most of the images show dark brown pigmentation and caramel. Not white.
Do you really think that part of the world could not have produced a lighter of brown complexion? And the abundance of captives shown are from Eurasia, so called Asiatics. Or as I look at it, Indo-Arians.
The man was one example out of many.
Do you know the man? What tribe are those females from, have they always resided there? Who are they?
The first people who entered and built ancient Egypt, entered from South, Sahelians. Not from the middle east or lala land.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
Yes, tribes.
You do know what a tribe is, right?
People in Africa in general go by tribe. There are many Berber tribes for example. Egypt has many tribes. Nubian is a cluster name of multiple tribes. Etc....
Funny is, you really think you are going to win this?
Your rubbish website with outdated nonsense is not going to help you.
Mostly the remnants show people like in the South of Egypt. There is were most of the remnants are anyway.
Certainly the most "important ones".
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DumHoTips: Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable...
Where have you read any in here use the word "race" except you and your cohorts?? The Egyptians were indigenous Africans and as such they were indeed black. It is simple as that. Tell me, do you believe in a pan-European race??
quote:Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
How many times must we tell you that the division of African populations into Sub-Sahara and North is totally false. How many times must we repeat that the Sahara did not always exist and even then it was never a barrier.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
Funny how Nubia just a few miles away from Egypt is also not Sub-Saharan yet you seem to identify them as "negro".
quote: Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Nobody is saying there are Egyptian descendants in other parts of Africa, you fool! Wally is perhaps the only person in here who believes that and I agree it is erroneous. The Egyptians never left their homes in the Nile Valley. What we are saying is that as indigenous Africans they were indeed black people but many of them especially in the north became mixed with Eurasian foreigners. This is all supported by history as well as anthropology.
quote:Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations.
Are you serious?? Do you not realize that all these features you speak of are also found among some Sub-Saharan (BLACK) populations as well??! Why else do you think Paironuts wants white-wash peoples in Sub-Sahara??!
quote:Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Nope. Geography places Egypt strictly in Africa. The only part considered in Asia is the Sinai Peninsula which wasn't even part of dynastic Egypt until the imperial New Kingdom times. Also the Hamitic hypothesis is actually completely discredited unless you want to follow your friend Paironuts in claiming Rwandans and Tanzanians as Hamites also because of their features!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
No, I already responded, and I have more info for her.
I suggest you start reading the international databases I have provided. All you need to do is click the link, hyperlink. From page to page. It really is that easy. Good luck with it.
A few who slipped in here and there, at time by choice as they moved as free people to England. Anyway, it's by far not a vast majority or even near, half etc...most of the population you claimed came aftherwards, not during, but after, as was shown by multiple credible sources. Like 97% foresure. This part flyes over your head.
The history of Iberia however is interesting, as they took Berber females there as (sex) slaves. Not the fake guance. But most enslaved African populations came from the West African part of Africa.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DumHoTips: Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable...
Where have you read any in here use the word "race" except you and your cohorts?? The Egyptians were indigenous Africans and as such they were indeed black. It is simple as that. Tell me, do you believe in a pan-European race??
quote:Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
How many times must we tell you that the division of African populations into Sub-Sahara and North is totally false. How many times must we repeat that the Sahara did not always exist and even then it was never a barrier.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)[/b]."--Anselin (2009)
Funny how Nubia just a few miles away from Egypt is also not Sub-Saharan yet you seem to identify them as "negro".
quote: Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Nobody is saying there are Egyptian descendants in other parts of Africa, you fool! Wally is perhaps the only person in here who believes that and I agree it is erroneous. The Egyptians never left their homes in the Nile Valley. What we are saying is that as indigenous Africans they were indeed black people but many of them especially in the north became mixed with Eurasian foreigners. This is all supported by history as well as anthropology.
quote:Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations.
Are you serious?? Do you not realize that all these features you speak of are also found among some Sub-Saharan (BLACK) populations as well??! Why else do you think Paironuts wants white-wash peoples in Sub-Sahara??!
quote:Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Nope. Geography places Egypt strictly in Africa. The only part considered in Asia is the Sinai Peninsula which wasn't even part of dynastic Egypt until the imperial New Kingdom times. Also the Hamitic hypothesis is actually completely discredited unless you want to follow your friend Paironuts in claiming Rwandans and Tanzanians as Hamites also because of their features!
It probably is too much for them. So they rather ignore and live in their fantasy.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DaDumHo: North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
What is truly entertaining is that Euronuts like yourself deny that the reason why such Berbers are white is because of recent European ancestry while at the same time you ignore more pristine types as like the peoples below and instead dismiss them as recent peoples from Sub-Sahara instead of actual authentic Berbers!!
What's laughable is your belief in white people being aboriginal to the African continent!! LMAOPosts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:....but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
I think nuff people either don't real-eyes or don't know/never learned that lil piece of info there....that the borders of Africa were all changed when the European nations carved up Mama Africa like a Thanksgiving turkey, changing the already established borders, etc to suit their needs (the colonizers, not the African people already living there) ....which, many of those same people don't real-eyes, is one of the reasons there is so much warfare and carrying on going on over there.... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: This makes sense considering the history of White European slavery in North Africa...
OLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. Robert Davis
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa
Im have 100% respect for this man Davis for speaking the Truth, facts that the historical academia tries to ignore. The History books should reflect this. It pisses me off when I read about Nubia or West African kingdoms they always talk about the main export was Slaves and Gold.
It also helps explain this..
^^^ Euro-Arab Mongrels of the result of slavery..
LMAO It's funny how the Euronuts love talking about blacks being enslaved but never about whites being enslaved and it is a historical FACT as you just pointed out that many white Christians in Europe were exported to North Africa, especially women. Yet the Euronuts expect these whites and their descendants to be the authentic aboriginal North African Berbers while the Black Berbers are somehow suppose to be the slave descendants from Sub-Sahara!!
This shows you how backwards their logic is!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Indeed. I've been trying to tell DaDumWon that the division of African populations into 'North' and 'Sub-Sahara' is false! As proof of this the white-washing of North Africa was not sufficient enough since it is proven North Africans are related to Sub-Saharans which is why even Sub-Sahara is not safe from white-washing!!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
There are plenty of West African people who would fit right in in Ancient Egypt. On the other hand i doubt any Europeans such as yourself would feel at home. Modern Egypt is not the same as Ancient Egypt as it has been explained to you time after time.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking!
I like how you talk about Afrocentrics cherry picking images and being selective when you do the same damn thing. I notice you always resort to the few images of light Egyptians and avoid the Images with the Dominant phenotype, The Dark Skinned Egyptians, like the Plague.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
This is absurd, not every black peoples lips stick out beyond their nose. Egyptians displayed a facial type typical of Africans al over the continent.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
Plus you were obviously talking about North Africa as that American scholar showed, while your initial question was another. So I responded as to the Americas as a whole. Those stories you claimed are not known in the Caribbean and Latin America.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
This shows you how backwards their logic is! [/QB]
again, you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are/'logic' is, lol.....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ both Ish Gebor and Djehuti-
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
I have learned one thing today.
I am a dark-skinned caucasian? Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ both Ish Gebor and Djehuti-
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
I have learned one thing today.
I am a dark-skinned caucasian?
DWBCL stappit LMFBAO
soooooooooooooooooooooooo....which water fountain would you be drinking from (with impunity), during 1945 in the United States, 'whites only' or 'colored only'? Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
What those stupid monkeys keep calling "Negroid" is a variant of tropical African, one of many.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
If you don't mind, I'll ask that same member this question in this thread as well (I've asked it in a next thread), since it's in line with your question, lol:
quote: Can you please post for the members here, a current mainstream map showing us where Negro Land is located?
I asked another member this over a year ago, but said member has not as of yet provided us with that information....
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
....which, many of those same people don't real-eyes, is one of the reasons there is so much warfare and carrying on going on over there.... 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic