posted
LOL! Some Europeans are such pathological liars it is ridiculous, claiming features and traits as "unique" to or originating in Europe when you see it all over the planet in indigenous populations. But even though your eyeballs see otherwise, you still follow the nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Problem is majority of the people who go around trying to say "Straight" hair in Africans is due to admixture with cold adapted leukoderms are ignorant racialists parroting tired arguments from the 20th century. As I said before the Europeans who actually studied Anthropology and Genetics/Biology know the deal. Like I said before if these people had any evidence to back up their claims they would have posted it. But the don't, so anything they say can eaisly be dismissed.
On the other hand, we have Africans and Tropical Asians(The Original AMHs) with both Straight, Curly and Kinky type hair in many places where there is not any significant admixture with Leukoderms. Further Straight and Curly(Non Kinky) hair is most prevelent in the place where AMH left Africa and has little significant Eurasian admixture.
We don't have to prove anything, as our case is already made. Go to South East Asia, and Indo China and you will see the same diversity of Features and Hair types as seen in Africa. This is backed up by Genetics, Biology, Archeology and Anthropology that Africans and Asians are the most diverse of AMHs. I mean how does it make sense that Straight hair evolved for Cold Climate and is passed onto Tropical people by admixture yet you have Jet black Tropical people with straight hair..lol. How does that work...??
On the flip side its been over 100 yrs and still no evidence that Straight hair came about with Leukoderms.
Too bad so sad.
Ill believe educated Biologists like Keita and my Anthro professor over Crack pot nobodies over the internet who post and spam DNA results without reading a single sentence from the actual study...Yeah Im REAAAAL sure you are qualified to discuss human evolution..lol.
The problem with this argument is that the people making the claim that red and straight hair originates with whites are biologists and anthropologists who make ambiguous claims like hair color is associated with pale skin. They then go on to claim that it was the adaption to colder environments that was responsible for the development of such traits. However, the problem is that they allow those who don't understand biology and human genetics to extrapolate that this means such things as certain hair colors originate with Northwest Europeans, which is blatantly false. And that is the reason why so many can therefore claim that red hair, blonde hair and other hair or eye colors is a trait of European origin when it isn't. The fact is that from a biological and genetics point of view, those traits for hair color have been present since the origin of humans in Africa and the genes for such traits were present in the very first populations of humans. Most hair color is in reality a very dark shade of brown and varies in color due to genetic drift and natural selection. Therefore you will find these traits present in a wide variety of populations and they are not all pale skinned. You will find many colors of hair among indigenous mainland Asian populations (who are far more numerous than Europeans). And where do they get their hair colors from? Of course they get them from their aboriginal forebears, who also carried such traits and who can still be seen in various parts of Asia with such traits. Hence, the idea that these traits of hair color originate in the adaptation of humans to the colder environments of Europe is pure nonsense.
However, it is true that the environments of Europe have played a role in terms of natural selection and genetic drift for a higher occurrence of various hair colors among the populations there. That is absolutely correct. But that does not mean that the genes for such traits or the traits themselves originated among populations who adapted to the cold environments of Europe.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Moors, you are home, it is the European who is 3000 miles from home and he is going to have to take some water." ~ Prophet Noble Drew Ali (PBUH) Posts: 6 | From: Georgia | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Moors, you are home, it is the European who is 3000 miles from home and he is going to have to take some water." ~ Prophet Noble Drew Ali (PBUH) Posts: 6 | From: Georgia | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as I thought nobody has come upon information about a Berber tribes, being fair in color before the 16th century. Maybe I should push this back to the 17th and see what happens.
BTW - I don't consider most members of tribes like the Antassar, Lamtuna modern Aulamidden and other Tuareg groups that were called abyad or Biyad in the Arabic texts white or even "fair".
posted
The mountains of Abyssinia are very cold Tukuler. But, one doesnt'see that the people look much different there than the rest of the Africans. On the other hand, Djurjura, where my ex- husband a Kabyle from is the home of the ancient Roman settlers in North Algeria , as well as many Syrians and other people later. Naturally the older Berber people there before Amazigh nationalism claimed other origins including as my husband's grandfather apparently used to say from Sicily. So you are right on track with the idea of mixture, not due to cold though.
Tagelmoust - of Niger
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually the last part about the hair is not true since we know blacks not only in India and Southwest Asia but even in Africa can have hair that is not kinky at all but loose and wavy as discussed here.
I tend to go with the idea that blacks in India and Africa are straight have straight hair when they are mixed with Eurasians or Asian populations. It is obvious that aboriginal Australians have mixed with Dravidians and the once extremely black Dravidians have absorbed with Iranic or other Asian peoples. That is why some have kinky hair and others have wavy hair. That is why some Amhara or Somali or Tuareg have kinky hair while others have wavy or curly hair. This may have come as early as the neolithic in some regions but I doubt that it was originally a tropical trait of black Africans.
If you look at how black some of the Somali and Dravidians which is black as ink (and I am not exagerrating)you can see why they could have remained dark brownish or near black and still have wavy or curly hair. The same goes for the Beja.
In my view most Indians are a fixed type that is neither fully black nor European (Iranic) or Asian due to their very ancient intermixture that stems back to the neolithic.
Aboriginal Indians and Australians arrived in that part of the world before there was a white person on the planet. Simply put they represent branches of the original black African root and the variability that comes with it. The pacific and South Asia are the areas of greatest phenotypic diversity in Asia and these are the areas where black skin has remained the longest. This indicates both that tropically adapted people have been in Asia the longest and that the diversity in Asia grew out of such populations. Hence you have blonde haired people in the Pacific who have 0 mixture from anywhere else. That has absolutely nothing to do with Eurasian whites. The first straight haired person on earth was an aboriginal black person.
quote: Understanding the genetic history of Laos
The rapid initial colonization of Southeast Asia at some time after 60 kYBP along the "Southern Coastal Route" was followed by an expansion in situ (while other groups moved on), a dispersal into the continent and onto the islands, and the subsequent differentiation of ethnic groups with common origin but diverging lineages (most of which arose during the last stadial of the Würm glacial, 30-10 kYBP, probably in different refugia) [3,7,26,37,38]. We confirmed this in our analyses: the novel basal M haplogroups found in high diversity in the Laos sample and surrounding populations support the fast migration and in situ differentiation model (see Figure 3). Despite of little evolutionary time, the linguistically separated groups also clearly differed genetically (see Figure 4).
The original genetic structure of MSEA with distinct areas inhabited by the main ethnic groups - the Daic in the coastal areas of the Southeast, the Austro-Asiatic in Western and central MSEA, the Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burmans and Han) in the North and the Hmong-Mien in today's central China - has been blurred by massive migrations [3,7]. In the past 2600 years, the Tibeto-Burmans moved from the Northwest and the Himalayan area to the South, absorbing indigenous lineages [4]. In the past 2000 years, several waves of Han expansions to the West and South caused massive displacements of indigenous minorities [3,4,6,7]. The Daic were forced southward by the expanding Han in a fanning spread and are now mainly found west of Hong Kong. In today's Laos, they formed small city states in the North from the late 11th century AD and later moved to the central and Southern plains, thereby repelling the Austro-Asiatic population to the highlands or assimilating them. Today, the Daic "lowlander" living in the plains and along the rivers constitute the major proportion (60-65%) of the Laos population. They are dominant in language, culture, media and politics [1-3,6,10,39]. The Hmong-Mien are the newest arrival: they were continuously forced to the Southwestern areas already settled by Austro-Asiatic and Southern Tibeto-Burmans. They immigrated to the hilly North of Laos only in the past several hundred years and today exhibit a pattern of refuge ("highlander"), rather than a positive expansion
Note the red hair among these children, which is often found in aboriginal populations across South Asia and the pacific. Again, nothing to do with ancient Eurasian white admixture.
People need to understand that ancient aboriginal populations were extremely diverse and bursting with variation in physical traits (but generally still dark). Later populations are much less diverse than those ancient aboriginal groups. Most traits in white Eurasian populations first originated among aboriginal blacks.
Aborignal populations of North Africa would also fit into this same pattern. Some call them "intermediate" but in reality many of them would have looked similar to aboriginal South Asians with straighter hair and other features often found in Europe. But since Northern Africa has had a very harsh environment for the last few thousand years, the settled populations there were very small and easily overrun or absorbed by later migrants. It is for this reason that many European researchers and many Eurocentrics on this thread focus on the extreme coasts of North Africa as those areas have been the most susceptible to foreign migrations. But that geographic area is not even 1/10th of North Africa, so using those populations as typical is a contradiction in terms, as they are "outliers" among the North African population expanse. But for the purposes of Europeans claiming that these Eurasian whites are ancient and aboriginal to North Africa, they become the target of most research. Evan as 1) these areas are the ones featuring most migration and influence over the last 3000 years. 2) These areas are a small percentage of North Africa proper and 3) Most populations in Northern Africa are semi nomadic because of the environment and therefore have been moving around.
Not only that, but these same European researchers often apply the label "Berber" to any ancient remains and artifacts they find in these same areas, even though the term is one of language not physical anthropology. Labeling a set of remains as "Berber" in order to assign the Berber languages to those populations historically most subject to Eurasian migration. Again, most of this is done to present a false positive data set implying that Berber language and identity is exclusively the product of Eurasian migrations to North Africa, when it is not. Speaking of "Berber" remains in North Africa over 5,000 years ago is pure nonsense as that is the upper range suggested for the existence of such languages.
Good example of what I mean in Tunisia:
But this could be found across North Africa. Libya is another example of tall dark African "mediterranean" type.
And just to show that Europeans know more about this than you think, look at the way Sidney Poitier was done up with Straight Hair for the movie "The Long Ships".
There are probably very few aboriginal peoples left in India aside from those who mixed with the Aryan and other incomers. I consider the Jarawa peoples close to pure aboriginal although I do think some of the earliest people in India may have had straight hair. Many of the adivasis have still kinky hair though. The North African boy above looks like a Gnawa whose been mixed with some non-African type. It just shows what's been happening in India over the past centuries or milleniums. Eve some Siddis have straight hair. There are plenty of near white Gnawas for that matter.
Any black family that comes from a lot of mulattos knows how easy it is to come out very dark with straight hair and even blond and red hair so their is no guarantee a lot of adavisis didn't get the color of their hair recently. India is a very old country whose people have been absorbing Iranic types for thousands of years.
Straight hair is a biological adaptation and random mutation that first occurred among the early humans in Africa and then among the early OOA Africans in South Asia and elsewhere. This has absolutely nothing to do with admixture. The Adivasi are aboriginal Indians and closely related to the Aboriganal peoples of Australia who also have straight hair and blondism. They simply represent one subset to evolve straight hair among the OOA migrants in South Asia, whereas others maintained curly hair like the Papuans and Negritoes. However, other aboriginal populations in South Asia also had straight hair and were also black. For example the original Samoans and Maori also were black with straight hair. It is simply part of the natural diversity of OOA and Aboriginal populations in South Asia, the Pacific and Australia. And yes similar features also developed in Africa like the Nile Valley and parts of North Africa as well. Many Fulani are often noted as having staighter hair and they are not mixed with anyone.
And the theory of mixture causing Indian populations to have straight hair also makes no sense because there are very few Indians with curly hair, but a great many jet black Indians with straight hair. In order for this to be the result of mixture, then other traits would also have had to been passed down as well, most notably light skin, but that is not present amongst the majority of Indians and definitely not the Aboriginal Indians to support such a theory of Admixture.
There are plenty of adivasis or tribals in india with kinky hair Doug. How do these photos change the fact that most of the population of black India has aborbed Iranic blood over the last 6000 years. There are plenty of straight haired people some with orangey hair in the Sahara and Somalia as well as now South America. Are you going saying that those are all originally straight haired people?!
Perfect example of what I'm talking about the common and recent admixture. This guy of probable Soninke and white (slave?) origin like so many of the Zawagha/Zaghawa originated inhabitants of Tunisian and other Saharan oases.
The idea of a straight haired Eurafrican "Mediterranean" with black skin i.e. "the hamite" - is a silly racist lie to explain how Egypt and other African civilizations were created by darkened originally white Africans! Then of course these blackened Africans were said to have gradually acquired the kinkier hair due to "Negro" admixture.
Furthermore - your so-called "aboriginal" indians are from the same place other black populations with similar cultures were from in the Near East and Africa. Some arrived in the Indian peninsula during the mesolithic, some during neolithic, others came as late as the Bronze Age. A very few probably are of paleolithic derivation and the latter were probably straight-haired - but not necessarily ancestral to the people you posted.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually the last part about the hair is not true since we know blacks not only in India and Southwest Asia but even in Africa can have hair that is not kinky at all but loose and wavy as discussed here.
I tend to go with the idea that blacks in India and Africa are straight have straight hair when they are mixed with Eurasians or Asian populations. It is obvious that aboriginal Australians have mixed with Dravidians and the once extremely black Dravidians have absorbed with Iranic or other Asian peoples. That is why some have kinky hair and others have wavy hair. That is why some Amhara or Somali or Tuareg have kinky hair while others have wavy or curly hair. This may have come as early as the neolithic in some regions but I doubt that it was originally a tropical trait of black Africans.
If you look at how black some of the Somali and Dravidians which is black as ink (and I am not exagerrating)you can see why they could have remained dark brownish or near black and still have wavy or curly hair. The same goes for the Beja.
In my view most Indians are a fixed type that is neither fully black nor European (Iranic) or Asian due to their very ancient intermixture that stems back to the neolithic.
Aboriginal Indians and Australians arrived in that part of the world before there was a white person on the planet. Simply put they represent branches of the original black African root and the variability that comes with it. The pacific and South Asia are the areas of greatest phenotypic diversity in Asia and these are the areas where black skin has remained the longest. This indicates both that tropically adapted people have been in Asia the longest and that the diversity in Asia grew out of such populations. Hence you have blonde haired people in the Pacific who have 0 mixture from anywhere else. That has absolutely nothing to do with Eurasian whites. The first straight haired person on earth was an aboriginal black person.
quote: Understanding the genetic history of Laos
The rapid initial colonization of Southeast Asia at some time after 60 kYBP along the "Southern Coastal Route" was followed by an expansion in situ (while other groups moved on), a dispersal into the continent and onto the islands, and the subsequent differentiation of ethnic groups with common origin but diverging lineages (most of which arose during the last stadial of the Würm glacial, 30-10 kYBP, probably in different refugia) [3,7,26,37,38]. We confirmed this in our analyses: the novel basal M haplogroups found in high diversity in the Laos sample and surrounding populations support the fast migration and in situ differentiation model (see Figure 3). Despite of little evolutionary time, the linguistically separated groups also clearly differed genetically (see Figure 4).
The original genetic structure of MSEA with distinct areas inhabited by the main ethnic groups - the Daic in the coastal areas of the Southeast, the Austro-Asiatic in Western and central MSEA, the Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burmans and Han) in the North and the Hmong-Mien in today's central China - has been blurred by massive migrations [3,7]. In the past 2600 years, the Tibeto-Burmans moved from the Northwest and the Himalayan area to the South, absorbing indigenous lineages [4]. In the past 2000 years, several waves of Han expansions to the West and South caused massive displacements of indigenous minorities [3,4,6,7]. The Daic were forced southward by the expanding Han in a fanning spread and are now mainly found west of Hong Kong. In today's Laos, they formed small city states in the North from the late 11th century AD and later moved to the central and Southern plains, thereby repelling the Austro-Asiatic population to the highlands or assimilating them. Today, the Daic "lowlander" living in the plains and along the rivers constitute the major proportion (60-65%) of the Laos population. They are dominant in language, culture, media and politics [1-3,6,10,39]. The Hmong-Mien are the newest arrival: they were continuously forced to the Southwestern areas already settled by Austro-Asiatic and Southern Tibeto-Burmans. They immigrated to the hilly North of Laos only in the past several hundred years and today exhibit a pattern of refuge ("highlander"), rather than a positive expansion
Note the red hair among these children, which is often found in aboriginal populations across South Asia and the pacific. Again, nothing to do with ancient Eurasian white admixture.
People need to understand that ancient aboriginal populations were extremely diverse and bursting with variation in physical traits (but generally still dark). Later populations are much less diverse than those ancient aboriginal groups. Most traits in white Eurasian populations first originated among aboriginal blacks.
Aborignal populations of North Africa would also fit into this same pattern. Some call them "intermediate" but in reality many of them would have looked similar to aboriginal South Asians with straighter hair and other features often found in Europe. But since Northern Africa has had a very harsh environment for the last few thousand years, the settled populations there were very small and easily overrun or absorbed by later migrants. It is for this reason that many European researchers and many Eurocentrics on this thread focus on the extreme coasts of North Africa as those areas have been the most susceptible to foreign migrations. But that geographic area is not even 1/10th of North Africa, so using those populations as typical is a contradiction in terms, as they are "outliers" among the North African population expanse. But for the purposes of Europeans claiming that these Eurasian whites are ancient and aboriginal to North Africa, they become the target of most research. Evan as 1) these areas are the ones featuring most migration and influence over the last 3000 years. 2) These areas are a small percentage of North Africa proper and 3) Most populations in Northern Africa are semi nomadic because of the environment and therefore have been moving around.
Not only that, but these same European researchers often apply the label "Berber" to any ancient remains and artifacts they find in these same areas, even though the term is one of language not physical anthropology. Labeling a set of remains as "Berber" in order to assign the Berber languages to those populations historically most subject to Eurasian migration. Again, most of this is done to present a false positive data set implying that Berber language and identity is exclusively the product of Eurasian migrations to North Africa, when it is not. Speaking of "Berber" remains in North Africa over 5,000 years ago is pure nonsense as that is the upper range suggested for the existence of such languages.
Good example of what I mean in Tunisia:
But this could be found across North Africa. Libya is another example of tall dark African "mediterranean" type.
And just to show that Europeans know more about this than you think, look at the way Sidney Poitier was done up with Straight Hair for the movie "The Long Ships".
There are probably very few aboriginal peoples left in India aside from those who mixed with the Aryan and other incomers. I consider the Jarawa peoples close to pure aboriginal although I do think some of the earliest people in India may have had straight hair. Many of the adivasis have still kinky hair though. The North African boy above looks like a Gnawa whose been mixed with some non-African type. It just shows what's been happening in India over the past centuries or milleniums. Eve some Siddis have straight hair. There are plenty of near white Gnawas for that matter.
Any black family that comes from a lot of mulattos knows how easy it is to come out very dark with straight hair and even blond and red hair so their is no guarantee a lot of adavisis didn't get the color of their hair recently. India is a very old country whose people have been absorbing Iranic types for thousands of years.
Straight hair is a biological adaptation and random mutation that first occurred among the early humans in Africa and then among the early OOA Africans in South Asia and elsewhere. This has absolutely nothing to do with admixture. The Adivasi are aboriginal Indians and closely related to the Aboriganal peoples of Australia who also have straight hair and blondism. They simply represent one subset to evolve straight hair among the OOA migrants in South Asia, whereas others maintained curly hair like the Papuans and Negritoes. However, other aboriginal populations in South Asia also had straight hair and were also black. For example the original Samoans and Maori also were black with straight hair. It is simply part of the natural diversity of OOA and Aboriginal populations in South Asia, the Pacific and Australia. And yes similar features also developed in Africa like the Nile Valley and parts of North Africa as well. Many Fulani are often noted as having staighter hair and they are not mixed with anyone.
And the theory of mixture causing Indian populations to have straight hair also makes no sense because there are very few Indians with curly hair, but a great many jet black Indians with straight hair. In order for this to be the result of mixture, then other traits would also have had to been passed down as well, most notably light skin, but that is not present amongst the majority of Indians and definitely not the Aboriginal Indians to support such a theory of Admixture.
There are plenty of adivasis or tribals in india with kinky hair Doug. How do these photos change the fact that most of the population of black India has aborbed Iranic blood over the last 6000 years. There are plenty of straight haired people some with orangey hair in the Sahara and Somalia as well as now South America. Are you going saying that those are all originally straight haired people?!
Perfect example of what I'm talking about the common and recent admixture. This guy of probable Soninke and white (slave?) origin like so many of the Zawagha/Zaghawa originated inhabitants of Tunisian and other Saharan oases.
The idea of a straight haired Eurafrican "Mediterranean" with black skin i.e. "the hamite" - is a silly racist lie to explain how Egypt and other African civilizations were created by darkened originally white Africans! Then of course these blackened Africans were said to have gradually acquired the kinkier hair due to "Negro" admixture.
Furthermore - your so-called "aboriginal" indians are from the same place other black populations with similar cultures were from in the Near East and Africa. Some arrived in the Indian peninsula during the mesolithic, some during neolithic, others came as late as the Bronze Age. A very few probably are of paleolithic derivation and the latter were probably straight-haired - but not necessarily ancestral to the people you posted.
Sorry Dana, I don't buy the nonsense that straight hair in India or anywhere else came from white people. There are black aboriginal people all over Asia including Australia that have been there since before there was a white person on the planet. Therefore, straight hair in a place like India, which is present in the vast majority of the population, including those who are coal black, cannot be because of mixing with Iranians. The black Iranians even from the ancient depictions in Persia had straight hair because they too are part of the ancient IndoIranian stock which was black as well. So yes, there are some black Aboriginal populations in Asia with curly hair but there are many more with straight hair.
Straight hair does not originate with white people.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perfect example of what I mean are the Tamils. Now these are people from the very southern tip of India. You mean to tell me that the Persians who number far fewer than the total population of India, even in ancient times somehow came in and magically mixed with a continent 20 times its size in population and gave them all straight hair? Please. That is nonsense. Population statistics for India and Iran: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iranian+population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl &scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRN:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en The mixed people of Indo Iranian stock are mostly lighter skinned people and represent a segment of Indian society. They keep to their own. You see them most often in Bollywood movies. But most of their features come from the aboriginal blacks of South Asia. Which makes more sense: Iranians went and screwed everyone on the whole continent of India and turned coal black people with curly hair to coal black people with straight hair or the gene for straight hair was already dominant among the aboriginal populations of India from day one? I think the latter as I said the Aboriginals of India are shown to be closely related to those of Australia and we all know those in Australia also have straighter hair. All of these are Tamils, except one. But even that one blends with the rest perfectly.
Even the ancient statues of the Indus valley show black folks with straight hair.
quote: The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.
Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.
They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern latitudes.
The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.
This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the origin of East Asian populations Shuhua Xu Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in common genetically.
But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration occurred.
Diversity explained
Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member of the consortium.
He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on genetic diversity than the population size.
"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first - making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he said.
"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.
posted
All over Asia and the pacific you got populations of ancient aboriginal blacks with straight hair along with those who have curly hair. It isn't due to mixing.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The Problem is majority of the people who go around trying to say "Straight" hair in Africans is due to admixture with cold adapted leukoderms are ignorant racialists parroting tired arguments from the 20th century. As I said before the Europeans who actually studied Anthropology and Genetics/Biology know the deal. Like I said before if these people had any evidence to back up their claims they would have posted it. But the don't, so anything they say can eaisly be dismissed.
On the other hand, we have Africans and Tropical Asians(The Original AMHs) with both Straight, Curly and Kinky type hair in many places where there is not any significant admixture with Leukoderms. Further Straight and Curly(Non Kinky) hair is most prevelent in the place where AMH left Africa and has little significant Eurasian admixture.
We don't have to prove anything, as our case is already made. Go to South East Asia, and Indo China and you will see the same diversity of Features and Hair types as seen in Africa. This is backed up by Genetics, Biology, Archeology and Anthropology that Africans and Asians are the most diverse of AMHs. I mean how does it make sense that Straight hair evolved for Cold Climate and is passed onto Tropical people by admixture yet you have Jet black Tropical people with straight hair..lol. How does that work...??
On the flip side its been over 100 yrs and still no evidence that Straight hair came about with Leukoderms.
Too bad so sad.
Ill believe educated Biologists like Keita and my Anthro professor over Crack pot nobodies over the internet who post and spam DNA results without reading a single sentence from the actual study...Yeah Im REAAAAL sure you are qualified to discuss human evolution..lol.
The problem with this argument is that the people making the claim that red and straight hair originates with whites are biologists and anthropologists who make ambiguous claims like hair color is associated with pale skin. They then go on to claim that it was the adaption to colder environments that was responsible for the development of such traits. However, the problem is that they allow those who don't understand biology and human genetics to extrapolate that this means such things as certain hair colors originate with Northwest Europeans, which is blatantly false. And that is the reason why so many can therefore claim that red hair, blonde hair and other hair or eye colors is a trait of European origin when it isn't. The fact is that from a biological and genetics point of view, those traits for hair color have been present since the origin of humans in Africa and the genes for such traits were present in the very first populations of humans. Most hair color is in reality a very dark shade of brown and varies in color due to genetic drift and natural selection. Therefore you will find these traits present in a wide variety of populations and they are not all pale skinned. You will find many colors of hair among indigenous mainland Asian populations (who are far more numerous than Europeans). And where do they get their hair colors from? Of course they get them from their aboriginal forebears, who also carried such traits and who can still be seen in various parts of Asia with such traits. Hence, the idea that these traits of hair color originate in the adaptation of humans to the colder environments of Europe is pure nonsense.
However, it is true that the environments of Europe have played a role in terms of natural selection and genetic drift for a higher occurrence of various hair colors among the populations there. That is absolutely correct. But that does not mean that the genes for such traits or the traits themselves originated among populations who adapted to the cold environments of Europe.
Cosign,
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: All over Asia and the pacific you got populations of ancient aboriginal blacks with straight hair along with those who have curly hair. It isn't due to mixing.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Perfect example of what I mean are the Tamils. Now these are people from the very southern tip of India. You mean to tell me that the Persians who number far fewer than the total population of India, even in ancient times somehow came in and magically mixed with a continent 20 times its size in population and gave them all straight hair? Please. That is nonsense. Population statistics for India and Iran: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iranian+population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl &scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRN:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en The mixed people of Indo Iranian stock are mostly lighter skinned people and represent a segment of Indian society. They keep to their own. You see them most often in Bollywood movies. But most of their features come from the aboriginal blacks of South Asia. Which makes more sense: Iranians went and screwed everyone on the whole continent of India and turned coal black people with curly hair to coal black people with straight hair or the gene for straight hair was already dominant among the aboriginal populations of India from day one? I think the latter as I said the Aboriginals of India are shown to be closely related to those of Australia and we all know those in Australia also have straighter hair. All of these are Tamils, except one. But even that one blends with the rest perfectly.
Even the ancient statues of the Indus valley show black folks with straight hair.
quote: The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.
Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.
They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern latitudes.
The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.
This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the origin of East Asian populations Shuhua Xu Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in common genetically.
But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration occurred.
Diversity explained
Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member of the consortium.
He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on genetic diversity than the population size.
"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first - making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he said.
"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.
Unfortunately because of my knowledge of the physical anthropology of the Indian peninsula including my knowledge of the fact that some very tropical people mixed with Iranic peoples for thousands of years Doug, I will not be able to accept your premise, that some Dravidians are straight haired due to their ancient black tropical ancestors.
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either. I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to prove some black straight haired Mediterranean race existed that brought straight hair to North Africa 5000 years ago.
The skeletal evidence shows that diverse populations have occupied India and southwest Asia at various periods since the palaeloithic including several black types osteologically and culturally comprable to populations occupying Arabia, Mesopotamia and northern Africa.
Please is right?! NONSENSE? STOP PROJECTING! Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
("aboriginal black" in the sense being used means any person with dark skin who first settled an area rather than necessarily of African descent)
Above are Marshal Islands people. The prehistory of the islands of central and eastern Micronesia is not well known. Human occupation of these islands dates back at least 2000 years but the pottery found thus far gives little clue as to the ultimate ancestry of these populations. Polynesian languages are closely related to each other and belong to the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family (PAWLEY and ROSS 1993 ). The Oceanic subgrouping also includes the nuclear Micronesian languages of central-eastern Micronesia and the Austronesian languages spoken throughout Island Melanesia and the eastern half of coastal Papua New Guinea.Micronesia has had an independent source of HLA genes, probably from the Phillipines, as indicated by the high frequency of HLA-Bw35 which is absent from Melanesian and Polynesian groups. HLA-B13, B18 and B27 are found throughout Melanesia. To whom are these diverse Melanesian populations most closely related outside this region (East or South Asians, or perhaps even Africans, whom they physically resemble)?he combined microsatellite datasets indicate that Melanesians are quite far removed from Africans, in spite of their superficial similarities in hair form and skin pigmentation. Outside the Pacific, East Asian populations are apparently the closest (but still very distant) relatives of Melanesians. Africans and Europeans are the most distant. There is a weak “Austronesian” genetic signature in only a portion of Oceanic-speaking populations in Melanesia, and none at all in Papuan-speaking groups (contradicting the results of mtDNA, but in accord with the NRY results).
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either.
what is your evidence that excluding late dynasties a fair amount of ancient Egyptians did not have straight hair?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: IMG]http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2114/2461128614_c51d02cd7b_b.jpg[/IMG]
quote: The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.
Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.
They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern latitudes.
The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.
This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the origin of East Asian populations Shuhua Xu Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in common genetically.
But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration occurred.
Diversity explained
Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member of the consortium.
He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on genetic diversity than the population size.
"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first - making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he said.
"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.
I could post many pictures from the same area of dark skinned Asians with kinky hair but what would that prove.
The Kunlun (Kolonitae) ancient well described black kinky haired people of southeast Asia and southern China.
Southwest Asia bordering and well into China was inhabited as late as the 11th century by tons of indigenous black non-lank haired people. who are you to come around and say some of those people are not the ancestors of these people you posted.
Your proposition is ridiculous to someone familiar or knowledgeable with the history, archeology and PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY of the region - that isn't a racist.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either.
what is your evidence that excluding late dynasties a fair amount of ancient Egyptians did not have straight hair?
What is your evidence that ancient old and intermediate kingdom Egyptians who were apparently of GREAT LAKES AFRICAN ANCESTRY had straight hair, LYING _SS?lol. Mathilda webite 101?
Think carefully now. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Herodotus meant when he said the eastern Ethiopians with lank hair far to the south WERE IDENTICAL in culture to the great statured Ethiopians of the west in Africa?
Doug maybe you can answer that for me since you brought up the ancient Indus and their straight haired Ethiopians.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Perfect example of what I mean are the Tamils. Now these are people from the very southern tip of India. You mean to tell me that the Persians who number far fewer than the total population of India, even in ancient times somehow came in and magically mixed with a continent 20 times its size in population and gave them all straight hair? Please. That is nonsense. Population statistics for India and Iran: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iranian+population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl &scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRN:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en The mixed people of Indo Iranian stock are mostly lighter skinned people and represent a segment of Indian society. They keep to their own. You see them most often in Bollywood movies. But most of their features come from the aboriginal blacks of South Asia. Which makes more sense: Iranians went and screwed everyone on the whole continent of India and turned coal black people with curly hair to coal black people with straight hair or the gene for straight hair was already dominant among the aboriginal populations of India from day one? I think the latter as I said the Aboriginals of India are shown to be closely related to those of Australia and we all know those in Australia also have straighter hair. All of these are Tamils, except one. But even that one blends with the rest perfectly.
Even the ancient statues of the Indus valley show black folks with straight hair.
quote: The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.
Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.
They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern latitudes.
The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.
This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the origin of East Asian populations Shuhua Xu Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in common genetically.
But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration occurred.
Diversity explained
Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member of the consortium.
He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on genetic diversity than the population size.
"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first - making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he said.
"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.
Unfortunately because of my knowledge of the physical anthropology of the Indian peninsula including my knowledge of the fact that some very tropical people mixed with Iranic peoples for thousands of years Doug, I will not be able to accept your premise, that some Dravidians are straight haired due to their ancient black tropical ancestors.
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either. I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to prove some black straight haired Mediterranean race existed that brought straight hair to North Africa 5000 years ago.
The skeletal evidence shows that diverse populations have occupied India and southwest Asia at various periods since the palaeloithic including several black types osteologically and culturally comprable to populations occupying Arabia, Mesopotamia and northern Africa.
Please is right?! NONSENSE? STOP PROJECTING!
Sorry Dana like I said you don't make any sense. The current population of Iran is only about 80 million. The Population of India is almost a billion. In ancient times the ratio was similar even if the numbers not as large as today. So what you are saying is that the Iranians tore through India and had sex with almost all of the native people there so much so that they gave them straight hair and made those with curly hair a minority. Sorry but that is physically impossible and doesn't make any sense at all.
There are aboriginal black people all over Asia with straight hair, along with those with curly hair. The development of straight hair took place among black populations in Africa to some extent but also outside of Africa. It has nothing to do with white skin. All traits come from the aboriginal African stock as the black and African human has been on the earth the longest with the highest diversity on the planet. And no most Tamils do not have curly hair.
So no, it doesn't matter how many kinky head blacks there are in Asia, which there are many. What matters is how you can show that straight hair is tied to non black populations through genetics or any other physical evidence you care to identify. Now the odd part in all this is how these white people were able to impart their straight hair in a sea of black faces but not impart light skin. That in itself should tell you something.
If you can provide any said knowledge of anthropology to show how straight hair in black Indians came from non black folks I would appreciate it.
Now even though I don't trust Wikipedia, the following does reflect the various opinions on the subject:
quote: Genetic views on race differ in their classification of Dravidians. Classical anthropologists, such as Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 work The Races of Europe, argued that Ethiopia in Northeast Africa and India in South Asia represented the outermost peripheries of the Caucasoid race. In the 1960s, genetic anthropologist Stanley Marion Garn considered the entirety of the Indian subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations. The geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, based on work done in the 1980s, classified Indians as being genetically Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. More recently, other geneticists, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, demonstrated that South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians. Nevertheless, Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid and Mongoloid (concentrated in the north), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands). Dravidians are generally classified as members of the Proto-Australoid or Australoid race. In one study, southern Indian Dravidians clustered genetically with Tamils, a socially endogamous, predominantly Dravidian-speaking Australoid group.
You know what Australoid means? It means belonging to the same aboriginal population as the Australian aborigine. Now are you going to say the Australian aborigine got their straight hair from white folks?
Please. That doesn't make any sense at all and no geneticist or anthropologist even argues such a thing.
While I don't buy into "racial" categorizations, it is true that these people are all part of the same aboriginal population that spread through Asia thousands of years ago:
quote: The Australoid race is a broad racial classification. The concept originated with a typological method of racial classification. They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of Veddoids from South Asia and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of Papuan, Melanesian and Negrito groups.
According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, and India. In the mid-twentieth century an argument emerged that Australoids were linked to proto-Caucasoids.
In the out of Africa theory, the ancestors of the Australoids, the Proto-Australoids are thought to have been the first branch off from the Proto-Capoids to migrate from Africa about 60,000 BCE, migrating along the now submerged continental shelf of the northern shore of the Indian Ocean and reaching Australia about 50,000 BCE.
posted
Doug you keep using the word "black" here You might call dark skinned people like Australian Aborignees "black", some have wavy straight hair, however they are not of African ancestry. Likewise as per Asia it is silly to say that any dark skinned Asian is of African descent
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Nope. It is not.
"B2a1a originated in Central/Western Africa, while E1b1b1e is common in Eastern Africa. Thus, it poses a question about the Sahara desert’s role in population movements and exchanges."
And it's highest frequencies are in still central Africa. Observe.
"Haplogroup B2a1a (M109, M152, P32, P50) is the most commonly observed subclade of haplogroup B.
In Central Africa, haplogroup B2a1a Y-DNA has been found in 23% (7/31) of Ngumba males from southern Cameroon,[2] 18% (7/39) of Fali males from northern Cameroon,[6] 5% (1/21)[6] to 31% (4/13)[2] of Uldeme males from northern Cameroon, 10% (3/29) of Ewondo males from southern Cameroon,[6] 7% (1/15) of a mixed sample of speakers of various Chadic languages from northern Cameroon,[6] 6% (1/18) of a mixed sample of speakers of various Adamawa languages from northern Cameroon,[6] 6% (2/33) of Bakola males from southern Cameroon,[2] 4% (1/28) of Mandara males from northern Cameroon,[2] and 3% (1/31)[2] to 5% (1/20)[6] of Biaka males from Central African Republic.
In East Africa, haplogroup B2a1a Y-DNA has been found in 11% (1/9) of a small sample of Iraqw males from Tanzania,[2] 11% (1/9) of a small sample of Luo males from Kenya,[2] 8% (2/26) of Massai males from Kenya,[2] and 4.5% (4/88) of a sample of Ethiopians.[7]
In Southern Africa, haplogroup B2a1a Y-DNA has been found in 18% (5/28) of Sotho–Tswana males from South Africa,[2] 14% (4/29) of Zulu males from South Africa,[2] 13% (7/53) of an ethnically mixed sample of non-Khoisan Southern Africans,[7] 10% (5/49) of Shona males from Zimbabwe,[2] and 5% (4/80) of Xhosa males from South Africa.[2]
In North Africa, haplogroup B2a1a Y-DNA has been found in 12.5% (5/40) of Sudanese[7] and 2% (2/92) of Egyptians.[2]"
Also R-V88 has it's highest concentration in Central Africa.
The B hg is East African in Origin, and by the way South Africans, Pygmies etc. Were not involved in the slave Trade. The Study is pretty clear that the Siwi are linked Via the Nile Valley..for example the B is present in the Sudan and Egypt and East Africa.
Many believe that the Current Siwa genetics are not that of the orignal Berbers
So Im Sure you are going to give us this "Many" people in the quote you post.
"However we know that throughout history the oasis was called at by successive human groups, like pilgrims travelling to Mecca, Mediterranean tradesmen, or Sahelian slave merchants. Siwa may even have been repopulated at a certain moment in time by Libyan Berber-speakers driven from their land by Arab conquerors. Lastly, it experienced a period of decline and faced between the ninth and twelfth century AD a drastic demographic decline (Fakhry 1973). Therefore, the current gene pool of Siwa people could be related to recent migrations/founder effectsor it could be the result of the various genetic exchanges which occurred in the Past."[/i]
According to that quote the slave trade is but one possible effect on the Siwi. Despite that the Siwi still are genetically East African and Nilotic. Funny how majority of the people from that study are Meds and Arabs yet the Siwi still remain African in Phenotype, Language, and Customs.
Influences from the Middle East and East Africa are marked in Siwa, while southwestern European influences are observed in the Maghreb[i]
Yeah? Where did you demonstrate that? Lol
The Siwi Language is preserved and Historically to this day the Siwi do not marry with the Arab Families or slaves.
The Siwians themselves claim to be unchanged. I would believe a Siwan over a Google Scholar anyday.
I never mentioned Sudanese. If you are not familiar with where R-V88 is concentrated in Africa then look it up. I'll give you a clue, it ain't East Africa.
Who mentioned Sudanese?? You/I said Chad dumbass, read my quote you posted above this.
Why? Because they have no genetic afinity with other Berbers. All they have is the language and culture, which they could have been imposed or absorbed by them. The Berbers are in part the result of a migration out of the Horn of Africa by E M35 and it's dervicitve E-m81 which are believed to have carried AFRO-ASIATIC languages into North Africa. And What's this??
They have Genetic Affinity to Nile Valley and East African Populations, where Afroasiatic and Berber originated.
You keep running and avoiding this like the plague but it wont go away..
[i]The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
So now you want to imply that the Siwa were orginally Middle Eastern looking??
Where did I say that??
I mean can you go with out resorting to Red Herring and Strawman Fallacy arguments..??
Actually they look East African and Nile Valley(Whom the Link to Genetically)..
Sudanese
Ethiopian
Egyptian
Siwans
The Link and resemblence in undeniable..LOL.
My wife used to live in Egypt. She has been to Siwa before. She said of the pictures you posted, the people in siwa over all look like the first Sudani picture you posted. She said the kid on the far right in the sudani picture DOESN'T look like the normal Siwan, the rest of the kids do. She said also the last picture in this group looks representative of what you will see in Siwa. She said those light skinned girls just above the last picture in the series look more like the Bedu (Bedawins) you encounter on Sanai. She said the way they are dressed (they style of dress), their light skin, the hair style and the hena on the finger nails, looks far more like the people on Sanai than anything you are going to see in Siwa. She said those girls are not representative of a siwan. This is from her first hand account from visiting that place.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well there's no doubt your wife is correct. Although I've never been to Egypt, I have seen a lot of images online of Siwa people and light-skinned Siwa are indeed an anomaly which makes sense since all the sources I've read on the Siwa people state they are largely endogamous with very few intermarrying with outsiders. Also in those same sources there has been an influx of Arab traders into the area so no doubt the light-skinned Siwa are the result of admixture between these Arab interlopers and native Siwa.
All of this again proves Dana's and the rest of our point that fair-skinned Berbers in general are the result of outside admixture and that fair skin is NOT indigenous and as Dana pointed out is historically quite recent.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: Doug you keep using the word "black" here You might call dark skinned people like Australian Aborignees "black", some have wavy straight hair, however they are not of African ancestry. Likewise as per Asia it is silly to say that any dark skinned Asian is of African descent
Okay lying worm, but where in any of Doug's posts did he call Australian aborigines and other black Asians "African"??! Black is a reference to skin color only not ancestry! His point was to show that black peoples outside Africa do exist and have existed since humanity began to colonize outside of Africa. That does not mean these people are African no more so than fair skinned Asians and even Europeans and Doug never said otherwise, so why are you getting your panties in a bunch??
Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness: Doug you keep using the word "black" here You might call dark skinned people like Australian Aborignees "black", some have wavy straight hair, however they are not of African ancestry. Likewise as per Asia it is silly to say that any dark skinned Asian is of African descent
quote:Originally posted by Djehooptie: Black is a reference to skin color only not ancestry!
Your definition is that anybody with dark skin is black is not everybody's else definition. You believe the people below are both black people (and you assume Doug agrees) Other people might agree but many do not agree. Saying "people with dark skin" leaves no such ambiguities. If the 2 people below are blacks they have no strong genetic ties and neither do many people who have dark skin so it's saying very little biologically. And bringing up "people with dark skin" does not help to resolve issues about hair. It confuses the issue more.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Perfect example of what I mean are the Tamils. Now these are people from the very southern tip of India. You mean to tell me that the Persians who number far fewer than the total population of India, even in ancient times somehow came in and magically mixed with a continent 20 times its size in population and gave them all straight hair? Please. That is nonsense. Population statistics for India and Iran: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iranian+population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl &scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:IRN:IND&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en The mixed people of Indo Iranian stock are mostly lighter skinned people and represent a segment of Indian society. They keep to their own. You see them most often in Bollywood movies. But most of their features come from the aboriginal blacks of South Asia. Which makes more sense: Iranians went and screwed everyone on the whole continent of India and turned coal black people with curly hair to coal black people with straight hair or the gene for straight hair was already dominant among the aboriginal populations of India from day one? I think the latter as I said the Aboriginals of India are shown to be closely related to those of Australia and we all know those in Australia also have straighter hair. All of these are Tamils, except one. But even that one blends with the rest perfectly.
Even the ancient statues of the Indus valley show black folks with straight hair.
quote: The Human Genome Organisation's (HUGO) Pan-Asian SNP Consortium carried out a study of almost 2,000 people across the continent.
Their findings support the hypothesis that Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
The researchers described their findings in the journal Science.
They found genetic similarities between populations throughout Asia and an increase in genetic diversity from northern to southern latitudes.
The team screened genetic samples from 73 Asian populations for more than 50,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
These are variations in pieces of the DNA code, which can be compared to find out how closely related two individuals are genetically.
This is the first study to give a clear answer to the question on the origin of East Asian populations Shuhua Xu Chinese Academy of Sciences
The study found that, as expected, individuals who were from the same region, or who shared a common language also had a great deal in common genetically.
But it also answered a question about the origin of Asia's population. It showed that the continent was likely populated primarily through a single migration event from the south.
Previously, there has been some debate about whether Asia was populated in two waves - one to South East Asia, and a later one to central and north-east Asia, or whether only a single migration occurred.
Diversity explained
Edison Liu from the Genome Institute of Singapore was a leading member of the consortium.
He explained that the age of a population has a much bigger effect on genetic diversity than the population size.
"It seems likely from our data that they entered South East Asia first - making these populations older [and therefore more diverse]," he said.
"[It continued] later and probably more slowly to the north, with diversity being lost along the way in these 'younger' populations.
Unfortunately because of my knowledge of the physical anthropology of the Indian peninsula including my knowledge of the fact that some very tropical people mixed with Iranic peoples for thousands of years Doug, I will not be able to accept your premise, that some Dravidians are straight haired due to their ancient black tropical ancestors.
Most pure Dravidic peoples DO NOT have straight hair, Doug, and that's about the 10th time I have said it on this forum.
Ancient Egyptians and black Mediterraneans did not have lank hair either. I'm sorry that you apparently feel the need to prove some black straight haired Mediterranean race existed that brought straight hair to North Africa 5000 years ago.
The skeletal evidence shows that diverse populations have occupied India and southwest Asia at various periods since the palaeloithic including several black types osteologically and culturally comprable to populations occupying Arabia, Mesopotamia and northern Africa.
Please is right?! NONSENSE? STOP PROJECTING!
Sorry Dana like I said you don't make any sense. The current population of Iran is only about 80 million. The Population of India is almost a billion. In ancient times the ratio was similar even if the numbers not as large as today. So what you are saying is that the Iranians tore through India and had sex with almost all of the native people there so much so that they gave them straight hair and made those with curly hair a minority. Sorry but that is physically impossible and doesn't make any sense at all.
There are aboriginal black people all over Asia with straight hair, along with those with curly hair. The development of straight hair took place among black populations in Africa to some extent but also outside of Africa. It has nothing to do with white skin. All traits come from the aboriginal African stock as the black and African human has been on the earth the longest with the highest diversity on the planet. And no most Tamils do not have curly hair.
So no, it doesn't matter how many kinky head blacks there are in Asia, which there are many. What matters is how you can show that straight hair is tied to non black populations through genetics or any other physical evidence you care to identify. Now the odd part in all this is how these white people were able to impart their straight hair in a sea of black faces but not impart light skin. That in itself should tell you something.
If you can provide any said knowledge of anthropology to show how straight hair in black Indians came from non black folks I would appreciate it.
Now even though I don't trust Wikipedia, the following does reflect the various opinions on the subject:
quote: Genetic views on race differ in their classification of Dravidians. Classical anthropologists, such as Carleton S. Coon in his 1939 work The Races of Europe, argued that Ethiopia in Northeast Africa and India in South Asia represented the outermost peripheries of the Caucasoid race. In the 1960s, genetic anthropologist Stanley Marion Garn considered the entirety of the Indian subcontinent to be a "race" genetically distinct from other populations. The geneticist L.L. Cavalli-Sforza of Stanford, based on work done in the 1980s, classified Indians as being genetically Caucasian. Cavalli-Sforza found that Indians are about three times closer to West Europeans than to East Asians. More recently, other geneticists, such as Lynn B. Jorde and Stephen P. Wooding, demonstrated that South Indians are genetic intermediaries between Europeans and East Asians. Nevertheless, Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid and Mongoloid (concentrated in the north), Australoid (concentrated in the south), and Negrito (located in the Andaman Islands). Dravidians are generally classified as members of the Proto-Australoid or Australoid race. In one study, southern Indian Dravidians clustered genetically with Tamils, a socially endogamous, predominantly Dravidian-speaking Australoid group.
You know what Australoid means? It means belonging to the same aboriginal population as the Australian aborigine. Now are you going to say the Australian aborigine got their straight hair from white folks?
Please. That doesn't make any sense at all and no geneticist or anthropologist even argues such a thing.
While I don't buy into "racial" categorizations, it is true that these people are all part of the same aboriginal population that spread through Asia thousands of years ago:
quote: The Australoid race is a broad racial classification. The concept originated with a typological method of racial classification. They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of Veddoids from South Asia and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of Papuan, Melanesian and Negrito groups.
According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, and India. In the mid-twentieth century an argument emerged that Australoids were linked to proto-Caucasoids.
In the out of Africa theory, the ancestors of the Australoids, the Proto-Australoids are thought to have been the first branch off from the Proto-Capoids to migrate from Africa about 60,000 BCE, migrating along the now submerged continental shelf of the northern shore of the Indian Ocean and reaching Australia about 50,000 BCE.
Iranic or Armenoid in physical anthropolgoy referred to the physical type of southwest Asia that is white and prominent nosed - Doug it doesn't mean someone from Iran or "Persia". in case you didn't know it the latter have been mixing with black populations in Mesopotamia and India since the neolithic period where they were absorbed - a testament to how black the original Indi were.
Populations from geographical regions do tend to share genetic similarity Doug. i don't know a single region where this is not the case.What I am saying is for you tto assume that the many Dravidian and Munda speaking people that now have straight hair have always had it is obviously your opinion since there are many people of pure Dravidian descent who do not have straight hair who have not absorbed Eurasiatics as much as the town dwelling people whose women were taken advantage of over many centuries. This doesn't mean there know straight haired Austric people in Europe previously.
Your showing of Asians with brownish hair is also not a good way of proving anything since East Asians and especially northern Chinese and Europeans have been also mixing with European-type Asians with red and blond hair for milleniums.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb]Most importantly there is a growing group of Western scholars that in fact feel Dravidian speakers were originally Africans who've settled in Asia since the neolithic which is supported by certain OTHER genetic studies already posted on this forum more than once and because of the incontrovertible linguistic and cultural evidence.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the melanophobic lyinass: Your definition is that anybody with dark skin is black is not everybody's else definition. You believe the people below are both black people (and you assume Doug agrees) Other people might agree but many do not agree. Saying "people with dark skin" leaves no such ambiguities. If the 2 people below are blacks they have no strong genetic ties and neither do many people who have dark skin so it's saying very little biologically. And bringing up "people with dark skin" does not help to resolve issues about hair. It confuses the issue more.
Your entire post is nothing more than a stupid-ass strawman! Yes 'black' is a reference to dark skin, or specifically very dark skin. Your pictures are of men who have complexions of medium hue. One is a Native American and the other is a man of African descent though possibly of mixed ancestry from elsewhere.
NON of this changes the fact that these men below ARE indeed black due to their obviously very dark color...
Sorry lying worm, but the Indian men above are not called black by only myself or the guys on this forum or even Americans but even by their fellow Indians who call them kalu which doesn't mean "brown". Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
'black' is a reference to dark skin, or specifically very dark skin. Your pictures (above) are of men who have complexions of medium hue. One is a Native American and the other is a man of African descent though possibly of mixed ancestry from elsewhere.
I am shocked by your answer. You are saying neither of the people above are black because black people are dark and they are medium complexioned.
Below, similarly medium complexioned people, who according to your definition, are not black:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb]Most importantly there is a growing group of Western scholars that in fact feel Dravidian speakers were originally Africans who've settled in Asia since the neolithic which is supported by certain OTHER genetic studies already posted on this forum more than once and because of the incontrovertible linguistic and cultural evidence.
OK fine. So who first settled south India and what is their relationship to folks like the Aborigines of Australia and the pacific. What I posted in my thread was the clear relationship between the two groups. Now if you can find something that somehow shows how this is not the case then I am all for it. But I doubt you will. India was populated 60,000 years ago by the first wave of humans going into Asia via the Southern route. It has been populated continuously since that time. There have been various other smaller migrations from various places since then but the base population never left. Therefore, no later population came in and wiped out the aboriginal stock and replaced them, either with new black African folks or new white Eurasian folks. And how does the arrival of Africans since the Neolithic explain the fact that the majority of Indians, which is almost a billion folks, have straight hair? Either this trait came with the aborigines or it arrived later. My argument is that it came with the aborigines.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am shocked by your answer. You are saying neither of the people above are black because black people are dark and they are medium complexioned.
And I am not shocked at all by your stupid ass strawman reply or that you lying by attributing things I never said. Of course the the man above of African descent is considered 'black' in the West due to social and political reasons the same as Halle Berry whose complexion is lighter than most 'brown' Mexicans.
quote:Below, similarly medium complexioned people, who according to your definition, are not black:
Yet you don't consider the Indian men to be black?! Typical lyingass non-logic. Posts: 26302 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
How much they pay you to write your trolly nonsense?
The Australian Aborigines are absolutely referred to as 'black', despite the fact that they're not African. Likewise, the British in India called the indigenous people 'black'.
You can be 'black' without being African.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb]Most importantly there is a growing group of Western scholars that in fact feel Dravidian speakers were originally Africans who've settled in Asia since the neolithic which is supported by certain OTHER genetic studies already posted on this forum more than once and because of the incontrovertible linguistic and cultural evidence.
OK fine. So who first settled south India and what is their relationship to folks like the Aborigines of Australia and the pacific. What I posted in my thread was the clear relationship between the two groups. Now if you can find something that somehow shows how this is not the case then I am all for it. But I doubt you will. India was populated 60,000 years ago by the first wave of humans going into Asia via the Southern route. It has been populated continuously since that time. There have been various other smaller migrations from various places since then but the base population never left. Therefore, no later population came in and wiped out the aboriginal stock and replaced them, either with new black African folks or new white Eurasian folks. And how does the arrival of Africans since the Neolithic explain the fact that the majority of Indians, which is almost a billion folks, have straight hair? Either this trait came with the aborigines or it arrived later. My argument is that it came with the aborigines.
I wonder why the black people with straight hair just decided to stop in southern india and not go anywhere further - Persia, Elam, Arabia Melanesia, Indonesia Kunlun regions of south Asia.
I am not going to argue you about this stuff here any more Doug, sorry, because I still don't know where you are coming from. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: You can be 'black' without being African.
Heavens no! My god forbid!! Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Australoids are not Black, nor are Indians.
The only people claiming these completely distinct non-Negroid peoples are ''black'' are self-hating negroes who want to cluster themselves with these other races.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
How much they pay you to write your trolly nonsense?
The Australian Aborigines are absolutely referred to as 'black', despite the fact that they're not African. Likewise, the British in India called the indigenous people 'black'.
You can be 'black' without being African.
Is this guy black? Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Of course the the man above of African descent is considered 'black' in the West due to social and political reasons the same as Halle Berry whose complexion is lighter than most 'brown' Mexicans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
'black' is a reference to dark skin, or specifically very dark skin. Your pictures are of men who have complexions of medium hue.
You do realise skin pigmentation has never been used solely in racial classification?
The only people who equate dark skin to ''Black'' are a few self-hating negro internet trolls. They hate their broad traits and nappy hair, so they will try and cluster themselves with Indians etc.
Very sad.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The only people on earth who have a problem with the concept of the "black race" is the white Europeans who created the science of Anthropology precisely as an attempt to define the "black race" just so they could describe why the "white race" was superior. And because of this they fell all over themselves to find ways to sub categorizing and dividing up people in order to avoid associating black skin outside Africa with the populations of Africa, because that is a sign of from which humans originate and it isn't Europe. But because of their insane hate they had to find a way to deny the obvious, which is why these dumb ass clowns to this day say that "black folks aren't black" and actually believe they are making sense and don't look stupid in the process.
Case in Point on the obsession of white folks with black skin: "Anthropology Of the Negro" by Julian Herman from 1942
quote: It was a sizable problem to determine what people should be included under the term "Negro." In America it is the custom even in scientific literature to apply this name equally to people of decided African origin and to those who have little or no per- ceptible amount of Negro blood. Any pigmented race, whether they be Moors, Ethiopians, Arabs, or East Indians, may be grouped indiscriminately in statistics pertaining to Negroes. Some attempts have been made in the literature to distinguish between "mulattoes" and "blacks," but there is no agreement as to what these words mean. In Africa Negroes are a more sharply identified group, although anthropologists speak of "true Negroes" as contrasted to certain other people, like the Bantus, who are considered as intermixtures. In this book the American usage is followed in review of the American literature, and for other literature only that is used pertaining to the Negroid people of the east and west coasts of Africa and of central and southern Africa as well as the intermixtures called "colored" by the English. It is confessed that this word "race" is used very loosely and not with the exactness of the anthropologist, who prefers the word "stocks" or "strains" in referring to what herein are termed "Negro" and "white" races.
The point being that it is precisely the European "science" of anthropology that created this nonsensical concept of "racial" classification and with it all the absurd contradictions concerning skin color and ethnicity.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
i don't know a single region where this is not the case.What I am saying is for you tto assume that the many Dravidian and Munda speaking people that now have straight hair have always had it is obviously your opinion since there are many people of pure Dravidian descent who do not have straight hair who have not absorbed Eurasiatics as much as the town dwelling people whose women were taken advantage of over many centuries. This doesn't mean there know straight haired Austric people in Europe previously. 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Heavens no! My god forbid!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic