quote:Originally posted by Nevermore: And ancient greeks also were not black. SURE, there were blacks in greece but they were ethnically not greeks. Maybe Blacks also were the Natives of some parts of greece before the greeks arrived.
As We know people migrate and the native people dont Always profit from it
If they are native to some parts they are as Greek as anyone else. Why do you think there are so many light skin people in the warm regions North Africa, Asia and Europe?
Posts: 1255 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to Basal Eurasian, was Basal Eurasian higher in northern Africa than outside Africa? Or is Basal Eurasian measured by a lack of Neanderthal?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! ha! That is funny. But you still can't deny or disprove what I am posting. Why? Because it is the truth.
As I said. You no longer control the narrative. The internet and computers has leveled the playing field. we no longer listen to the BS from Europeans. we can do our own analysis and research. YOU people can continue lying to your selves and the "Negros" out there. Some of us knows better and that number is growing.
---- xyyman, in real life do you get your ass kicked in bars a lot and then pretend you won afterward? it's kind of hard for me to imagine you otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by capra: indeed xyyman your work is intelligible and contains some facts
edited to say something nice
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Btw I don’t do bars and never had. Don’t understand the social need for bars. In college life I got more pussy and friends than I needed. Also I have been called the intimidator in the past. I don’t need to belong.
Regardless…… to your point. When you can disprove my point feel free to post instead of throwing a tantrum.
As I said. You no longer “control this”. When some of us can fully use and manipulate these software ..more of your lies will be exposed. We all know that FREQUENCY based analysis is absolute nonsense. The researchers knows this, YOU know. The whole premise is absolutely irrational. Because it is based upon complete isolation then re-expansion which is impossible and the uniparental markers confirms this. I don’t expect clusters-F like Oshun to get that but I know YOU know that. The researchers know that. But we can look at this in either of 2 ways. Delusional denial on your part or intentional deception. So I don’t need to PRETEND like I won. I know I won. I know what I am saying and posting is correct. All lines of evidence prove me correct. I am in the scientific field and these researchers are definitely in some sort of collusion.
It is not what they include but what they DON’T include in their sampling plan is a dead giveaway. Also what they Don't say.
Hit me up……
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Here are TWO simple lines of evidence. Oshun? Thoughts?
Can anyone explain this chart? Notice secondary lines going from YRI/Mandenka etc to Europe. Notice also same secondary lines going from SSA to IVC peoples. Then also to Cambodia. Thoughts Capra? Did I crack skulls again in that bar? SMH! Lol! Hey man you can fool some on this site but not me brother. I am way ahead of you. Ask Dr Pickrell…he knows. Lol!
Here is another example how these researchers lie. The label the chart Yoruba Admixture but “African” below. (Just as they did with the Abusir) . YRI are not the only “African” neither are Mbuti!!! Tanzanians are also Africans as is Kenyans etc
How do you think these PN2 got to Turkmenistan 4000years ago? A sI said these were African men fucgking and having babies. That is how it works. YOU know that, don’t you? No uniparental marker is more African than Y-PN2. They even brought their survival trait to endure the malaria infected regions like the IVC.
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Please update if downlevel.
Oh. Almost forgot. Akkad is Mesopotamia. T Oh Cèsaire ... but not your way "Since Akkad, since Elam, since Sumer "
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: we no longer listen to the BS from Europeans. we can do our own analysis and research. YOU people can continue lying to your selves and the "Negros" out there.
this labeling of a people as liars is not allowed in the forum
Posts: 43010 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said lying to "yourselves" .....no one specifically
-------------------- 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: we no longer listen to the BS from Europeans. we can do our own analysis and research. YOU people can continue lying to your selves and the "Negros" out there.
this labeling of a people as liars is not allowed in the forum
But what when it's true?
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line Persia has always been the homeland of what we now call "Aryans". And this homeland has included aboriginal black populations like "Elamites" and Sumerians or literally "black heads". Persia was the last of the great empires in Iran(derived from Aryan). Persia was much more influenced by Indo-European horse raiders like the Scythians. Elamites/Sumerians were more related to populations of aboriginal blacks from the Persian gulf moving out of Arabia with connections to Africa. Sumer was much older than Persia. Persia proper didn't come about until after 1000 BC. And some would argue that the timeline of Sumer is artificially propped up to be older than Ancient Kmt..... The term "Aryan" is primarily a reference to the lighter skinned horse warriors of later Persia starting with the Parthians and then the Sassanians, and it is these Indo-Aryan Eurasians from which modern Iran derives its name.
And the bigger picture is that African migrations out of Africa over the last 60-80,000 years right up to and after the Neolithic are basis of many cultures and societies in the "Near East", Asia and Europe. This is the part most racists are trying to deny and cover up.
Most of the new studies and papers are confirming this so there is really nothing for any mythical "afrocentrics" to be silenced about if anybody is actually paying attention. If anything what African scholars have been saying for many years is turning out to be correct.
From what I read thus far some scholars say the Sumerians (or literally "black heads") were predecessors to "Elamites". Is that correct?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Elamites/Sumerians were more related to populations of aboriginal blacks from the Persian gulf moving out of Arabia with connections to Africa.
posted
Must be a first. Gramps not hyped by the possibly ancient L in his favourite Asians (Makranis).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Right up your alley gramps. Since I know you're following the conversation re:South Asia closely. See the clade the Pakistani (33) forms with the Kuwaiti (32). The other Pakistani (31) is interesting as well, but I'm done for now. I'm leaving you 31 as homework to figure out how he relates to what we've discussed before. 31's GenBank ID is EU092932.
quote:Most of these North African sequences share a recent ancestry with sequences observed in other parts of Africa, in the Holocene period (Table 3). This seems to point to a recent introduction of these lineages in North Africa from the original locations in sub-Saharan and East Africa. Namely, one Moroccan and one Libyan sequences belong to sub-haplogroup L3b1b, together with two West African sequences from Burkina, with a coalescence age of 9,926 ± 2,555 years. Three Egyptian, four Tunisian, one Libyan and one Moroccan sequences share a most recent common ancestor of 13,537 ± 1,058 years old with seven West African, two South African, six Americans (most probably African-descents), two East Africans, two Central Africans, five Near Eastern and two South Asians, being affiliated in haplogroup L3b1a.
Sergi prophesized this in 1901: “THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.
ROME, Feoruary, 1901. “
==== THE MEDITERRANEAN RACE Preface WHEN this little book was first published in an Italian edition in 1895, and in a German edition in 1897, I was still unable to obtain many anthropological data needed to complete tha picture of the primitive inhabitants of Europe. In the English edition the book is less incomplete, richer in anthropological and ethnological documents, and hence more conclusive; it also contains replies to various objections which have been brought forward. This English edition, therefore, is not so much a translation of a work already published as a new book, both in form and arrangement
The conclusions I have sought to maintain are the following :- +
(1.) The primitive populations of Europe, after Homo Neandertkalensis, originated in Africa; these constituted the entire population of Neolithic times.
(2.) The basin of the Mediterranean was the chief centre of movement whence the African migrations reached the centre and the north of Europe.
(3.) From the great African stock were formed three varieties, in accordance with differing telluric and geographic conditions: one,.,peculiarly African, remaining in the continent where it originated; another, .the Mediterranean, which occupied the basin of that sea; and a third, the Nordtic:, which reached the north of Europe. These three varieties are the three great branches of one species, which I call Eurafrican, because it occupied, and still occupies, a large portion of the two continents of Africa and Europe.
(4) These three human varieties have nothing in common with the so-called Aryan races; it is an error to maintain that the Germans and the Scandinavians, blond dolichocephals or long-heads (of the Reihengraber and Viking types), are Aryans; they . are Eurafricans of the Nordic variety.
(5.) The Aryans are of Asiatic origin, and constitute a variety of the EurAsiaticEDIT: species,• the physical characters of their skeletons are different from those of the Eurafricans.
(6.) The primitive civilisation of the Eurafricans is Afro-Mediterranean, becoming eventually AfroEuropean.
(7.) The Mycenrean civilisation had its origin in Asia, and was transformed by diffusion in the Mediterranean.
(8.) The two classic civilisations, Greek and Latin; were not Aryan, but Mediterranean. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe: they destroyed in part the superior civilisation of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Greco-Latin civilization
(9.) In the course of the Aryan invasions the languages of the Eurafrican species in Europe were transformed in Italy, Greece, and elsewhere, Celtic, German, Slavonic, etc., being genuine branches of the Aryan tongue; in other cases the Aryan languages underwent a transformation, preserving some elements of the conquered tongues, as in the NeoCeltic of Wales. Some of these conclusions no longer arouse the same opposition as when I first brought them forward. The arguments meeting with most resistance are those tending to overthrow the ancient conception of an Aryan civilisation.
THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.
ROME, Feoruary, 1901.
I supposed that it was the ancestors of the Libyans, Iberians, Egyptians, and Pelasgians who had peopled the various regions of the Mediterranean, including Asia Minor, and then also southern Russia. But I also supposed-and the supposition has now been confirmed by discoveries in Egypt-that the Egyptians were a branch of the Libyans, and thus I extended the name of Libyan to all the African populations of northern Africa, from Egypt to Morocco, including those of the Sahara. In the Italian edition of this work I had placed the centre of origin and diffusion of this stock in East Africa in the region of the Great Lakes, near the sources of the Nile, and including Somaliland.
In North Africa and Sahara also very numerous flint arrow-heads and fragments of worked flint have been found, a certain proof of the existence of a large population.! The idea has thus arisen that Sahara rather than Eastern Africa was the original home of the populations which have occupied the Mediterranean basin and Hamitic Africa, or Africa north of the Sudan’s
Going through my post and discussion on ESR I was informed that the source of the Nile is …Rwanda!!! Remember Rwanda(not Wakanda) and the Hutus and Tutsi. Kakasoids vs ….??? Same geographic region of Malawi_Hora-8200bp and Luxmanda-3100!!!
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote: (5.) The Aryans are of Asiatic origin, and constitute a variety of the Eurafrican: species,• the physical characters of their skeletons are different from those of the Eurafricans.
Precising typo: The underscored should read Eurasiatic species;
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Back to Basal Eurasian, was Basal Eurasian higher in northern Africa than outside Africa? Or is Basal Eurasian measured by a lack of Neanderthal?
posted
Anyone have more to add on Phenotypic Plasticity? I came across a few papers now that are doing a deep dive into this plasticity thing I have been harping about for several years now. Cass-Dead led me down that road. I am trying to make sense of it. ------- Human bony labyrinth is an indicator of population history and dispersal from Africa. Ponce de León MS1, Koesbardiati T2, Weissmann JD1, Milella M1, Reyna-Blanco CS3,4, Suwa G5, Kondo O6, Malaspinas AS3,4, White TD7, Zollikofer CPE8. Author information Abstract The dispersal of modern humans from Africa is now well documented with genetic data that track population history, as well as gene flow between populations. Phenetic skeletal data, such as cranial and pelvic morphologies, also exhibit a dispersal-from-Africa signal, which, however, tends to be blurred by the effects of local adaptation and in vivo phenotypic plasticity, and that is often deteriorated by postmortem damage to skeletal remains. These complexities raise the question of which skeletal structures most effectively track neutral population history. The cavity system of the inner ear (the so-called bony labyrinth) is a good candidate structure for such analyses. It is already fully formed by birth, which minimizes postnatal phenotypic plasticity, and it is generally well preserved in archaeological samples. Here we use morphometric data of the bony labyrinth to show that it is a surprisingly good marker of the global dispersal of modern humans from Africa. Labyrinthine morphology tracks genetic distances and geography in accordance with an isolation-by-distance model with dispersal from Africa. Our data further indicate that the neutral-like pattern of variation is compatible with stabilizing selection on labyrinth morphology. Given the increasingly important role of the petrous bone for ancient DNA recovery from archaeological specimens, we encourage researchers to acquire 3D morphological data of the inner ear structures before any invasive sampling. Such data will constitute an important archive of phenotypic variation in present and past populations, and will permit individual-based genotype-phenotype comparisons.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
So I have been reading anthrogenica and basically they're saying that though this says that Natufians are really only about 15% Basal Eurasian
quote:A couple of months ago on the Eurogenes blog, I mused about how much real Basal Eurasian is likely contained in the "Basal-rich" component in Dave's Basal K7 test. Matt, a very nice guy and frequent poster over there, responded:
quote: @Mike, I've tried to do a few basic things on the Fst table for the components for Basal Rich K7 to work out how much BEu is in the Basal Rich component.
Put up a few screenshots on Imgur if you want to follow along. First step, take the Fst table from BRK7, then use PCoA to transform into a set of dimensions for which the squared Euclidean distance captures the Fst matrix: https://imgur.com/oJt2SAp and https://imgur.com/ha5Y2cG
Next step, I take the raw Fst distances from the original matrix and use them as variables; I use the Distance from Sub-Saharan as Variable 1, and I use the differences between relatedness to the other components (except Basal Rich itself) to construct a Variable 2, "Asymmetry" as a rough measure of relative relatedness between the other populations, where Asymmetry 0 indicates equal relatedness: (There are maybe some better ways I could've done Asymmetry, but the way I did seemed to work out OK): https://imgur.com/uB0Tifx
Then I produce a regression equation, which should let me estimate the position in these dimensions of a range of populations with different levels of drift that satisfy the Basal Eurasian criteria of equidistant relationship with other Eurasians: https://imgur.com/uB0Tifx
Then produce some simulated samples to go on it: (intuitively, they all fit on a line with Sub-Saharan, drifted away in the main dimension accounting for Eurasian vs African drift): https://imgur.com/ZDbgdrd
At the point, just doing manual tinkering, it seems like to get a population that has similar levels of overall drift to Villabruna and ANE and sits close to them in a phylogenetic tree, the best sim is for Basal-Rich to be about 20% Basal from between the lower drift Basal Eurasians and 80% hypothetical Middle East HG: https://imgur.com/oiGc570
Other solutions can be found to "make" Basal-rich from the simulated Basal populations, but these would all send the simulated "UHG" further away from Villabruna / ANE. If you have very high levels of BEu in Basal-rich, using these simulations, then the UHG has to have extremely high levels of drift away from other Eurasians and to be much more "West Eurasian" than VB or ANE is, in order to compensate. A low drift Basal population and a relatively typical West Eurasian population seems more intuitive.
Not sure if this method is all totally sound, but that's my best guess for Basal-rich component based purely on the component Fst and fitting using Fst PCoA - 20% Basal and 80% of UHG. That's extremely low compared to the lit though, I know. Poss some populations with extreme levels of BEu beyond Anatolia_Neolithic are not so well captured? Anatolia_Neolithic estimated with about 25% Basal Eurasian in Lazaridis 2016.
Using Matt's 20% estimate, I multiplied the Natufian's ~74% Basal-rich ancestry by .20, bringing the actual Basal Eurasian ancestry in Natufians down to ~15%. The rest of the ancestry would obviously be UHG (or otherwise WHG-related).
But this paper used LBK, so I just tried doing the same thing with the LBK average in the spreadsheet. It's ~50% Basal-rich, which brings LBK down to ~10% Basal Eurasian, which is in stunning concordance with the 9% estimate of this new paper. Suffice it to say, I'm very fucking impressed with Matt, whatever the true amount of BE ancestry ultimately turns out to be.
So ....Basal Eurasian is only in 15% in Natufians? Or is their response to suppose that this Basal component was very distant (to which you guys are supposing the opposite?) Where did a figure of 74% to start?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basal-rich is an ADMIXTURE component that the proprietor of Eurogenes created in an attempt to isolate Basal Eurasian. What he ended up with didn't seem to be pure BE but rather some mix of BE and ancestry distantly related to WHG in who-knows-what proportion. Due to lack of good samples estimates of the actual amount of Basal Eurasian in any given case vary wildly.
So the 74% comes from an ADMIXTURE run attempting to work out the relative proportions of Basal Eurasian in different modern and ancient samples, and has all the usual pitfalls. It's not based on an ancient Basal Eurasian sample or anything like that.
The lower-end numbers seem plausible to me, for the reasons Matt states, but I'm no expert.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
From wiki: Archaeology Around two to three million years ago, Lake Turkana was larger and the area more fertile, making it a center for early hominids. Richard Leakey led numerous anthropological excavations in the area, which yielded many important discoveries of hominin remains. The two-million-year-old Skull 1470 was found in 1972. It was originally thought to be Homo habilis, but some anthropologists have assigned it to a new species, Homo rudolfensis, named after the lake (previously known as Lake Rudolf). In 1984, the Turkana Boy, a nearly complete skeleton of a Homo erectus boy was discovered. More recently, a 3,500,000-year-old skull was discovered there, named Kenyanthropus platyops, which means "The Flat-Faced Man of Kenya".…. edit. wrong date in wiki
The African Great Lakes (Swahili: Maziwa Makuu) are a series of lakes constituting the part of the Rift Valley lakes in and around the East African Rift. They include Lake Victoria, the third-largest fresh water lake in the world by area, and Lake Tanganyika, the world's second-largest freshwater lake by volume and depth.[1] Collectively, they contain 31,000 km3 (7400 cu mi) of water, which is more than either Lake Baikal or the North American Great Lakes. This total constitutes about 25% of the planet's unfrozen surface fresh water.
The large rift lakes of Africa are the ancient home of great biodiversity; 10% of the world's fish species live there.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [Q] ^ Haven't read it as yet.
Sergi prophesized this in 1901: “THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.
ROME, Feoruary, 1901. “
==== THE MEDITERRANEAN RACE Preface WHEN this little book was first published in an Italian edition in 1895, and in a German edition in 1897, I was still unable to obtain many anthropological data needed to complete tha picture of the primitive inhabitants of Europe. In the English edition the book is less incomplete, richer in anthropological and ethnological documents, and hence more conclusive; it also contains replies to various objections which have been brought forward. This English edition, therefore, is not so much a translation of a work already published as a new book, both in form and arrangement
The conclusions I have sought to maintain are the following :- +
(1.) The primitive populations of Europe, after Homo Neandertkalensis, originated in Africa; these constituted the entire population of Neolithic times.
(2.) The basin of the Mediterranean was the chief centre of movement whence the African migrations reached the centre and the north of Europe.
(3.) From the great African stock were formed three varieties, in accordance with differing telluric and geographic conditions: one,.,peculiarly African, remaining in the continent where it originated; another, .the Mediterranean, which occupied the basin of that sea; and a third, the Nordtic:, which reached the north of Europe. These three varieties are the three great branches of one species, which I call Eurafrican, because it occupied, and still occupies, a large portion of the two continents of Africa and Europe.
(4) These three human varieties have nothing in common with the so-called Aryan races; it is an error to maintain that the Germans and the Scandinavians, blond dolichocephals or long-heads (of the Reihengraber and Viking types), are Aryans; they . are Eurafricans of the Nordic variety.
(5.) The Aryans are of Asiatic origin, and constitute a variety of the EurAsiaticEDIT: species,• the physical characters of their skeletons are different from those of the Eurafricans.
(6.) The primitive civilisation of the Eurafricans is Afro-Mediterranean, becoming eventually AfroEuropean.
(7.) The Mycenrean civilisation had its origin in Asia, and was transformed by diffusion in the Mediterranean.
(8.) The two classic civilisations, Greek and Latin; were not Aryan, but Mediterranean. The Aryans were savages when they invaded Europe: they destroyed in part the superior civilisation of the Neolithic populations, and could not have created the Greco-Latin civilization
(9.) In the course of the Aryan invasions the languages of the Eurafrican species in Europe were transformed in Italy, Greece, and elsewhere, Celtic, German, Slavonic, etc., being genuine branches of the Aryan tongue; in other cases the Aryan languages underwent a transformation, preserving some elements of the conquered tongues, as in the NeoCeltic of Wales. Some of these conclusions no longer arouse the same opposition as when I first brought them forward. The arguments meeting with most resistance are those tending to overthrow the ancient conception of an Aryan civilisation.
THE FUTURE WILL ENABLE US TO SEE THESE QUESTIONS MORE CLEARLY. G. SERGI.
ROME, Feoruary, 1901.
I supposed that it was the ancestors of the Libyans, Iberians, Egyptians, and Pelasgians who had peopled the various regions of the Mediterranean, including Asia Minor, and then also southern Russia. But I also supposed-and the supposition has now been confirmed by discoveries in Egypt-that the Egyptians were a branch of the Libyans, and thus I extended the name of Libyan to all the African populations of northern Africa, from Egypt to Morocco, including those of the Sahara. In the Italian edition of this work I had placed the centre of origin and diffusion of this stock in East Africa in the region of the Great Lakes, near the sources of the Nile, and including Somaliland.
In North Africa and Sahara also very numerous flint arrow-heads and fragments of worked flint have been found, a certain proof of the existence of a large population.! The idea has thus arisen that Sahara rather than Eastern Africa was the original home of the populations which have occupied the Mediterranean basin and Hamitic Africa, or Africa north of the Sudan’s
Going through my post and discussion on ESR I was informed that the source of the Nile is …Rwanda!!! Remember Rwanda(not Wakanda) and the Hutus and Tutsi. Kakasoids vs ….??? Same geographic region of Malawi_Hora-8200bp and Luxmanda-3100!!! [/Q]
-------------------- 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 |
All of it. Just as the first cave men and women were Africans just as the original stone age family was also African as the first stone age was in Africa.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
All of it. Just as the first cave men and women were Africans just as the original stone age family was also African as the first stone age was in Africa.
My question was rhetorical.
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:The genomic data from this period is important because the people of Abusir at this time would have been primarily Egyptian.
How do you know that? We've already discussed at length that the author admit to large scale migrations in northern Egypt. And why would this genetic data prove an African origin when those hapologroups are found older outside of Africa?
In my opinion... Afrocentrism is in for one hell of a ride trying to claim northern Egypt, which showed signs of cultural influences by Asiatics in the predynastic. I think that the kingdoms that made the dynastic era were culturally African and probably black, but I don't think everyone (especially in northern Egypt) would be considered black today, no.
Ase, I just want to know what makes you so certain that there were a difference in physical appearance between Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Egyptians, same way it is today? Given my information on the 2017 analysis of Abusir burial site, it seems that they only selected three mummified remains from the burial site. All three seems to be dated to the first century BCE, that's long after Egypt became first populated and the civilization itself became established. Also, you state that Lower Egypt shows cultural signs with the Levant, historically this seems to be the case, as the Nile Valley itself heavily influenced the Levant, so the fact that the Levant would have influenced the Egyptians especially those in the North, not just culturally but genetically should not be surprising. But what I really fail to understand is how did this make them racially distinct from their Southern counterparts? I thought that the Asian backflows wouldn't even effect Eastern Africans racially, especially during the Mesolithic and Neolithic. As I see it, Lower Egyptians were simply indigenous Black Africans that evolved into their arid environment who also just had some genetic affiliation with the Levant, either due to the OOA dispersion or Back flow migration. But I see no reason to believe that the Levant in the Mesolithic and Neolithic that the inhabitants were racially mixed, given that from what I read, it seems that Ancient indigenous Middle Easterners were similar to their African counterparts, but simply adapted to their arid environment, that and the fact Northern Eurasians only started to evolve a much fairer complexion only between 12,000 BCE and 5,500 BCE, so the idea that Middle Easterners were racially mixed during that time, doesn't seems plausible to me. It is very reasonable to suggest that most Middle Easterners, especially in regards to the Aegean territory, some parts of Iran, Northern Mesopotamia, and the Northern Levant didn't become racially mixed until the Bronze Age.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baalberith: Ase, I just want to know what makes you so certain that there were a difference in physical appearance between Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Egyptians, same way it is today? Given my information on the 2017 analysis of Abusir burial site, it seems that they only selected three mummified remains from the burial site.
quote:Also, you state that Lower Egypt shows cultural signs with the Levant, historically this seems to be the case, as the Nile Valley itself heavily influenced the Levant, so the fact that the Levant would have influenced the Egyptians especially those in the North, not just culturally but genetically should not be surprising.
Predynastic northern Egypt had elements of Levantite culture long before southern Egyptians expanded north to spread their culture into northern Egypt let along the Levant.
quote: But what I really fail to understand is how did this make them racially distinct from their Southern counterparts? I thought that the Asian backflows wouldn't even effect Eastern Africans racially, especially during the Mesolithic and Neolithic.
Northern Egyptians were already likely mixed during the predynastic, and they descended from a population that was smaller in number towards the Delta. Smaller populations mean fewer people need to mix to impact the entire population.
"Recent craniometric studies continue to note morphological differences between northern and southern Egyptian samples. Hillson (1978) referred to this as two distinct trends within his data set: 1. a northern and lower Egyptian tendency 2. a southern Egyptian and southern African trend.
In his work, the Upper Egyptians overlapped with southern African populations. Billy (1977) noted, from Penrose’s C analyses, that the homogeneity of her Lower Egypt series contrasted with greater dispersion in Upper Egypt with a constant morphological type being conserved through Dynastic times in the north. Keita (1990, 1992), through the use of discriminant function analysis (DFA), noted the overlap of southern Egyptians and some southern African series."
Sonia R. Zakrzewski: Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
posted
Ase, regarding the population that inhabitanted the Levant at this time, which is relatively during the Mesolithic/Neolithic period, which I assume is the time frame of where this genetic input from the Levant took place, just how especially during a time frame where Middle Easterners were still phenotypically similar to both various African populations and South Asians, but still maintained their distinctive phenotype as they were situated in another environment, mostly arid and subtropical to be exact. Along with the fact that Northern Eurasians still contained their dark complexion(similar to dark skinned North Asians and Native Americans, though I assume that there were still some dark like a typical black person) at this time, only to evolve a much fairer complexion, starting from 12,000 BCE to 5,500 BCE. So again I ask, despite the information that you brought fourth, which surly does indicate some cranial differences between the Northern inhabitants and Southern inhabitants, how exactly does this prehistoric intermixture between Levantine and Lower Egyptians indicate "racial" intermixture in a modern sense, when Lower Egyptians themselves intermixed with a population that was hardly racially mixed at all? Also, given that Lower Egypt and the Levant are in the same environment, is it possible for this phenotypic difference be partially an adaptation condition? From what I read skeletal remains of the Egyptian population based on limb proportions didn't just indicate that they were mostly tropically, they were also adapted to their arid environment too.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
posted
Limb proportions aren't really what people use to figure out what race a person is. How many people you know get stopped by police because they got tropical limbs? If we're discussing race, then I don't regard that. And if fairer complexions began from 12k and 5.5k BCE thats more than enough time for many of the inhabitants to have had a lighter complexion by 3k BCE. That's about 2,500 years at least. Lower Egyptian crania would've been closer to Europeans than Ethiopians in the shape of their face, and likely would've been among the first in Africa to be lighter in complexion due to immigration. So while some of them could pass for Black, more than likely Lower Egyptians would've (generally) been along the fringes of what people would consider Black.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nevermore: @oshun Ahaaa. OK. Does your statement also apply to the other direction? I mean afrocentrist claims that the original greeks and Romans were black? Instead of black Immigrants into white greek and roman culture? Just Like today in Europe, where you have hundreds of thousands of black Immigrants. Sure they are portrayed in todays art, but they are not europeans. Maybe in 1000 years some afrocentrists will claim, that 2018 Europe was a black continent, Just because few Blacks are today present in contemporaty art.
Too late, ones like Clyde, Troll Patrol (Ish Gebor), XyYTHater (XyyMan),Tukuler,TheReal, Habsburg, and many others on here already do. They already claim the Ancient Greeks & Romans particularly the Emporers were Black, that the Celts were Black, all the European Royalty & nobility were Black, Charlemagne was Black, Alexander The Great was Black, William The Conqueror was Black, the Vikings were Black, the Franks were Black, that all though the Germanics were White all their leaders were Black, that Europe at one time was all Black, then the evil albino devil (they believe Whites are albinos) came in invaded and genocided all the indigenous Blacks LOl. They hate White people and want to strip Whites of any history, accomplishments, heritage, identity, or any homeland to call our own. Heck Clyde even denies White people being human.
Posts: 24 | From: For Me To Know | Registered: Sep 2017
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Limb proportions aren't really what people use to figure out what race a person is. How many people you know get stopped by police because they got tropical limbs? If we're discussing race, then I don't regard that. And if fairer complexions began from 12k and 5.5k BCE thats more than enough time for many of the inhabitants to have had a lighter complexion by 3k BCE. That's about 2,500 years at least. Lower Egyptian crania would've been closer to Europeans than Ethiopians in the shape of their face, and likely would've been among the first in Africa to be lighter in complexion due to immigration. So while some of them could pass for Black, more than likely Lower Egyptians would've (generally) been along the fringes of what people would consider Black.
Limb proportions are generally use by anthropologists to see what environment a population are typically adapted to, so yes traditionally they wouldn't bee use to determine someone's race. But just how moot one's body plan is as an identifier of a race, one can see how moot a shape of a skull is too, as they rare both dramatically affected by your location and diet. Also, Imhave never met a cop that looked at one's limbs to determine their race nor have I met a cop that had too look at one's head either. I'm pretty sure they just look at you to determine your race or even ask you your race, as some may pass as White or even be an amalgamation of different populations. Also, just like you I personally don't regard "race" at all nor the categorization of "race", especially the American categorization, but I continue to use it, for those not intellectually equipped to understand what I mean. Now you say that the evolution of fairer skin among Northern Eurasians between 12,000 BCE to 5,500 BCE is enough time for them to intermixed with Middle Easterners, yeah if we're talking about the Aegean region in regards to the surrounding Northern areas of the Middle East, but this is long after the Mesolithic period and even the Neolithic period, the two main periods that i'm referring to and what would be the earliest Levantine input in Lower Egypt. Also, you state that Lower Egyptian's crania was similar to European populations than Ethiopians, via phenotype, again given how situated the Levant and better yet Lower Egypt is geographically in a arid environment, while there Southerner counterparts at in a tropical environment, how exactly does them having similar crania like Europeans, as some former 19th century and 20th century Egyptologists have claimed, alright so be it. But still given the fact that various Mesolithic Middle Easterner and even African populations were and are phenotypically distinct from one another I still fail to see your position on Lower Egyptians's and Levantine "intermixture".
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, limb proportions are supposed to help infer genetic relationship and proximity. But if people that are say Adamanese can be Black but are gentically closer to Asians than Africans there is no "genetic" relationship that grounds race.
I don't want to teach or insist on people to accept irrelevant data to race. I don't subscribe to race being a valid genetic construct, therefore I feel it is important to not be selective in when I express that point of view.
quote:Also, you state that Lower Egyptian's crania was similar to European populations than Ethiopians, via phenotype, again given how situated the Levant and better yet Lower Egypt is geographically in a arid environment, while there Southerner counterparts at in a tropical environment, how exactly does them having similar crania like Europeans, as some former 19th century and 20th century Egyptologists have claimed, alright so be it. But still given the fact that various Mesolithic Middle Easterner and even African populations were and are phenotypically distinct from one another I still fail to see your position on Lower Egyptians's and Levantine "intermixture".
I'm confused, If memory serves the origin of light skin found in Europeans came from a common ancestor that originated between the Indian sub continent and the Middle East.
quote:Abstract
Divergent natural selection caused by differences in solar exposure has resulted in distinctive variations in skin color between human populations. The derived light skin color allele of the SLC24A5 gene, A111T, predominates in populations of Western Eurasian ancestry. To gain insight into when and where this mutation arose, we defined common haplotypes in the genomic region around SLC24A5 across diverse human populations and deduced phylogenetic relationships between them. Virtually all chromosomes carrying the A111T allele share a single 78-kb haplotype that we call C11, indicating that all instances of this mutation in human populations share a common origin. The C11 haplotype was most likely created by a crossover between two haplotypes, followed by the A111T mutation. The two parental precursor haplotypes are found from East Asia to the Americas but are nearly absent in Africa. The distributions of C11 and its parental haplotypes make it most likelythat these two last steps occurred between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, with the A111T mutation occurring after the split between the ancestors of Europeans and East Asians.
quote:Too late, ones like Clyde, Troll Patrol (Ish Gebor), XyYTHater (XyyMan),Tukuler,TheReal, Habsburg, and many others on here already do. They already claim the Ancient Greeks & Romans particularly the Emporers were Black, that the Celts were Black, all the European Royalty & nobility were Black, Charlemagne was Black, Alexander The Great was Black, William The Conqueror was Black, the Vikings were Black, the Franks were Black, that all though the Germanics were White all their leaders were Black, that Europe at one time was all Black, then the evil albino devil (they believe Whites are albinos) came in invaded and genocided all the indigenous Blacks LOl. They hate White people and want to strip Whites of any history, accomplishments, heritage, identity, or any homeland to call our own. Heck Clyde [QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about you thinks that all of those populations were Black? I never heard anyone do this instead by extreme fringe so-called Afrocentrists, and I only say that because there not necessarily Afrocentric.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Originally posted by Baalberith: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ase: [qb] No, limb proportions are supposed to help infer genetic relationship and proximity. But if people that are say Adamanese can be Black but are gentically closer to Asians than Africans there is no "genetic" relationship that grounds race.
Never stated race was anything but a socially constructed argument, but I see your point.
I don't want to teach or insist on people to accept irrelevant data to race. I don't subscribe to race being a valid genetic construct, therefore I feel it is important to not be selective in when I express that point of view.
Alright, fair enough.
[QUOTE]Also, you state that Lower Egyptian's crania was similar to European populations than Ethiopians, via phenotype, again given how situated the Levant and better yet Lower Egypt is geographically in a arid environment, while there Southerner counterparts at in a tropical environment, how exactly does them having similar crania like Europeans, as some former 19th century and 20th century Egyptologists have claimed, alright so be it. But still given the fact that various Mesolithic Middle Easterner and even African populations were and are phenotypically distinct from one another I still fail to see your position on Lower Egyptians's and Levantine "intermixture".
I'm confused, If memory serves the origin of light skin found in Europeans came from a common ancestor that originated between the Indian sub continent and the Middle East.
quote:Abstract
Divergent natural selection caused by differences in solar exposure has resulted in distinctive variations in skin color between human populations. The derived light skin color allele of the SLC24A5 gene, A111T, predominates in populations of Western Eurasian ancestry. To gain insight into when and where this mutation arose, we defined common haplotypes in the genomic region around SLC24A5 across diverse human populations and deduced phylogenetic relationships between them. Virtually all chromosomes carrying the A111T allele share a single 78-kb haplotype that we call C11, indicating that all instances of this mutation in human populations share a common origin. The C11 haplotype was most likely created by a crossover between two haplotypes, followed by the A111T mutation. The two parental precursor haplotypes are found from East Asia to the Americas but are nearly absent in Africa. The distributions of C11 and its parental haplotypes make it most likelythat these two last steps occurred between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, with the A111T mutation occurring after the split between the ancestors of Europeans and East Asians.
Interesting stuff, I real check this out.
Posts: 331 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by SaxonQueen:
Too late, ones like ... Tukuler ..., already do. They already claim • the Ancient Greeks & Romans particularly the Emporers were Black, • that the Celts were Black, • all the European Royalty & nobility were Black, • Charlemagne was Black, • Alexander The Great was Black, • William The Conqueror was Black, • the Vikings were Black, • the Franks were Black, • that all though the Germanics were White all their leaders were Black, • that Europe at one time was all Black, then the evil albino devil (they believe Whites are albinos) came in invaded and genocided all the indigenous Blacks LOl. They hate White people and want to strip Whites of any history, accomplishments, heritage, identity, or any homeland to call our own.
U r 1 lying slanderous female Doxie who cannot produce a scintilla of evidence to back your hate induced claim against me.
I am not part of the negro & yte clique that now run ES and neither am I a Blacentric nor Afreccentric.
I see through African Eyes, know and embrace my continent and its heritage and have no penis envy of your Europe, its peoples, culture, or nothing. I have mine I don't need yours or anybody elses.
quote:Tukuler's come to conclude: However you and yours have for at least 250 years now try to claim every notable African thing as a yte Euro or 'text book yte' SW Asian accomplishment.
Perhaps that is what stoked Mike111, a 7/8ths yte man, and his ilk to invent and promote those stupid claims, though it is your very own yte people who proposed Euro ytes are endemic albino rather than albinoids merely sharing some traits in common with actual albinos. No human beings are devils though many, regardless of skin colour, have devilish (vile, evil) intentions.
You owe me an apology you blind, hate filled for any and all non-negro mentality black males, bile stewed female barker.
EDIT: Here I Tukuler promote a white Skythian Achilles slayer of a black Aithiopian Memnon, son of the Dawn.
Too late, ones like ... Tukuler ..., already do. They already claim • the Ancient Greeks & Romans particularly the Emporers were Black, • that the Celts were Black, • all the European Royalty & nobility were Black, • Charlemagne was Black, • Alexander The Great was Black, • William The Conqueror was Black, • the Vikings were Black, • the Franks were Black, • that all though the Germanics were White all their leaders were Black, • that Europe at one time was all Black, then the evil albino devil (they believe Whites are albinos) came in invaded and genocided all the indigenous Blacks LOl. They hate White people and want to strip Whites of any history, accomplishments, heritage, identity, or any homeland to call our own.
U r 1 lying slanderous female Doxie who cannot produce a scintilla of evidence to back your hate induced claim against me.
I am not part of the negro & yte clique that now run ES and neither am I a Blacentric nor Afreccentric.
I see through African Eyes, know and embrace my continent and its heritage and have no penis envy of your Europe, its peoples, culture, or nothing. I have mine I don't need yours or anybody elses.
quote:Tukuler's come to conclude: However you and yours have for at least 250 years now try to claim every notable African thing as a yte Euro or 'text book yte' SW Asian accomplishment.
Perhaps that is what stoked Mike111, a 7/8ths yte man, and his ilk to invent and promote those stupid claims, though it is your very own yte people who proposed Euro ytes are endemic albino rather than albinoids merely sharing some traits in common with actual albinos. No human beings are devils though many, regardless of skin colour, have devilish (vile, evil) intentions.
You owe me an apology you blind, hate filled for any and all non-negro mentality black males, bile stewed female barker.
EDIT: Here I Tukuler promote a white Skythian Achilles slayer of a black Aithiopian Memnon, son of the Dawn.
Sarcasm: what better way to rob yte kids of a culture hero?
Tukuler,
Ok, I apologize to you for including your name as you proved me wrong about you and I admit when I'm wrong.
Posts: 24 | From: For Me To Know | Registered: Sep 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
With that behind us
Why don't you lay down some proactive threads posting what you purport your particular clade of ethic groups (the done wrong by fellow Euros type angry ytes) are missing.
Sorry, I just don't get this whole 'whites are an oppressed minority in America' thing pockets of your people are heavy into. Especially with this unapologetically grassroots yte POTUS yall elected and continue to support. Where are all the "while white" incidents being reported.
I can understand tow heads marrying each other with keeping the phenotype alive in mind. Why should the race, human that is, lose a single variety? I mean since AngloSaxons exterminated the Tasmanians, a blk variety of human no longer among us.
posted
Funny how the Allied Powers dont like to talk about the Genocides they enacted on par or sometimes worse than what the Nazi's did, nor do they like to discuss how Southern Jim Crow was a blue print for Facsist white supremacy.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I mean since AngloSaxons exterminated the Tasmanians, a blk variety of human no longer among us.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Funny how the Allied Powers dont like to talk about the Genocides they enacted on par or sometimes worse than what the Nazi's Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group.
Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group. What is an example of such intent made by the allies during WW II ?
Posts: 43010 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nevermore: @oshun Ahaaa. OK. Does your statement also apply to the other direction? I mean afrocentrist claims that the original greeks and Romans were black? Instead of black Immigrants into white greek and roman culture? Just Like today in Europe, where you have hundreds of thousands of black Immigrants. Sure they are portrayed in todays art, but they are not europeans. Maybe in 1000 years some afrocentrists will claim, that 2018 Europe was a black continent, Just because few Blacks are today present in contemporaty art.
Too late, ones like Clyde, Troll Patrol (Ish Gebor), XyYTHater (XyyMan),Tukuler,TheReal, Habsburg, and many others on here already do. They already claim the Ancient Greeks & Romans particularly the Emporers were Black, that the Celts were Black, all the European Royalty & nobility were Black, Charlemagne was Black, Alexander The Great was Black, William The Conqueror was Black, the Vikings were Black, the Franks were Black, that all though the Germanics were White all their leaders were Black, that Europe at one time was all Black, then the evil albino devil (they believe Whites are albinos) came in invaded and genocided all the indigenous Blacks LOl. They hate White people and want to strip Whites of any history, accomplishments, heritage, identity, or any homeland to call our own. Heck Clyde even denies White people being human.
The troll (doxie) is back with the same repetitive LIE. Tell liar, show and prove what you claim about me. Where and when did I make the claims (and lies) you are spreading. All that fake news, all those alternative facts you are creating.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: However you and yours have for at least 250 years now try to claim every notable African thing as a yte Euro or 'text book yte' SW Asian accomplishment.
Well, it's all about winning, as Richard Spencer stated, also when you have to cheating and lying included. It's not about being honest and fair.
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Funny how the Allied Powers dont like to talk about the Genocides they enacted on par or sometimes worse than what the Nazi's Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group.
Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group. What is an example of such intent made by the allies during WW II ?
Genocide can be executed in many ways. Modern white nationalism that has infiltrated in politics created has empowered genocide as well. When WW II was going on, and Black veterans returned they were treated different from white veterans. White veterans recieved benefits, benefits they passed on to their children, and these children to their children's children. Whereas Black veterans did receive those benefits, so they couldn't pass on benefits to their children and children's children. This resulted in a the tragic economic disenfranchised condition for many Black Americas, who died and fought for their country.
How African American WWII Veterans Were Scorned By the G.I. Bill
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Funny how the Allied Powers dont like to talk about the Genocides they enacted on par or sometimes worse than what the Nazi's Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group.
Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group. What is an example of such intent made by the allies during WW II ?
Genocide can be executed in many ways. Modern white nationalism that has infiltrated in politics created has empowered genocide as well. When WW II was going on, and Black veterans returned they were treated different from white veterans. White veterans recieved benefits, benefits they passed on to their children, and these children to their children's children. Whereas Black veterans did receive those benefits, so they couldn't pass on benefits to their children and children's children. This resulted in a the tragic economic disenfranchised condition for many Black Americas, who died and fought for their country.
No, unfair discriminatory practice is not genocide. If you misuse the word it loses it's meaning.
Posts: 43010 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Discrimination with the intent to eliminate a population might count though.
No, that doesn't make sense, Discrimination means to distinguish one thing from another. Once action is taken based on the discrimination the action itself is not discrimination. It is action motivated by discrimination
But genocide is a specific type of action, killing people. It is a particular action
you can't commit a genocide by discrimination you have to kill mass numbers of people in a short period of time.
Genocide is not a from of genocide because discrimination is a concept of distinguishing things and genocide means killing large numbers of one type of people.
Posts: 43010 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Discrimination with the intent to eliminate a population might count though.
That's a fact.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ]No, that doesn't make sense, Discrimination means to distinguish one thing from another. Once action is taken based on the discrimination the action itself is not discrimination. It is action motivated by discrimination
But genocide is a specific type of action, killing people. It is a particular action
you can't commit a genocide by discrimination you have to kill mass numbers of people in a short period of time.
Genocide is not a from of genocide because discrimination is a concept of distinguishing things and genocide means killing large numbers of one type of people.
Law and legislative matter can be used and has been used as a form of genocidal act.
Impoverishing (ethnic cleansing) Black people strategically has been a way to let Black people not created capital, in a capitalistic society.
This poverty has created a slow-dead (ethnic cleansing) for the Black community, with white families making now 18 dollars more to each dollar Black families make.
And as a matter of fact the root of it started with physical violence, which turned into legislative violent to terrorize Black America. This white violence and terrorism can be seen all over and throughout American history attack Black progression. The constant routine we see is that Black peoples land was confiscated through violent acts and then putting them in a systemic cycle of poverty (which has lead to the dead of millions). Leading to 6 millions Black refugees during the 1920-'30s.
The legislative violence and terrorism (ethnic cleansing) was even admitted with the Southern Strategy. Yet, here you telling us nope it has nothing to do with genocide (ethnic cleansing). lol
quote: Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
The H.R. 15087 (94th): National Welfare Reform Act” by Gerald Ford was legislative terrorism to set up genocide (ethnic cleansing).
The implantation of drugs (by Nixon) in the Black communities was legislative terrorism to set up genocide (ethnic cleansing).
Etc.
These Acts and others have been implemented (in an attempt) to ERADICATE the Black population, without "the blood" we see in usual genocides.
Germany had concentration camps and in Poland there was the ghetto's of Warsaw. You are now telling us that this was not part of the genocidal strategy, but rather unfortunate simple discriminatory matter.
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are arguing semantics as the underlying issues are telling parts in those scenarios. Sense we are talking about groups and the social relationships they have with others,that's where the sameness of these words and problems will persist.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: a ghetto in America or in Nazi Germany is not genocide
A concentration camp is not a ghetto
A concentration camp is where mass numbers of people are being killed
A ghetto could be used as part of a genocidal program but by itself is not genocide
A genocide is when mass numbers of people are being killed. There is no other definition
The ghetto condition in America was created by these demonic and extremely wicked systemic racism to marginalize (Black) people with, the goal to slowly eradicate these (Black) people. A concentration camp does it more quickly, but the aim/ endgoal is the same. That's the difference.
quote: ...were rounded up and moved into ghettos or taken directly to concentration camps. There were many mass executions and as the Nazis took over more and more of Europe their ideology spread with them.
quote: During the Holocaust, the creation of ghettos was a key step in the Nazi process of brutally separating, persecuting, and ultimately destroying Europe's Jews. Ghettos were often enclosed districts that isolated Jews from the non-Jewish population and from other Jewish communities. Living conditions were miserable.
And as a matter of fact the German Kristallnacht came from the dozens of Black town massacres, where white identity extremist terrorist stole and confiscated Black wealth. After these massacres Black people had to flee, and this is how ghettos in America came into existence as the law enforcement by the government forced them to be CONCENTRATED in these poverty districted regions aka ghettos.
quote: 1a : the act or process of concentrating : the state of being concentrated
Tell use what the outcome is of this over time in a capitalistic society?
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: You are arguing semantics as the underlying issues are telling part in those scenarios. Sense we are talking about groups and the social relationships they have with others,that where sameness of these words and problems will persist.
That is 100% correct.
Posts: 22246 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] a ghetto in America or in Nazi Germany is not genocide
A concentration camp is not a ghetto
A concentration camp is where mass numbers of people are being killed
A ghetto could be used as part of a genocidal program but by itself is not genocide
A genocide is when mass numbers of people are being killed. There is no other definition
The ghetto condition in America was created by these demonic and extremely wicked systemic racism to marginalize (Black) people with, the goal to slowly eradicate these (Black) people. A concentration camp does it more quickly, but the aim/ endgoal is the same. That's the difference.
In order for a genocide to be occurring there would have to be a declining population of African American people in America
Posts: 43010 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic