This thread is to teach simple-minded characters like melchior7 who say it is practically impossible for "sub-Saharan" Africans to have offspring that don't specifically resemble ["stereotyped"] sub-Saharan Africans in as short a time as the 2nd generation. Some of you may be compelled to yawn, because the images that are about to follow have all been posted here before; but to someone like melchior7, this will be an eye-opening experience...so I hope. Yes, it is sad that we have to resort to elementary school style pictographic teaching to accomplish this, but it's necessary.
^Somali/European descendant. This guy could probably fit in some southern European country, and even coastal north Africa.
^A Ghanaian/Scottish descendant, yet without being clued in on this person's immediate ancestry, one might mistake the guy for an Asian, possibly east Asian, before you do even a European.
^An Ethiopian/Scottish descendant, but some might mistake him for an south (like a Nepalese) or east Asian possibly, and maybe even a U.S. based Hispanic.
^A Ghanaian/English descendant, but this fellow will probably get lost easily in an east Indian community.
^A Senegalese/English descendant, who could probably fit in any coastal north African country.
^A Senegalese/Swedish descendant who could probably fit readily in coastal north African countries, and maybe even some southern European communities.
^A Ghanaian/English descendant, but she could probably be mistaken for someone from east Asia by the unsuspecting.
^A Nigerian/Finish descendant. She may not easily standout in a central or east Asian gathering. I've even come across some U.S. Hispanics who do not look all that different from this female.
These images are fortunately the appropriate sizes. I tend to keep over-sized images as links only, so that they don't distort the screen, and make it readable to anyone with any monitor size.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is probably a good opportunity to try and help Lioness. So far, the Black Birds and White Bees thing has eluded her.
Father
Son
Son and Mother
Sons Wife
Granddaughter
Grandson
Son and new family
(L-R) Former professional tennis player Yannick Noah, his son Joalukas and his wife Isabelle Camus sit in the front row as they watch Yannick's son Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah play the New York Knicks in their NBA basketball game at Madison Square Garden in New York, January 19, 2009.
posted
Yes, Explorer Im glad you included West Africans as many Eroclowns claim this is proof of the Caucasian heritage of East Africans. Now with West Africans they have no where to Run..
Could very wall pass as Spanish or Italian...
-French and Melagasy
More Mulattos
Ryan Giggs
All though Ryan Giggs looks like a typical Welsh or English man he was teased because everyone knew who his famous father was-a Black man..
What is funny, and I don't mean to make fun of Mr. Giggs experience is that he was teased because his FATHER was black not because he was black. Goes to show you the mindset of Europeans.
Now I bet all his abusers are cheering at his stadiums with Giggs Jerseys telling their friends how they went to school with him. More into the Mindset of Europeans.
For Manchester Utd star Ryan Giggs having a black father meant he suffered racial abuse as a child.
“My dad was quite a famous rugby player where we were growing up. Everyone knew that, and I used to get quite a bit of stick at school because of the colour of his skin.
“It’s obviously not nice, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. My way of coping was to keep it to myself. I was a quiet, shy boy and what I should have done is tell the teachers.
“But I didn’t even tell my parents, I just got on with it. I knew that I should have told someone but I went about it the wrong way.
“It made me feel that I was different, because I felt that I should be fitting in with all these other kids at the school and I couldn’t.
The average half West African half European usually comes out looking 'much blacker'. This is not based on pictures from the internet but real-life experience. Often they even look like regular African Americans rather than mixed.
I do have to agree that half East African half European usually look off-white (as in coastal North African). But the reason for that is mainly because East Africans and Europeans are genetically rather close while West Africans are very divergent.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ This is obsurd. The "Ave" Mixed race person does not look "More Black" most are 50/50 between black and white features. I'd say BELOW ave. do Mulattos look more black. Majority I know stand out for their obvious mixed race heritage.
A Perfect Example...
The Ave. Mulattos looks like Alicia. Though some features may Vary, Some can have Colored Eyes, some Thicker Hair, Some Blond and Red Hair, Some Darker Skin, Some Lighter Skin.
I have seen all with my own eyes, anyone saying that the Ave. Mulatto looks "More Black" has not lived around blacks.
Most Mulattos can pass for white but choose to make themselves look black. Passing for white was quite common and during slavery there are images of Children who are stark white but are really Mulattos.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This obsurd idea by Euroclowns who claim In one Breath East Africans are white/caucasian Blacks but in the same breath put up images of Lip Plate Eithopians as proof of Black Savagery.
Passing for white..
It's what many fair-skinned blacks did during those times.
"There were large numbers of African Americans at that time and into the turn of the century [for whom passing] was a means to gain opportunities in education," said Bickerstaff, who is now working on a book about the Hemmings family, tentatively titled Dark Beauty. "The country was under laws of segregation, and those families who had risen to that level of educational aspiration or economics were still excluded from most of the elite institutions."
Hemmings, heartbroken by the scandal, returned to her old neighborhood in Boston after graduating from Vassar. She worked for several years as a cataloguer in the Boston Public Library. In 1903, she married Dr. Andrew Jackson Love, a physician practicing in New York City. The couple settled in Manhattan and lived as whites. Like his wife, Love had been passing for years. A graduate of the historically blacks-only Meharry Medical College in Tennessee, Love instead listed his alma mater as Harvard University Medical School.
In some families, the ties to black roots have been so long broken that later generations are shocked to discover their real heritage. Such was the case with Hemmings’ great-granddaughter, Jillian Sim. Sim, now a writer working on a book about her family, did not discover the family secret until 1994, when she was informed by a friend of her grandmother’s. She described her reaction to the news in her essay "Fading to White," published in American Heritage (February/March 1999).
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This obsurd idea by Euroclowns who claim In one Breath East Africans are white/caucasian Blacks but in the same breath put up images of Lip Plate Eithopians as proof of Black Savagery.
Nothing I said so far is Eurocentric, it is just the truth.
Not all Ethiopians are the same, those tribes you mention with the 'lip plates' are an extreme minority who are genetically closer to Southern Sudanese populations (Nilotic) rather than most Ethiopians.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
They are highly diluted and more European than African.
The one drop rule prevented these people from considering themselves white, because White Americans apparently wanted to protect themselves from 'dirty Negro' blood entering their genepool (in their worldview).
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Manu - Is this what you meant? In my experience, most "First Generation" mulattoes look like this.
Yes, something close to this is more realistic than what is posted in this thread.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ "Not Real Blacks" did you just not say these people should look more black than white. Also how does your logic make sense, If whites wanted to distance themselves and Most Mulattoes married blacks how can they be more European than African. Many of these people were first Generation Mulatto or offspring of first Generation Mulatto couples.
The Ave. Mulattos looks 50/50 in their traits and phenotype and a 2nd Generation Offspring of a Mulatto with a Non Black looks non African as can be seen by Boris Becker's family.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also what you forget is many African Americans have ancestry from East Africa, as many slaves were taken from East Africa and even Madagascar.
Funny thing is Obama is half East African and Half White and looks "blacker" than most Mulattos. But Even Obama would be recognized EASILY as Mulatto in a crowd of African Americans. Majority of Mulattos from West Africa would be recognized as such. So this idea that they look like the "Ave" African American is obsurd.
The Ave. Mulatto looks 50/50.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Funny thing is Obama is half East African and Half White and looks "blacker" than most Mulattos. But Even Obama would be recognized EASILY as Mulatto in a crowd of African Americans.
Obama's father is genetically not a real East African. Only geographically, as his tribe the Luo are migrants. The Luo are mainly of Niger-Congo basin origin, per Tishkoff et al. 2009.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is to teach simple-minded characters like melchior7 who say it is practically impossible for "sub-Saharan" Africans to have offspring that don't specifically resemble ["stereotyped"] sub-Saharan Africans in as short a time as the 2nd generation ===========
Your photos basically debunk your argument because even with white admixture none of those mongrels you posted could ever pass as a white. They are still all mixed-race.
It would take many hundreds or even thousands of years (with intermarriage with whites only) for them to look like normal whites.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: African Americans are on average somewhere between 15-25% European/Amerindian. So half Afram half White are rarely true 50/50 Biracials.
Real West African (or Bantu) 50/50 Biracials look very black.
Sade, the singer, is Nigerian (Yoruba) and British...
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: This thread is to teach simple-minded characters like melchior7 who say it is practically impossible for "sub-Saharan" Africans to have offspring that don't specifically resemble ["stereotyped"] sub-Saharan Africans in as short a time as the 2nd generation ===========
Your photos basically debunk your argument because even with white admixture none of those mongrels you posted could ever pass as a white. They are still all mixed-race.
It would take many hundreds or even thousands of years (with intermarriage with whites only) for them to look like normal whites.
quadroon
mixing is nature's way
inbreeding leads to defects
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Idiotic to paste the above photo. Nicole Richie has had plastic surgery, uses skin lightening and dyed her hair blonde. Without all that here is what she naturally looks like:
She still has clear visible non-white admixture.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Mixed-race patients struggle to find marrow or organ donors - for the simple reason mixed race is not natural from a biological or genetic perspective. There are no matches for marrow or organs since mixed race people are not a race. They are abnormal hybrids with no match.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is to teach simple-minded characters like melchior7 who say it is practically impossible for "sub-Saharan" Africans to have offspring that don't specifically resemble ["stereotyped"] sub-Saharan Africans in as short a time as the 2nd generation. Some of you may be compelled to yawn, because the images that are about to follow have all been posted here before; but to someone like melchior7, this will be an eye-opening experience...so I hope. Yes, it is sad that we have to resort to elementary school style pictographic teaching to accomplish this, but it's necessary
The simple minded character is you. Many of the folks in your photos do look mixed more or less and are not very typical of Mulatto offspring. Think Obama. To put this into perspective, you are using questionable newspaper drawings of a few Black Riffian pirates dating from 1859 to claim that Riffians at that time where basically sub saharan Blacks. And now look like this,
in about 150 years! And hardley a dark face in sight. Basically for something like that to happen in a relatively short time, the males have to literally stop mating with their own women and all of them begin taking European women instead. Preposterous! Now if you claimed this began gradually since about 800 A.D or so then it would be much more plausible. But still we have historical records that show Eurasian people in North Africa during the time of the Egyptians the Romans, the Greeks, etc. We even have prehistoric skeletal remains which are not Sub saharn, not to mention current DNA studies seem to corroborate the arrival of Eurasians during the LGM. We know that many from the Near East came into North Africa as well. So why would anyone subscribe to such an extreme scenario?? Answer, DESPERATION! And I AM a Mulatto you big bone head Lol!
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw there is a prehistoric site called Taforalt very near the Riff area in Morocco. This what they found!
"Our results reveal a probable local evolution of Taforalt population and a genetic continuity in North Africa.
The genetic inheritance of Taforalt population (12,000 years) is composed of:
Eurasiatic component (J/T, H, U et V) and North African component (U6). Genetic structure of Taforalt:
Eurasiatic Component : H, U, JT, V: 90.5%
North African component: U6: 9.5 %
42, 8% (9/21) H or U 14, 2% (3/21) JT 2 individuals (9,5%) U6"
KÉFI R., STEVANOVITCH A., BOUZAID E., BÉRAUD-COLOMB E. Diversité mitochondriale de la population de taforalt(12.000 ans bp - maroc): une approche génétique a l'étude du peuplement de l'afrique du nord.
Why 12000 BC that corresponds to the LGM, doesn't it?
Explorer, don't you hear your deckhand shouting? He is saying "Captain your ship is sinking"! Lol
And for the really clueless out there. Here is a map of short distance between Spain(Europe) and Morocco (Africa)
What fool really believes that this small expanse of water which is only about 8 miles wide at its shortest point is going to prevent people from crossing back and forth, especially in prehistoric times when the Mediterranean was much more shallow than it is today? Nuff said.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
melchior7 - Stop embarrassing yourself, that crap you cited "Diversité mitochondriale de la population de taforalt" is just some paper some idiot put together (probably on special order for Mathilda's site). There is no REAL study!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
cassiterides are you a white nationalist ========
No. However i'm against the mixing of different races, even ethnicities and cultures - which is common-sense. Anyone educated knows that race mixing throughout history has declined civilizations (Egypt, Rome etc) and has no benefit whatsoever.
======== show us proof black africans are not indigenous to north africa, ========
Sure.
Virtually all the Islands off the coast of Africa were not settled until white european explorers landed there.
In other words sub-saharan blacks couldn't even sail to the closest islands to them.
Madagascar for example for first settled by indonesians, not black africans.
What a joke that afrocentrics think blacks created ancient greece, egypt etc when blacks couldn't even settle the closest island to them. LOL.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
Now then my dear, I have always had the advantage. You see, because my own extended family, sired by pure Black men, is now a virtual United Nations. As far as I know, the only missing element is Mongol - and that's a maybe - it's hard to keep up with everyone.
So you see, if there is one thing that I can spot, its a Mulatto!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, Explorer Im glad you included West Africans as many Eroclowns claim this is proof of the Caucasian heritage of East Africans. Now with West Africans they have no where to Run..
That's in fact the reason I included offspring of western Africans in the mix, to demonstrate that they can just as look different from the average "sub-Saharan" as the offspring of eastern Africans. These biological realities blow Eurocentric racial fantasies into smithereens.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The average half West African half European usually comes out looking 'much blacker'. This is not based on pictures from the internet but real-life experience. Often they even look like regular African Americans rather than mixed.
As noted in the OP, these images had all been posted here before, and by posters who knew the backgrounds of the figures in the images. In that respect, they are not "very selective", but rather, a matter of posters sharing their acquaintances with others.
These images put a lie to your emotional opining about the so-called "average" west African/European offspring. It shows that offspring can come out any number of ways, as we have seen in these examples. Personalities shown can fit in different societies we are familiar with, wherein the personalities have no immediate genealogical ties, yet they may well standout in the communities of their "sub-Saharan" and "European" parents.
quote: I do have to agree that half East African half European usually look off-white (as in coastal North African). But the reason for that is mainly because East Africans and Europeans are genetically rather close while West Africans are very divergent.
You are choosing to turn a blind eye to empirical evidence to the contrary put before you, because it upsets the predetermined ideology you've decided to go with.
East Africans and west Africans share common ancestries; how then can western Africans be any more divergent from Europeans than east Africans?
In fact, as one example, the hg R marker is more common in western Africans and Europeans than it is in east Africans. How does that fair with your purported theory above?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The simple minded character is you. Many of the folks in your photos do look mixed more or less and are not very typical of Mulatto offspring.
You are just being emotional. I have backed up my point about your simple-mindedness with facts. There is no doubt in my mind, that if the background of the personalities in these images had not been described to you, you wouldn't not have associated them with "sub-Saharan" Africans, and/or else have determined which "sub-Saharan" territory they have ancestry from.
You only dismiss them out of hand, to diminish their purpose, which is to discredit your reasoning that "sub-Saharan" African parents coupled with non-African parents cannot possibly have offspring that dramatically look different from the said parents within a short amount of time as the 1st generation offspring.
quote: Think Obama. To put this into perspective, you are using questionable newspaper drawings of a few Black Riffian pirates dating from 1859 to claim that Riffians at that time where basically sub saharan Blacks.
Obama is just another manifestation of European/"sub-Saharan" coupling; he is not the "biological spokesman", LOL, for the personalities I'd shown. And even taking Obama; he looks just as dramatically different from his father, and would standout from the rest of his father's family just as he would standout from his mother's immediate European family. Therefore, it only reinforces my point, about how "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans can generate offspring that look different from communities of said parents in as little a time as the first generation offspring.
The drawings of Riffians you are complaining about, whose dates I cannot ascertain, is a reflection of fact of life. You can cry your eyes out all you like, but it is obviously presented as such, because empirical experience placed them there. The authors did not call them "slaves" or "Sudanese"; they point blank, called them Riffians. Whom should we believe then: the author who drew the figures as witnessed, or some biased Eurocentric nut who wasn't even around, that happens to be you, LOL?
These Riffians wouldn't have even been "Niger-Congo speakers" of western Africa as you imagine, because the predominant Imazighen Y-DNA lineage is the E-M35 marker. Therefore, the Riffians you dismissed as "stereotypical black Africans", should in fact have had recent ancestry from eastern Africa, going by genealogical evidence.
quote: And now look like this,
in about 150 years! And hardley a dark face in sight.
Some of the personalities I had posted above would not easily standout in this crowd, if their background had not been made known. Furthermore, this is obviously a selective rendering of "Berbers". They can also look like these:
The images below are too big, and so, just left as links...that you can click on:
BTW, I'd like to thank those who have kept their images at desirable sizes.
quote: Basically for something like that to happen in a relatively short time, the males have to literally stop mating with their own women and all of them begin taking European women instead.
Dumbass, the expulsion and slavery had taken place some time way back; don't you think that's more than enough time for these events to have an impact, especially given the fact that it only takes 1st generation offspring for a marked phenotypic departure of said offspring from their "sub-Saharan"/European ancestry to take place. If the personalities shown above continued to exchange genes with other offspring of similar parental coupling, as the preferred mating selection, then don't you think several generations onwards, the offspring could develop phenotype renderings that may well standout from the modal phenotypes generally found in the communities of the parents involved? We are taking about the impact of slavery here, coupled with the expulsions of diasporan Maghrebi from the Iberian peninsula. If people of "mixed" geographic ancestry selectively preferred to mate with other people of "mixed" geographic ancestry, then that does not amount to "stop mating with their own women". Go to the mall, and buy a clue.
quote: Preposterous! Now if you claimed this began gradually since about 800 A.D or so then it would be much more plausible.
There could have been exogenous genetic intrusion into the Maghrebi gene pool in the time frame you are espousing; that is not in contention. However, the argument is that "much" of the current makeup of the European element in Maghrebi gene pool can be best explained by the historic slave trade of European females and the emigration of diasporan Maghrebi folks from southern Europe.
quote: But still we have historical records that show Eurasian people in North Africa during the time of the Egyptians the Romans, the Greeks, etc.
The Romans or Greeks wouldn't have made much genetic headway beyond the small administrative centers where they were stationed, and it shows. European male genetic imprint in the Maghrebi is essentially minuscule or negligible. I notice that you use "Eurasians" interchangeably with "Europeans". The Phoenicians, who preceded the Romans and Greeks, were also in the Maghreb. Surely they too must have exchanged some genes with Maghrebi folks, no? So, why do you always translate "light-skin" in the Maghreb as an impossible prospect before the historic European slave trade and the return of Andalusian Moorish communities in that region?
quote: We even have prehistoric skeletal remains which are not Sub saharn
A load of manure. The "prehistoric" Maghrebi remains span a time frame as far back whence anatomically modern humans had not even set foot in the Levant. How's that for a reality check?
Furthermore, the Maghrebi specimens from the EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene, which I assume are the ones you were alluding to, display diverse patterns. They are not synonymous with any specific contemporary "sub-Saharan" population any more than they are to contemporary Europeans. They maintained their own clusters appreciably away from even contemporary Maghrebi populations. To educate you further, many of these specimens had only been compared against what past researchers selectively picked as "stereotyped" sub-Saharan specimens, and even then, they were not able to entirely shed cranio-metric connections to the "sub-Saharan" elements.
quote: not to mention current DNA studies seem to corroborate the arrival of Eurasians during the LGM. We know that many from the Near East came into North Africa as well. So why would anyone subscribe to such an extreme scenario?? Answer, DESPERATION! And I AM a Mulatto you big bone head Lol!
"Near East" is not Europe, you do know that, don't you? So you cannot use any "Near Eastern" ancestry interchangeably with "European" ancestry. You say DNA evidence shows "Eurasian" arrival during the LGM. What genetic evidence would that be? I cannot think of any LGM arrival of "Eurasians" in the Maghreb, can you? What would this "Eurasian" element be, when did it arrive in the LGM, and by what markers are they traced? How come no paleontological record of these LGM "Eurasian" have come to light yet, at least as far as I can tell? I don't care if you are "mulattoo", a mongrel, pink, green or yellow, I'm only interested in your answers to these questions, you big flat poopoo-platter head. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
African Americans are on average somewhere between 15-25% European/Amerindian. So half Afram half White are rarely true 50/50 Biracials.
Real West African (or Bantu) 50/50 Biracials look very black.
You are still missing the message of the OP. It is refuting melchior7's claim that "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans cannot produce offspring that markedly look different from either parent within a very short span of time. It doesn't matter whether AAs and Euro Americans are already "mixed" and then "re-mixing", LOL. According to melchoir7's logic, that still would not be enough to produce offspring that look markedly different from either parents, because according to melchior7, the "sub-Saharan" Africans [west Africans in particular] simply have such a "strong phenotypic peculiarity" about them that cannot be "diluted" within a short span of time. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I don't have the time but can google the images of well-known Euro-West African offspring.
1) Kareem Wade: son of Abdoulaye Wade(President, Senegal) and a French woman.
2)Check many photos of Sade(Yoruba-Anglo)
3) Check son of Kwame Nkrumah(Gamal Nkruhma) and North African Copt wife.
4) Seretse Khama, President if Botswana: offspring of Southern African Khama and English woman.
5) Check images of Vivien N'Dour, well-known singer from Senegal: father Lebanese, mother Senegalese,
6) Jerry Rawlins, ex-President of Ghana: mother Ghanian, father Scottish.
Also: Check the phenotypes of Obama's 2 daughters(using crude numbers: at least 25% African) and compare with average African American(13% African, Tishkoff, 2009).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your photos basically debunk your argument because even with white admixture none of those mongrels you posted could ever pass as a white. They are still all mixed-race.
It would take many hundreds or even thousands of years (with intermarriage with whites only) for them to look like normal whites.
You've got be the 2nd person I've read so far, who had not carefully read the OP. And what is "normal whites" supposed to mean; who mentioned anything about "normal whites"?
If you think these "mongrels", as you call them [I can't imagine why, since they did you no wrong], could "not pass for a white", then we wouldn't be having Eurocentrists calling everyone from sub-Saharan east Africa, north Africa to the Indian sub-continent, "caucasoid", now would we? What would be the purpose of calling such folks "caucasoid", if Eurocentrists were not bent on making them part of their "caucasian" relatives?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Btw there is a prehistoric site called Taforalt very near the Riff area in Morocco. This what they found!
"Our results reveal a probable local evolution of Taforalt population and a genetic continuity in North Africa.
The genetic inheritance of Taforalt population (12,000 years) is composed of:
Eurasiatic component (J/T, H, U et V) and North African component (U6). Genetic structure of Taforalt:
Eurasiatic Component : H, U, JT, V: 90.5%
North African component: U6: 9.5 %
42, 8% (9/21) H or U 14, 2% (3/21) JT 2 individuals (9,5%) U6"
KÉFI R., STEVANOVITCH A., BOUZAID E., BÉRAUD-COLOMB E. Diversité mitochondriale de la population de taforalt(12.000 ans bp - maroc): une approche génétique a l'étude du peuplement de l'afrique du nord.
I'd given you my answer to it in our very first exchange under your current pseudonym, but you never did anything about it. The question is, do you have anything in way of a rebuttal to my response to Kefi & co.; do you have the guts to?
quote:
Why 12000 BC that corresponds to the LGM, doesn't it?
No, that doesn't correspond to the LGM; the LGM winds down at about this time. Moreover, that is the estimated age for the specimens under contention; how's that supposed to serve as evidence of "LGM Europeans in the Maghreb"? That these specimens could not be LGM Europeans in the Maghreb, presumably isolated from autochthonous Africans, is the whole contentious issue to begin with.
quote: Explorer, don't you hear your deckhand shouting? He is saying "Captain your ship is sinking"! Lol
I simply hear you being silly and making a jackass out of yourself for no apparent reason.
quote:
And for the really clueless out there. Here is a map of short distance between Spain(Europe) and Morocco (Africa)
What fool really believes that this small expanse of water which is only about 8 miles wide at its shortest point is going to prevent people from crossing back and forth, especially in prehistoric times when the Mediterranean was much more shallow than it is today? Nuff said.
Would you be able to swim this body of water and cross to the other shoreline, unaided by a transport equipment? Don't be fooled by hand drawn maps that make continents, seas and oceans appear a lot smaller than they actually look. LOL
I'd ask you to give me the mathematical figures of the depth of the Mediterranean sea in an earlier discussion, and to specify which time frame corresponds with which depth, but you chickened out. You won't repeat that again, will you?
Additionally, you have to provide a pretext for the supposed movement of people. People don't just move across large water bodies to the next land for the fun of it. Something has to trigger these events; what were they, and what corroborating evidence supports these explanations? Also, when specifically did these so-called movements take place.
Let's test if you are a fool for making claims that you had no way of backing up, or you are actually onto something. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Obama's father is genetically not a real East African. Only geographically, as his tribe the Luo are migrants. The Luo are mainly of Niger-Congo basin origin, per Tishkoff et al. 2009.
I'm not sure you realize that Luo is a Nilo-Saharan language phylum; did you know it was Nilo-Saharan? If so, then were you under the impression that Nilo-Saharan originates somewhere else other than eastern Africa? Where would that be?
Also, what are the major Y-DNA markers carried by Luo speakers?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Mixed-race patients struggle to find marrow or organ donors - for the simple reason mixed race is not natural from a biological or genetic perspective. There are no matches for marrow or organs since mixed race people are not a race. They are abnormal hybrids with no match.
Unlike you, nature does not see "races" in human beings. If they were "abnormal", there would be no offspring to begin with. If 'mixing' was such a bad thing, humanity would virtually cease to exist all together, as pretty much all populations are the result of "mixing" of different communities or populations. Give me a list of "organs" that supposedly find no matches in 'mixed" people; I find that odd, considering human populations are all pretty much 'mixed' already.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Virtually all the Islands off the coast of Africa were not settled until white european explorers landed there.
In other words sub-saharan blacks couldn't even sail to the closest islands to them.
Madagascar for example for first settled by indonesians, not black africans.
What a joke that afrocentrics think blacks created ancient greece, egypt etc when blacks couldn't even settle the closest island to them. LOL.
Your post suffers from a number common-sensical oversights.
1) People now populate other parts of the globe, because black Africans ventured out of the continent and settled these territories. So, this silly reasoning that Africans are somehow innately unable to explore places outside the confines of the continent's mainland, flies out the window right there.
2)North Africa is not an island. Hence, the absurdity about AE not being created by blacks, or that it couldn't have been initially populated by 'blacks'. How do you figure the humans living in the Maghreb, before humans set foot outside of Africa, came to be there, if not from tropical Africa? You should avail yourself some research capacity, before making easily avoidable intelligent-free claims.
How did Paleolithic era L-type African mtDNA and certain Y-DNA hg A markers end up in Europe, if not by Africans crossing over to southern Europe?
3) The notion the all islands off the coasts of mainland Africa had been first settled by non-African elements is grounded on fiction. The original inhabitants of the Canary Islands for example, are determined to have been Africans, possibly in some way related to Tamazight speakers.
The earliest inhabitants of Comoros are also determined to have comprised Africans.
Neolithic presence of east Africans in the south Arabian peninsula; how do you suppose that was accomplished, if Africans didn't have a capacity to cross water bodies and the drive to explore? How about the reputed African ancestors of Natufians?
Your claim about Madagascar having been first settled by Indonesians is dubious. When did the Indonesians first arrive, and according to what primary evidence? When did the African elements first arrive there, and according to what material evidence? Did the African element arrive on its own accord? If so, does this not argue against your presumptive claim about the African occupants of Madagascar?
Do you realize that DNA research on Madagascar has shown that its population has ancestry right in the middle, with 50/50 African and Asian genetic contributions into the gene pool. If the African element supposedly had arrived at a considerable time after the Asian element, how did the gene pool come to be like this?
4)European ventures into certain islands off the African coast have generally been post-14th century undertakings, not pre-historic. So, you cannot use these as some sort of proof of pre-historic European capability.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The one drop rule prevented these people from considering themselves white, because White Americans apparently wanted to protect themselves from 'dirty Negro' blood entering their genepool (in their worldview).
Well, it would have been too late. LOL. It is the "dirty Negro" blood that made them human in the first place. They'd have to cease being human, in order to rid themselves off African ancestry altogether.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Good write up about Africans moving around outside of the continent.
What must be said is that Africans were not static...They had to of moved to be found in places like Europe and the Middle East.
As for the Islands....People will have to prove with evidence that Africans never migrated to these Islands until Europeans came. One thing I know is that in Madagascar is that Africans form the BULK of the population and they have absorbed many Asians, Arabs etc. The Bantu from Madagascar speak a Malay language with many Bantu loan words.
What I hope is this evidence of different people coming together to make there homes in that Island is an template for other people making it work in other diverse parts of the world....We CAN see our people White, Black etc work to unite and link up.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep King. These are things I had hoped were already apparent without my having to shed light on them, but sadly, that's not the case. Let's just wait and see how cassiterides and his/her kind react to these "sudden revelations", i.e. whether they will use the occasion as an eye-opening opportunity, or whether they will just reciprocate with snobbery and continue to revel in ignorance.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Unlike you, nature does not see "races" in human beings. If they were "abnormal", there would be no offspring to begin with. If 'mixing' was such a bad thing, humanity would virtually cease to exist all together, as pretty much all populations are the result of "mixing" of different communities or populations. Give me a list of "organs" that supposedly find no matches in 'mixed" people; I find that odd, considering human populations are all pretty much 'mixed' already.
All incorrect.
1. Race is a reality as proven by virtually every field of science. In contrast 'race-denialism' is a modern invention by those with a far left socio-political agenda. But science should have nothing to do with biased political views.
2. Race is natural. If you think not, then good luck explaining why there are so many physical variations in the races.
3. Your fantasy of 'everyone being mixed' is just that a fantasy. In reality there are homogenous races.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) People now populate other parts of the globe, because black Africans ventured out of the continent and settled these territories.
Black africans never ventured anywhere until the slave trade. Look at the facts -
*When Europeans colonised Africa, they found the sub-saharan black africans living in primitive mud huts with no technology. Yet we are expected to believe blacks were an ancient race who colonised the globe creating civilizations? Take your medication.
*As i earlier said, the closest Islands to the sub-saharan black africans they never settled. They were in fact settled FIRST by either Indonesians or white european explorers. Blacks were so primitive they couldn't even sail to the closest Islands to them.
quote:North Africa is not an island. Hence, the absurdity about AE not being created by blacks, or that it couldn't have been initially populated by 'blacks'. How do you figure the humans living in the Maghreb, before humans set foot outside of Africa, came to be there, if not from tropical Africa? You should avail yourself some research capacity, before making easily avoidable intelligent-free claims.
There is no evidence blacks are indigenous to North Africa. The indigenous North Africans are the Berbers, who are racially mediterraneanoid.
quote:How did Paleolithic era L-type African mtDNA and certain Y-DNA hg A markers end up in Europe, if not by Africans crossing over to southern Europe?
Note the fallacy here. You are equating 'africa' to black, when in actual fact the North Africans never were.
quote:The original inhabitants of the Canary Islands for example, are determined to have been Africans, possibly in some way related to Tamazight speakers.
Incorrect.
The indigenous Canary Islanders were Caucasoid.
*Canary Islander mummies are blonde and red haired.
*The spanish described the natives there as tall, fair haired and light skinned.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Typical Albino, lies and fantasy. Tell me White Boy, can you cite evidence from ANYWHERE for any of those lies? Even Mathildas would do.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I find funny, cassiterides is always saying that he can't respond to the genetic or anthropological research we direct him to, because he only "reads the classics". Now he wants to play Mr. Scientist, fine
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: 1. Race is a reality as proven by virtually every field of science. In contrast 'race-denialism' is a modern invention by those with a far left socio-political agenda. But science should have nothing to do with biased political views.
Post the "academic" evidence you speak of.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no doubt in my mind, that if the background of the personalities in these images had not been described to you, you wouldn't not have associated them with "sub-Saharan" Africans, and/or else have determined which "sub-Saharan" territory they have ancestry from.
No but I would have surmised they had Black in them based on their features. However your scenario is not well thought out. Mulato offspring will likely mate with other mulato offspring which would keep some level of Black traits in the demogrpahic. Unless of course they would leave mulata women by the way side for Europeans too. Lol. Also think about the ratios. If 30 percent of Black men were taking European wives,that would not be enough to cause a drastsic change in the overall population. The 70 percent would come to dominate. So then the greater majority would have to be taking Euopean wives. I find it hard to believe not only that you would subscribe to such an extreme theory...but that you are comfortable with this idea of Blacks abandoning their own race for white women. Tsk tsk
Obama is just another manifestation of European/"sub-Saharan" coupling; he is not the "biological spokesman", LOL, for the personalities I'd shown. And even taking Obama; he looks just as dramatically different from his father, and would standout from the rest of his father's family just as he would standout from his mother's immediate European family.
And yet he looks Black and is not seen as being much diferent from regular Black Americans. I have known quite a few mixed folks in my time and in most the Black triats are dominant.
Therefore, it only reinforces my point, about how "sub-Saharan" Africans coupled with Europeans can generate offspring that look different from communities of said parents in as little a time as the first generation offspring.
The biggest problem for your scenario is that there are no records or anecdotes of Berbers taking European wives. I have no doubt that some folks in the cities have European blood since that is what the records show. Many were sent to Turkey as well.
The drawings of Riffians you are complaining about, whose dates I cannot ascertain, is a reflection of fact of life.
The dates are areascertianable and easliy so. The newspaper article mentions Prince Adalbert of Prussia. And it is dated 1859. This is important. Do you remeber when I mentioned Ibn Batutta and his travels in Africa from the 14th century? He said that the Black man's land began in Southern Mauritania. He has described certian Berber tribes as being very White. We can't just ignore it. "The women of the Bardama are the most perfect in beauty, the most extraordinary in their exterior, of a whiteness without admixture, and of a heavy corpulence" (Ibn Battuta 1985, [1352]: 317
You can cry your eyes out all you like, but it is obviously presented as such, because empirical experience placed them there. The authors did not call them "slaves" or "Sudanese"; they point blank, called them Riffians. Whom should we believe then
The Author was not concerned with with where the pirates orginally came from. Most likley he was one of the ignorant sorts who when he understood that Rif was in Africa he felt compelled to draw them as Blacks. Then again slaves were employed to work on ships, and some became pirates themselves.
These Riffians wouldn't have even been "Niger-Congo speakers" of western Africa as you imagine.
I believe them to have been from Sub Saharan Africa. It is your task to prove overwise.
because the predominant Imazighen Y-DNA lineage is the E-M35 marker.
The majority are E-m81 which does stem from E-M35. But typically E-M81 do not look Sub Saharan. Nor do we know what the origial E-m35 looked liked..being Afroaasiatic speakers, I would tend to think more like Ethiopians, Somalians..not like the fellow in that drawing.
Dumbass, the expulsion and slavery had taken place some time way back; don't you think that's more than enough time for these events to have an impact, especially given the fact that it only takes 1st generation offspring for a marked phenotypic departure of said offspring from their "sub-Saharan"/European ancestry to take place.
First of all, as far the expulsion, many of the Moriscos formed their own communities in coastal North Africa, many which remain to this day.
"Fez in Morocco became home to Muslim and Jewish refugees from Toledo, Cordoba (which fell in the 12th century) and Seville (which fell in the 13th century). A section of Fez is known today as the Andalusian Quarter. Tetouan was completely rebuilt and repopulated by Granadan refugees. Many communities in Morocco still identify themselves as Andalusian. Cities such as Diaz, Torres, Medina, Molina, Borras and Banzi still boast of such heritage. In neighboring Algeria, Tlemcen became a haven for expelled Jews. The Moriscos settled in Oran. In Tunisia, some Moriscos re-converted to Islam but continued to speak and read Spanish for several centuries. Orchestras in Fez, Tangier and Tetouan still use Andalusian instruments and music dating back to 9th century singer and composer Ziryab. Andalusian music in Morocco is still referred to as ala and has long been encouraged and promoted by official authorities." http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2005/02/03/feature-01.
Most did not just blend back in with the locals as you seem to want to believe. And they certainly did not become berberized. This leaves you with only the slavery theory to fall back on.
If people of "mixed" geographic ancestry selectively preferred to mate with other people of "mixed" geographic ancestry, then that does not amount to "stop mating with their own women". Go to the mall, and buy a clue.
And yet that so called "preference" was pervasive enough to have nearly blotted L mtdna out the demogrpahic map in many cases..if there was ever really much there to begin with.
There could have been exogenous genetic intrusion into the Maghrebi gene pool in the time frame you are espousing; that is not in contention.
Ah that would be your better bet, yet still...
However, the argument is that "much" of the current makeup of the European element in Maghrebi gene pool can be best explained by the historic slave trade of European females and the emigration of diasporan Maghrebi folks from southern Europe.
Pray tell why? Why do we need such a theory? Again look at the map.
Do you realize that the distance across the Channel which separates Britain from the continent is twice as wide? Hell, the distance of the Balearic Islands, Corisca, Sardinia, Crete, and Ireland is greater from the mainland then Morocco. Did I mention the Canary islands?? Here is another map for perspective.
No one has any problems believing that Europeans were able to settle in these relatively distant islands in the Paleolithic. But for folks to cross the tiny strait of Gibraltar before historic times, God forbid!
You might not be aware but its not just Afrocentrics who dislke the idea. I know that many Eurocentircs do not like the idea of Europeans having anything to do with Africa. Often when studies of megalithic culture are discussed they will completely leave out North African examples. Not only are megaliths found in North Africa but examples of the Bell beaker culture as well. Sometimes they even exclude Iberia which is proven to have the oldest megaliths and to be the actual origin of the culture and focus on northern France, Britain and Ireland instead. The French are very much like this. As they have colonized much of North Africa, and have come to look down on North Africans as second rate citizens they would scoff at the notion they could possibly have anything in common with them, especially not genetically. I have seen this first hand.
They will go so far as to have you believe that the Moors never set foot in their land when in fact the Moors have had much more of a presence in France than most people are aware of. Anyway I was suprised at this French study on Taforalt.
The Romans or Greeks wouldn't have made much genetic headway beyond the small administrative centers where they were stationed, and it shows. European male genetic imprint in the Maghrebi is essentially minuscule or negligible.
What would we be looking for? Many Greeks would have been E carriers, I don't know about Romans.
I notice that you use "Eurasians" interchangeably with "Europeans". The phoenicians, who preceded the Romans and Greeks, were also in the Maghreb. Surely they too must have exchanged some genes with Maghrebi folks, no?
Of course.
So, why do you always translate "light-skin" in the Maghreb as an impossible prospect before the historic European slave trade and the return of Andalusian Moorish communities in that region?
Let me clarify then. I'm not arguing that light skin comes soley from Europeans. My argument is that North Africans have tended be lighter skinned for the longest time. I know another poster who focuses soley on migrations from the Near East 20,000 years ago as having ben most important in altering the the tropical phenotype. I am focusing on the European input since we're talking about the Rif and people with light hair and eyes etc. If you really believed that a substantial amount of North Africans were light skinned because of the Phoenicians or other Middle Easterners then you should you clarify. I would have thought that you believed that most North Africans were dark skinned until about 100 years ago. Lol.
A load of manure. The "prehistoric" Maghrebi remains span a time frame as far back whence anatomically modern humans had not even set foot in the Levant. How's that for a reality check?
Yes and from certian periods within that timeframe we have found folks like the Tenerians
Furthermore, the Maghrebi specimens from the EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene, which I assume are the ones you were alluding to, display diverse patterns. They are not synonymous with any specific contemporary "sub-Saharan" population any more than they are to contemporary Europeans.
I have read that the sub saharan type is quite old and that the Sub Saharan types that were contemporaneous with many of the Maghrebi specimens in question were not so disimilar with sub saharans today. But the key point is that the Maghrebians were usually fairly distinguishable from the folks further south, and that a general phenotypical distinction between sub Saharans and Maghrebi goes back even to prehistoric times.
I'd given you my answer to it in our very first exchange under your current pseudonym, but you never did anything about it. The question is, do you have anything in way of a rebuttal to my response to Kefi & co.; do you have the guts to?
I don't know why you would've. I never mentioned Taforalt until now. I agree with your study that Kefi trying to imply that his group were totally untouched geneticaly by Sub Sharans or local African types is questionable. I see it throws into question some of the methodologies used, as well as his interpretations leading him to assign certian individuals to certian haplogroups. It does not however prove without a doubt that he is in fact wrong about everything. The article concludes that the arrival of Europeans is not so unlikely but that their remaining untouched by local populations is to be questioned.
Aside from the last point which I'm not really concerned with, I stress that with the close proximity of Iberia to Morocco, as I have already pointed out, especially with regard to Taforalt, there is no compelling reason to disbeleive that Europeans would have crossed over and settled in this area.
No, that doesn't correspond to the LGM; the LGM winds down at about this time. Moreover, that is the estimated age for the specimens under contention.
Yes but when did the ancesors of these people arrive there?
I simply hear you being silly and making a jackass out of yourself for no apparent reason.
Better check your life boats.
Would you be able to swim this body of water and cross to the other shoreline, unaided by a transport equipment?
I probably wouldn't but many athletic swimmers do in preparation for greater feats.
I'd ask you to give me the mathematical figures of the depth of the Mediterranean sea in an earlier discussion, and to specify which time frame corresponds with which depth, but you chickened out.
Don't recall YOU doing that. You wouldn't happen to have a sock puppet or two on this forum would you? I'm beginning to wonder.
Anyway it wouldn't matter much. We know that folks could and have crossed over in prehistoric times.
People don't just move across large water bodies to the next land for the fun of it. Something has to trigger these events; what were they, and what corroborating evidence supports these explanations? Also, when specifically did these so-called movements take place
That is a rather specious question if you really hope to disprove anything by it. There can be a myriad of reasons anything from escaping invasion to looking for new food sources etc..to just plain curiosty. You know you can see the Rif mountians from the other side. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
East Africans and west Africans share common ancestries; how then can western Africans be any more divergent from Europeans than east Africans?
We all share common ancestries but many East Africans have a unique look.
Somalian
Ghanian.
See what we mean?
Men like the Somali mixed with light skinned U6 females before they reached the Maghreb and found Europeans.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic