quote:Sub-Saharan African isn't *supposed* to be a real racial term. genetically everyone else is just one sub-branch of Sub-Saharan Africans. it's just a term of convenience for "not descended from the population that left Africa". *not* a single branch opposed to non-Africans and not intended to be.
Not really. "Sub-Saharan Africa" is simply a slick morphing of "Negro-Africa" into "Black-Africa" then into "Sub-Saharan Africa". Naive fools--unaware of the game being played--follow suit.
And what is so special about "leaving or not leaving Africa"? The single continent of Eurasia is closely conjoined to Africa. Humans migrating to all corners of Africa is just as significant as humans crossing over into Eurasia. The migrants had absolutely no idea of Africa and Eurasia. Note too that the idea of Europe as a continent derives merely from Eurocentric vanity.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Sub-Saharan African isn't *supposed* to be a real racial term. genetically everyone else is just one sub-branch of Sub-Saharan Africans. it's just a term of convenience for "not descended from the population that left Africa". *not* a single branch opposed to non-Africans and not intended to be.
That's almost how I've come to understand it too. Only difference is that I've seen posters here emphasize a distinction between sub-Saharans and certain North African populations who have been postulated to be neither sub-Saharan nor properly OOA. As in, people whose ancestors settled in North Africa before OOA, but nonetheless are genetically closer to OOA than are sub-Saharan populations (since OOA branched away from them). Would such people still qualify as "sub-Saharan" under your model?
posted
probably wouldn't actually call them Sub-Saharan given the geography (dumb word considering the elevations) but it's the same idea.
i've proposed the term Para-Eurasian to refer to ancestry of the the near relatives of the Out-of-Africa population within Africa (in uniparental terms Y hg E and mt hg L3(xMN)), but whether ancient North Africans were part of this or not who knows. well probably at least a bit (E-M35). and then there's Basal Eurasian.
lot of stuff could be cleared up with some Palaeolithic North African DNA.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:yes really, if we are talking about genetics, which we are.
you think otherwise produce facts and arguments.
Didn't fully address the issue. The genomic approach is interesting but can obfuscate the real issue.
New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders and other Melanesians can land at the Nairobi airport and be taken for passengers coming in from other African countries but genomic analysis will show them to be distinct from the inhabitants of Africa.
The point is that genetic distance between groups only signifies time of separation--giving random mutations affecting the bases A, G, C, T, enough time to accumulate. What really counts though is the living human organism interacting with the environment--not the random shuffling of mutation bases.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok? if you want to make other definitions based on phenotype go for it.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by capra: Sub-Saharan African isn't *supposed* to be a real racial term. genetically everyone else is just one sub-branch of Sub-Saharan Africans. it's just a term of convenience for "not descended from the population that left Africa". *not* a single branch opposed to non-Africans and not intended to be.
That's almost how I've come to understand it too. Only difference is that I've seen posters here emphasize a distinction between sub-Saharans and certain North African populations who have been postulated to be neither sub-Saharan nor properly OOA. As in, people whose ancestors settled in North Africa before OOA, but nonetheless are genetically closer to OOA than are sub-Saharan populations (since OOA branched away from them). Would such people still qualify as "sub-Saharan" under your model?
quote:Originally posted by capra: probably wouldn't actually call them Sub-Saharan given the geography (dumb word considering the elevations) but it's the same idea.
i've proposed the term Para-Eurasian to refer to ancestry of the the near relatives of the Out-of-Africa population within Africa (in uniparental terms Y hg E and mt hg L3(xMN)), but whether ancient North Africans were part of this or not who knows. well probably at least a bit (E-M35). and then there's Basal Eurasian.
lot of stuff could be cleared up with some Palaeolithic North African DNA.
How can youze guys go around renaming Africans in Africa after yourselves, Eurasians? That's attempted colonization of African prehistory.
See here. I don't care what they call this lake. We're here now and now it'll be Lake Victoria. Damn the natives.
posted
"How can youze guys go around renaming Africans in Africa after yourselves, Eurasians? That's attempted colonization of African prehistory."
HA! HA! Same Game, different name!.....
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Also it is off topic this initial post on page 1 pertains to modern Nubians
"We estimate the admixture in in current-day Sudanese Arab populations to about 700 years ago, coinciding with the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316 AD, a wave of admixture that reached the Darfurian/Kordofanian populations some 400–200 years ago. In contrast to the northeastern populations, the current-day Nilotic populations from the south of the region display little or no admixture from Eurasian groups indicating long-term isolation and population continuity in these areas of northeast Africa." --lioness moderator
[ 22. March 2018, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
posted
^I don't think "Zimbabwe" existed during those days. So I am not sure where you got that theory from.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nubians are an admixed group with gene-flow from outside of Africa
Just like the Egyptians. Okay tell us something we don't know.
This admixture exposed years ago by studies showing Nubians to have significant frequencies of Y-DNA hg J just like other North Sudanese populations like Sudanese Arabs and Beja. Even Hassan et al. has confirmed this over and over again in previous papers.
Your point is? I hope you are not suggesting the modern Nubian gene pool reflects that of the ancient Nuians.
To everyone else without an agenda Ethio Helix has written good articles on the genetics of Nubians and their relation neighboring Africans. Here are a couple below:
quote:Originally posted by capra: Sub-Saharan African isn't *supposed* to be a real racial term. genetically everyone else is just one sub-branch of Sub-Saharan Africans. it's just a term of convenience for "not descended from the population that left Africa". *not* a single branch opposed to non-Africans and not intended to be.
That's almost how I've come to understand it too. Only difference is that I've seen posters here emphasize a distinction between sub-Saharans and certain North African populations who have been postulated to be neither sub-Saharan nor properly OOA. As in, people whose ancestors settled in North Africa before OOA, but nonetheless are genetically closer to OOA than are sub-Saharan populations (since OOA branched away from them). Would such people still qualify as "sub-Saharan" under your model?
quote:Originally posted by capra: probably wouldn't actually call them Sub-Saharan given the geography (dumb word considering the elevations) but it's the same idea.
i've proposed the term Para-Eurasian to refer to ancestry of the the near relatives of the Out-of-Africa population within Africa (in uniparental terms Y hg E and mt hg L3(xMN)), but whether ancient North Africans were part of this or not who knows. well probably at least a bit (E-M35). and then there's Basal Eurasian.
lot of stuff could be cleared up with some Palaeolithic North African DNA.
The problem is that "Sub Saharan" as used in modern science is used to mean "pure African" and North African genetically is used to mean "descended from Eurasian back migrants". It really is literally a reinforcement of the old "hamitic race" concept.
The people using Sub Saharan vs North African aren't using it to distinguish INDIGENOUS African DNA that is closer to OOA from INDIGENOUS African DNA that is not close to OOA. That is absolutely NOT how it is used in papers on DNA. It is used to distinguish INDIGENOUS AFRICAN DNA (Sub Saharan) from Non African DNA (North African).
The only MtDna Lineages identified as African happen to be associated with the L lineages. All others are assumed to be "Eurasian". And you have similar things on the Male DNA side. Hence the presence of U lineages is considered the unique DNA signature of "North Africa" and is assumed to be a Eurasian lineage.
If North African was truly linked to indigenous African lineages that were tied to OOA then U lineages wouldn't automatically be linked to "Eurasia".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem is that "Sub Saharan" as used in modern science is used to mean "pure African" and North African genetically is used to mean "descended from Eurasian back migrants". It really is literally a reinforcement of the old "hamitic race" concept.
The haplogroup scientists call a North African marker is E-M81
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
If North African was truly linked to indigenous African lineages that were tied to OOA then U lineages wouldn't automatically be linked to "Eurasia".
Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%) in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] Is Race a Social Construct?
Moroccans
How many would be considered black in the U.S?
People considered Black by Europeans in some countries include people most Americans would not consider Black, it's a social construct in part
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haplogroup U6 has nothing to do with skin color. The age of U6 is far older than "light skin" in Humans.
quote: Haplogroup U6 Projected frequencies for haplogroup U6 (top left) and several subclades.
Haplogroup U6 is dated to between 31,000 and 43,000 years ago by Behar et al. (2012). This is consistent with the discovery of basal U6* in a Romanian specimen of ancient DNA (Peștera Muierilor) dated to 35,000 years ago.[46] Hervella et al. (2016) take this find as evidence for Paleolithic back-migration of Homo sapiens from Eurasia into Africa. The discovery of basal U6* in ancient DNA contributed to setting back the estimated age of U6 to around 46,000 years ago.[47]
Light skin in North Africa is primarily due to mixture within the last 5,000 years not because of "U6".
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is ridiculous, there is no such rule in place. 1/32 is about 3% If a white European was 3% African you would not even be able to tell it by looking
If there was such a rule still in place it would be stupid. If someone was 75% European and 20% African
They would be European with some admixture of African. That is exactly why such a rule saying otherwise is a social construct.
Americans don't have genetic testing kits they walk around with. They just take a look at a person and form an opinion and if you do that often you turn out to be wrong according to science
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Haplogroup U6 has nothing to do with skin color. The age of U6 is far older than "light skin" in Humans.
skin color has nothing to do with whether or not U6 originated in Africa or outside of Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
African genes in the old days were seen as very toxic in a society supposedly founded on the principle of "racial purity" for the dominant caste.
The fear was that only at the great-great-grandfather level, genes for the generic African phenotype would have become so recessive that subsequent offspring would show no such traits. To put it colloquially, "hair, lips, and nose" were the triple test visually applied.
Rules are made to be broken--hence the "passing" phenomenon, peculiar to historic American society. There are anecdotes in this regard of "passers" passing[no pun intended] members of their extended family in the street with no greetings exchanged.
For Native Americans, the official--meaning that one can belong to a Native American ethnic group and live on a Reservation--"blood quantum" is 1/16.
That is why when one visits a Native American Reservation one often sees people with blue eyes and brown hair.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is ridiculous, there is no such rule in place. 1/32 is about 3% If a white European was 3% African you would not even be able to tell it by looking
If there was such a rule still in place it would be stupid. If someone was 75% European and 20% African
They would be European with some admixture of African.
So looks are the end-all? If hypothetically a European with 3%-20% looked like they were African American, what would be their race?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: [QB] Is Race a Social Construct?
Moroccans
How many would be considered black in the U.S?
People considered Black by Europeans in some countries include people most Americans would not consider Black, it's a social construct in part
The people shown in those pictures would be considered black in America. This is in historical context and in modern day terms. Whites would confuse them for being biracial-black and some blacks would call them racially ambiguous. or red-boned. Throughout American history people with their phenotype and complexion have been considered black. That is the reality of America. A lot of Black Americans compare 2018 to 1918.
Arise America: "Little White Lie" Explores Racial Identity
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem is that "Sub Saharan" as used in modern science is used to mean "pure African" and North African genetically is used to mean "descended from Eurasian back migrants". It really is literally a reinforcement of the old "hamitic race" concept.
The haplogroup scientists call a North African marker is E-M81
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
If North African was truly linked to indigenous African lineages that were tied to OOA then U lineages wouldn't automatically be linked to "Eurasia".
Haplogroup U6 is common (with a prevalence of around 10%) in Northwest Africa (with a maximum of 29% in an Algerian Mozabites) and the Canary Islands (18% on average with a peak frequency of 50.1% in La Gomera). It is also found in the Iberian peninsula, where it has the highest diversity (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found in this region and not in Africa),
The estimated entrance of the North African U6 lineages into Iberia at 10 ky correlates well with other L African clades, indicating that U6 and some L lineages moved together from Africa to Iberia in the Early Holocene.
The HVS-I sequence compilation (range 16,051–16,400 of rCRS, [61]) comprised 317 U6 sequences, 361 from M1 and 2,983 from certain L sub-haplogroups (L1b, L2a, L2b, L3b, L3d, L3f, L3h1b). All populations considered in this database have a sample size ≥50.
—Candela L. Hernández et al.
Early Holocenic and Historic mtDNA African Signatures in the Iberian Peninsula: The Andalusian Region as a Paradigm
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The haplogroup scientists call a North African marker is E-M81
North African marker?
That is not true, they refer to it as the Berber-marker (north-West African).
quote:The presence and frequency in the region of E-M81, commonly referred to as the " Berber marker "
[…]
The distribution of E-M81 haplogroup, a Berber marker, was found at a frequency of 3% in our sample.
—B. Ambrosio,et al.
The Andalusian population from Huelva reveals a high diversification of Y-DNA paternal lineages from haplogroup E: Identifying human male movements within the Mediterranean space
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So looks are the end-all? If hypothetically a European with 3%-20% looked like they were African American, what would be their race?
Yes, looks are the end all unless in the future as more people get their DNA genetics become more prominent. Would you pick the "ugly" girl on a dating website who had a great written profile?
Ironically the one drop rule designed to discourage miscegenation a lot of black people like because it adds numbers to the black population and as a "minority" in America that translates to power. The census allows people to self identify. So if the person in your hypothetical self identified as "black" and people perceive a political win related to "black interest" then that would add to a vote for a person claiming to represent such interest
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea but you say "Americans don't have genetic testing kits they walk around with." So even if genetics become more prominent, it won't change how a person's race is judged against how they look. Ok well unless everyone wears their DNA results on them always.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Yea but you say "Americans don't have genetic testing kits they walk around with." So even if genetics become more prominent, it won't change how a person's race is judged against how they look. Ok well unless everyone wears their DNA results on them always.
Potentially what may happen is that when many more people get genetic testing they will make less assumption based on looks because they will know there is this genetic information also
So in five or ten years from now somebody says "what is she?" And then someone answers, " she showed me her DNA ancestry on her phone she's......."
Already there is a whole youtube culture, on the internet of "black" American saying they are not African they are indigenous Americans (see Dane Calloway, etc) that is not about genetics at this point but it shows that people are now making speculations alternative to the typical assumptions about looks
So similarly with genetics and people making videos on youtube revealing their ancestry results often surprising. So all of this is leading ( slowly) to people not making as many assumptions based on looks alone
On the downside there is a potential for prejudicial views based on genetic profiling
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people who are subconsciously or consciously classifying another person into a racial group don't have a personal relationship to that person to where that'd be at all appropriate to ask, even if becomes possible. Imagine the immense headache it'd be if everyone classifying hundreds of people into racial groups within the recesses of their mind (in seconds) then decided to spend minutes or hours introducing themselves to start asking for DNA diagrams. It's not practical to do. Yes genetic data will be out there to challenge assumptions, but when time and money ride on keeping things simple and easy to follow (race=appearance) over asking people you meet about their DNA, nothing's going to change even if it's a lie. Even if you want to believe all races have common DNA among themselves, society is lacks a practical way to support social groupings along that belief system. And even in history when the ancestry was widely known of a person, people will still revert to the simplicity of sight based systems. An Adamanese is not going to be paired with Asians over Sub Saharan Africans if they were to walk down the street.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Imagine the immense headache it'd be if everyone classifying hundreds of people into racial groups within the recesses of their mind (in seconds) then decided to spend minutes or hours introducing themselves to start asking for DNA diagrams. It's not practical to do.
People in casual conversation don't have to go into high detail on their genetic background
If you have your DNA results you can also summarize them
Here the woman before her test estimates
" I am black and white, English , German and maybe Native American"
Then she reads the results
19% Cameroon/Congo 8% Benin / Togo
14% Western Europe 20% Great Britain 8% Eastern Europe
3% West Asia 2% Middle East 1% Caucaus
"In Total I'm I'm 44% African 53% European 3% West Asian" 0% Native American
....Before I was just black and white"
_____________________________
So before her answer was "I'm black and white" or "mixed"
Now she can say
"I'm mainly a mix of West African, mostly Cameroon and Congo and also European, mainly British but some Eastern European as well. There are some other things in my background also but under 3%, like Middle Eastern and Central; Asian but no Native American"
This is similar to what people in other parts of the world might answer even without a genetic test.
But in America many people like classification by skin color instead. That is more politically motivated
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
She can say it, I'm not denying that. But most people around her are not going to ask for her to tell them anything. The whole idea of making race about how people look is that people can classify one another in split seconds. It makes it possible to evaluate hundreds of people quickly. Imagine having that conversation you suggested with hundreds if not thousands of people in a day. Everyday. It's not realistic, so it's not going to change the standard practice. And this isn't just w/ the U.S either. Definitions for what features mean may vary a bit across countries, but the idea that features communicate race extends out of the U.S...
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: She can say it, I'm not denying that. But most people around her are not going to ask for her to tell them anything. The whole idea of making race about how people look is that people can classify one another in split seconds. Imagine having that conversation with hundreds of people in a day. It's not realistic, so it's not going to change the standard practice. And this isn't just w/ the U.S either. Definitions for what features mean may vary a bit across countries, but the idea that features communicate race extends out of the U.S...
so how many races do you like to classify people with?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Most of these ancestry tests are just. money-grabbing hoaxes.
One could go to any part of Africa and find nuclear DNA with matches on all other continents. The most reliable of indices of DNA analysis would be the Y and Mt DNA linkages--because they give a timeline of separation from one haplogroup to others--based purely on the mutational arrangements of the bases ACGT.
The irony in all of this is that anthropologists such as Cavalli-Sforza Europeans are 35% African in genotype and are closer to Africans than are Africans to Australian Aboriginese. Does that make sense? One must ponder this. yet the Melanesians of the Pacific area are strictly African in phenotype despite haplogroup differences.
Yet what really counts in the final analysis is the phenotype. Changes there are due to the organism interacting with its total environment. DNA changes as per mutational shufflings of the ACGT bases would seem to be purely accidental.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do keep up with the varied research on this topic. European researchers tend to be coy and hesitant to admit this given their conscious and unconscious racial biases--but approximately 1/3 of the European genome derives from Africa and 2/3 from Asia.
The irony in all of this is that anthropologists such as Cavalli-Sforza Europeans are 35% African in genotype and are closer to Africans than are Africans to Australian Aboriginese. Does that make sense? One must ponder this. yet the Melanesians of the Pacific area are strictly African in phenotype despite haplogroup differences.
so then what is the 1/3 African haplogroup correspondence that Europeans have?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be autosomal--not necessarily haplogroup correspondence. Though E, R, and J are found both in Africa and Europe.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: She can say it, I'm not denying that. But most people around her are not going to ask for her to tell them anything. The whole idea of making race about how people look is that people can classify one another in split seconds. Imagine having that conversation with hundreds of people in a day. It's not realistic, so it's not going to change the standard practice. And this isn't just w/ the U.S either. Definitions for what features mean may vary a bit across countries, but the idea that features communicate race extends out of the U.S...
so how many races do you like to classify people with?
I wasn't trying to discuss what races and how many should exist right now. Just that trying to use genetic data on hand as an alternative wouldn't work to the present sight based model.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't trying to discuss what races and how many should exist right now. Just that trying to use genetic data on hand as an alternative wouldn't work to the present sight based model.
So if somebody asked this guy "what are you ?" and he said "Moroccan and Spanish"
what would his answer be according to the sight based model?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Brown at the very least. He would not pass as white.
So you think this guy calling himself "brown" which people almost never do in America is the better option than saying he's "Moroccan and Spanish"
__________________________________________________what about this guy on the right? what do you call him?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Yellow. Few use that term officially, but if we're talking about how he's going to be judged in the backs of people's heads he's not going to be typed the same race as many Negritos (who're also from Asia).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Imagine the immense headache it'd be if everyone classifying hundreds of people into racial groups within the recesses of their mind (in seconds) then decided to spend minutes or hours introducing themselves to start asking for DNA diagrams. It's not practical to do.
People in casual conversation don't have to go into high detail on their genetic background
If you have your DNA results you can also summarize them
Here the woman before her test estimates
" I am black and white, English , German and maybe Native American"
Then she reads the results
19% Cameroon/Congo 8% Benin / Togo
14% Western Europe 20% Great Britain 8% Eastern Europe
3% West Asia 2% Middle East 1% Caucaus
"In Total I'm I'm 44% African 53% European 3% West Asian" 0% Native American
....Before I was just black and white"
_____________________________
So before her answer was "I'm black and white" or "mixed"
Now she can say
"I'm mainly a mix of West African, mostly Cameroon and Congo and also European, mainly British but some Eastern European as well. There are some other things in my background also but under 3%, like Middle Eastern and Central; Asian but no Native American"
This is similar to what people in other parts of the world might answer even without a genetic test.
But in America many people like classification by skin color instead. That is more politically motivated
People always should do a few tests, be the same company and different companies. We have seen different results popping up. Based on the type of test and the time of the test.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Brown is used in America. It's often used to describe Latino and/or Arab peoples.
True, a few years back there was a Moroccan tv personality (Salaheddine) who went to NY, did a survey by asking people: “from where do you think I am”. Black Americans considered him Black, some guessed right meaning Northwest Africa, some said Latin America. However, most whites guessed Middle Eastern or Latin America.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic