Thanks to you,(I knew there was a higher more spiritual reason for me entering this forum :-)) I can began a long awaited journey of tracing my root. I found this website, and I'm beyond excited!!!! The $300 investment is worth it to me, as my whole family, ad generations after can benefit from it.
http://www.africanancestry.com/

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]Now lets look at some up to date sources.
Primarily Muslim people...
Forgive my ignorance, now I realize that Islam started from Africans, not Arabs,,,,my bad.

In the 1790s the Fulani priest Usman dan Fodio led a holy war (jihad) that created a large empire And of course, foolish of me to believe the jihad was originally an Arab concept.

Needless to say, Diop believe none of those people to be caucasoids., but he did believe them to be Hamitic, this is written in "African Origins of Civilization" when using Biblical references he showed that the Cushites, Hamites, and Caananites, were all the same race..black...which is why he theorized that the Phoenician/Colchians were black.

So in your blind rage, while attacking me, dont assume that I share the anthropological view of painting this "Hamitic" black race -white- thru superficial concepts like nasal indices. You have seen in other post, and dont pretend to be ignorant of the fact, that I've shown how absurd it is to categorize this "black race" as caucasian.

And whether you would admit it or not, the islamic religion of most West Africans, did have Arab influence. Period.

[/B]

---

You are ignorant, very ignorant. No one said Islam started among Africans or that the concept of jihad originated among Africans. If you knew anything about Islamic history you would see that it didn't so quit knocking lame strawmen.

And once again, Phoenicians were not black people and it is useless and senseless to use the line of Ham to prove blackness just as it is useless to use the line of Shem to prove non-blackness. Not all those characterized as Hamites(Phoenicians) speak so-called Hamitic languages. What makes one a Hamite or Semite is language, not a Biblical story. Whatever the Bible story stories say linguistically it doesn't add up to a Hamitic language family or race. Diop simply believed Hamite/Hamitic to be synonymous with black/Negro, not a distinct ethno-linguistic group. The Table of Nations is just what it is, a table of Nations, not races. We now know today that the Table of Nations does not always specifically correlate to races.

Islam in West Africa is heavily influenced by traditional African religions and very few, if any Arabs ever came into west Africa. Therefore any "Arab" influence thats there is minimal, period. Its more Islamic influence than Arab.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]Secondly, Wolof did not descend from Fula
This was written on page 12 of this "prized" article you talk about so much, it did NOT originate from me, but from your "prized" author...and I quote "The Wolof language REALLY is genetically related to the FULA language"

Now about that foot in the mouth...[/B]

---

Yes, you did put your foot in your mouth, for on page 12 of that pdf I posted it says Fula and Wolof are genetically related, it didn't say that Wolof descends from Fula. genetically related in this sense means they linguistically descend from a common proto-language.

However, page 6 did say this

There is no point in pursing further examples. The outline in the preceding paragraph typifies the methodology of the entire book, and Greenberg (1966) has thoroughly refuted Meinhof’s treatment of Fula (pp. 24-27), Masai (pp. 90-95), and Nama (pp. 67-72) showing that these languages are not Hamitic, but rather are obvious members of the West Atlantic, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan families respectively.

One can only conclude that Meinhof approached the Hamitic enterprise with a
preconception about what kind of people would speak Hamitic languages—in particular,
Caucasian looking, war-like cattle herders. Some languages spoken by people lacking
these racial and cultural traits have features so similar to those in recognized “Hamitic” languages that Meinhof could not ignore them. This includes Hausa, whose speakers, despite being black agriculturalists, managed a place in the Hamitic ranks. (A likely aid to Hausa’s achieving Hamitic status was the fact that most Hausa speakers live in large, well-organized states whose rulers are of Fula descent.) On the other hand, the Fula, the
Masai, and the Nama were obvious candidates for Hamititude because of their pastoral
cultures, and indeed, Meinhof managed to discover Hamitic traits in their languages
never noticed before or since!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The pastorial Hamitic myth has also been broken since cattle domestication has been proven to be indigenous to Africa by African. No pastorial people ever invaded African bringing superior civlization since it also shown pastorlism was developed in Africa before agritculture.

---

The paper also mentioned some had affinity with modern fellahin? Do they mean Fellahin in modern Palestine or in Egypt? Are they refering to the Delta Fellahin or the Middle Egyptian Fellahin?

anicent and modern Fellahin never get taller than 6'0. Average heights are typically around 5'6-5'7. If this is reffering to the Fellahin in Egypt.

emphasis repeated from Homeylu [i]...and I quote "The Wolof language REALLY is [u]genetically [/u] related to the FULA language"

Basis for S. Mohammed's argument "Yes, you did put your foot in your mouth, for on page 12 of that pdf I posted it says Fula and Wolof are [u]genetically[/u] related"

Nothing else needs to be said, LMAO

You remind me of a typical Diop critic, in that you have diminished your argument to petty name calling "you're ignorant", negative passion, and useless argument to prove nothing.

In fact after reading all the posts, I may be the ONLY person besides yourself to even take the time to read this -WEAK ARTICLE!!

*sticking my tongue out at s. Mohammad

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originaly posted by s. Mohammed
[b]Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]Secondly, Wolof did not descend from Fula
This was written on page 12 of this "prized" article you talk about so much, it did NOT originate from me, but from your "prized" author...and I quote "The Wolof language REALLY is genetically related to the FULA language"

emphasis repeated from Homeylu [i]...and I quote "The Wolof language REALLY is [u]genetically [/u] related to the FULA language"

Basis for S. Mohammed's argument "Yes, you did put your foot in your mouth, for on page 12 of that pdf I posted it says Fula and Wolof are [u]genetically[/u] related"

Nothing else needs to be said, LMAO

You remind me of a typical Diop critic, in that you have diminished your argument to petty name calling "you're ignorant", negative passion, and useless argument to prove nothing.

In fact after reading all the posts, I may be the ONLY person besides yourself to even take the time to read this -WEAK ARTICLE!!

Notice my insult was directed at the article, and not you, yet you take it so personally....How petty.[/B]

---

You're criticizong me about being a critic of Diop and the only pewrson you can quote is Diop. Although I was wrong for calling you ignorant, you're making accusations against my people for God's sake. the concept of jihad didn't start among my people. Not to mention, you dig up a citation from an outdated 1911 encyclopedia which that pdf article I posted debunks as proof to its weakness? The fact is that that citation you used comes from a debunk pseudo-science, so you have not proven that article I posted as weak, you only made your agrument look weaker. You didn't try to prove any weakness, you simply screwed up by posting that article from 1911.

As I've said and I'll say again Diop's work is not rubbish, but he was not above making errors and he made many, but they were minor. His linguistic argument is weak for Wolof is distantly related to AE, very distantly related, and Chadic and other Afrasian languages are closer. I can quote from more than one source which means my vision isn't limited to one source for a final answer. Remember Diop didn't include those Afrasian languages spoken by black Africans in his comparison, he only included Wolof, his own language. This article looks at both wolof and one Afrasian language, Chadic which is more balanced. Its author isn't even very critical of Diop. In fact he states that Diop was sincere in what he was doing, its just Diop's methods didn't prove a close relationship when viewed against Chadic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
And for the record, my argument is not whether the language of Fula has hamitic origins or not, I simply, inserted a quote from an Encyclopedia, to point out the "WEAKNESSES" in this article.

I dont even pretend to be versed in ANY African Language. I simply rely on more reliable sources like Cheikh Anta Diop, whose research goes beyond a "petty" article.

---

How did a debunked article from 1911 prove the weaknesses in the article I posted when the pseudo-science being used in 1911 has been long debunk, a point which that article I posted emphasizes?

Bottom line, unless you have evidence you have proven nothing. And not everything Diop says is infallible. Phoenicians are not black, and neither is everyone listed in the Bible under hams geneaology is black and Wolof is not closely related to AE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I pray that I can trace my roots to the "Wolof" tribe, so I can feel more "genetically" related to Anta Diop (my hero) LOL

*sticking my tongue out at s. Mohammad

*blowing a kiss at Wally

---

You're a headache to debate, but nonetheless civilized and sportmanslike. I have many things to educate you about Africa. You have a good heart to want to correct African history, you just need to know how to reference journals and books to broaden your scope and knowledge. Peer-reviwed journals and books will help you, just seek them out. I seem rude only because I've spent endless bandwidth debunking pseudo-science about Africa and nothing gets me more heated than that stupid Hamitic nonsense because it is still quietly influential among todays scholars.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I pray that I can trace my roots to the "Wolof" tribe, so I can feel more "genetically" related to Anta Diop (my hero) LOL

*sticking my tongue out at s. Mohammad

*blowing a kiss at Wally

---

if you trace back to Wolof, I would be probably closely related to you also but not as close as Diop. The Wolof hasd some excellent kingdoms too, like Waalo for example. Read about it at this link
http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Waalo.html

It was highly stratified.(Smiling)

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 02 June 2004).]

BTW, Diop is my primary source, but not my only source of Afrocentrism. I also read the works of Clyde Winters, Yosef Ben-Jochannan, Chancellor Williams, and John G. Jackson, just to name a few.

And I so happened to run across Wally's website and was very impressed by his work.

While I truly embrace my African Ancestor, I have a passion for Blacks everywhere that have been oppressed and still are being oppressed by White supremacy. I try to find a spiritual connection to the aborigines of Austrailia, and the Dalits of India, and the Blacks of South Africa, as well as the African Americans, have all been subjected to white supremacy, and I find our common denominator is our skin color, and not our hair teture.

I was only kidding about the Wolof connection, as I will embrace whatever Afican Ancestry is mine.

Nevertheless, I've never said that Diop was flawless, but as you pointed out, his flaws are so miniscule, no need in lending too much credence to his critics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
I read the paper,Thought,and I think you might be slighty exagerating the find of the remains.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Thats what I'm trying to tell homeylu, that there is no sense trying to prove blackness using sources which tried to categorically deny blackness. I really don't understand why homeylu and wally are so insistent on Wolof as opposed to Chadic, Cushitic, Omotic, and even some Nilo-Saharan tongues, being more related to AE. Its not like the latter four being more related negates the Africaness of AE, they simply emphasize its Africaness even more. Moreover as the pdf I posted said, Diop excluded these languages when he did his mass comparison. Had he included them, he no doubt would have found they have a closer relationship to AE than Wolof.

---

You misunderstand. We use Wolof as well as Yoruba to reconfirm the need to redefine African languages and how they relate to each other. There has not yet appeared a Hausa scholar to my knowledge who has done the type of research that Cheikh Anta Diop and J. Olumide Lucas has done on this subject. These languages aren't "superior" to or closer to Pharaonic Egyptian. You must remember that one of Professor Diop's earliest writings was "The Origin of the Wolof Language and Race." And you, yourself a Hausa speaker has not added a single comparative study between Hausa and Pharaonic Egyptian. Let's get on it man!

Slavery in America was even justified by so-called White Christians by using this so-called Hamitic curse against Black Africans.

Why is it that until the invention of Egyptology (discovery of great works of descendants of Ham) did Ham suddenly become the Biblical Ancestor to white races or the so-called Meditteranean races.

From a Biblical standpoint, Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan

Cush-Nubia
Mizraim-Egypt
Phut-Libya
Canaan-Phoenicians

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The pastorial Hamitic myth has also been broken since cattle domestication has been proven to be indigenous to Africa by African. No pastorial people ever invaded African bringing superior civlization since it also shown pastorlism was developed in Africa before agritculture.

---

This can be show geneticaly also regarding Cattle domestication also. Recent reseach shows that the once though introduced cattle from India actaulay diverged from the domesticated cattle of Africa many many thousands of years before domestication, hence no connection and local domestication.

Ozzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I agree with you Wally. When Diop uses the word "Hamitic" he is referring to the ancient historians (the Bible writers) use of the word to describe the Black Races. Only during the 18th century, the height of racism, did this terminology change to include white races. These white scholars would like for us to believe that not only were they Japhethites, they were also Shemites, AND Hamites. I mean give me a freaking break. Not to mention this terminology didnt change until they began studying Egypt.

Slavery in America was even justified by so-called White Christians by using this so-called Hamitic curse against Black Africans.

Why is it that until the invention of Egyptology (discovery of great works of descendants of Ham) did Ham suddenly become the Biblical Ancestor to white races or the so-called Meditteranean races.

From a Biblical standpoint, Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan

Cush-Nubia
Mizraim-Egypt
Phut-Libya
Canaan-Phoenicians

What these subscribers of phenotype concept need to understand that of all the people in the world, it has been scientifically proven that black Africans carry a greater number of alleles - genetic variations of the same gene(s) in their DNA as compared to Europeans and others. Thus, it is not surprising that there are much wider physical varieties among blacks. Thats why its not uncommon to find blacks all over the world with straight hair, wooly hair, blonde hair, red hair, aqueline noses, broad noses, thin lips, thick lips....the list goes on. Although I'm not 100% positive, there may also be more languages spoken in Africa than any other parts of the world. Which is why I cant understand why these "phenotype" belevers find it difficult to absorb, that white people are nothing but a product of recessive black genes-albinos.(LMAO)...I know this is gonna get some people started.

---

LOL not started! Stoped! You display your limited understanding of gentics, and the relationship of world populations, if you did have an understanding you would be aware of how funny your statements are.

Ozzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Read my entire statements please. I pointed out where you exagerated the result.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Thats what I'm trying to tell homeylu, that there is no sense trying to prove blackness using sources which tried to categorically deny blackness. I really don't understand why homeylu and wally are so insistent on Wolof as opposed to Chadic, Cushitic, Omotic, and even some Nilo-Saharan tongues, being more related to AE. Its not like the latter four being more related negates the Africaness of AE, they simply emphasize its Africaness even more. Moreover as the pdf I posted said, Diop excluded these languages when he did his mass comparison. Had he included them, he no doubt would have found they have a closer relationship to AE than Wolof.

---

Exactly, it does not get sipmler than that. I dont get why you guys (Wally and homeylu) consider any of this an atack on Egypt in Africa. If you have read anything on this site you will know most all of us support an African Egypt. And it seems when it comes down to it, it is just this that concerns you!

When I find his dissertation on this subject I might post it for you to read.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
You misunderstand. We use Wolof as well as Yoruba to reconfirm the need to redefine African languages and how they relate to each other. There has not yet appeared a Hausa scholar to my knowledge who has done the type of research that Cheikh Anta Diop and J. Olumide Lucas has done on this subject. These languages aren't "superior" to or closer to Pharaonic Egyptian. You must remember that one of Professor Diop's earliest writings was "The Origin of the Wolof Language and Race." And you, yourself a Hausa speaker has not added a single comparative study between Hausa and Pharaonic Egyptian. Let's get on it man!

And another problem that I have with some posts here is a seeming desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater - the word Hamitic. The etymology of this word is African, it refers to African people. There is no need to discard this word or put it in quotes, simply because Europeans expropriated it in order to further the myth of a "White Egypt." We should simply reclaim it and give it a proper scientific status. There are Hamitic speaking peoples you know--Beja; Hausa; Oromo; Ancient Egyptians; etc.

---

No, there are NO any Hamitic speaking people because all those languiages termed as "Hamitic" do not for one genetic union as it does for Semitic where you can see a close relationship.

My point has never been to say that Chadic languages are superior to Wolof, I said genetically they are closer to AE than Wolof and this has been proven by more than one scholar. Chadic might even be the link between Afrasian and Niger-Congo languages because Chadic languages are tonal unlike the other Afrasian languages. You need to do some research on languáges yourself instead of saying "Diop said, Diop said,".

As for that term hamitic, it has nothing to do with a race of people Phoenicians and Libyans were not black people originally who became whitter through mass immigration, even Shomarka Keita and JL Angel will not say this. Early north African remains from coastal Africans(Proto-Mediterraneans, Mideans) are distinct from both tropical Africans and Europeans, though showing a slight cline towards the latter. This is a fact, the same with Phoenicians, they were not "Negroes" who became whiter. This is pseudo-science of the extreme Afrocentrist type. Post some skeletal or genetic studies to confirm this. The table of nations was just what it was, a table of Nations, not a division of races. The whole concept of black people being Hamites was started by whites,ie, the curse of Ham, to enslave blacks. The table of Nations does nothing as far as proving who's black, they didn't see race as we do today.

I just posted a comparative between chadic and AE vs that of Wolof and AE and Chadic was found closer. Instead of blindly worshipping Diop, reference some journals and studies on linguistics. If you want to challenge me on linguistics, you will be the one who will lose, for I can quote more than just one person, unlike you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I agree with you Wally. When Diop uses the word "Hamitic" he is referring to the ancient historians (the Bible writers) use of the word to describe the Black Races. Only during the 18th century, the height of racism, did this terminology change to include white races. These white scholars would like for us to believe that not only were they Japhethites, they were also Shemites, AND Hamites. I mean give me a freaking break. Not to mention this terminology didnt change until they began studying Egypt.

Slavery in America was even justified by so-called White Christians by using this so-called Hamitic curse against Black Africans.

Why is it that until the invention of Egyptology (discovery of great works of descendants of Ham) did Ham suddenly become the Biblical Ancestor to white races or the so-called Meditteranean races.

From a Biblical standpoint, Ham had four sons, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan

Cush-Nubia
Mizraim-Egypt
Phut-Libya
Canaan-Phoenicians

What these subscribers of phenotype concept need to understand that of all the people in the world, it has been scientifically proven that black Africans carry a greater number of alleles - genetic variations of the same gene(s) in their DNA as compared to Europeans and others. Thus, it is not surprising that there are much wider physical varieties among blacks. Thats why its not uncommon to find blacks all over the world with straight hair, wooly hair, blonde hair, red hair, aqueline noses, broad noses, thin lips, thick lips....the list goes on. Although I'm not 100% positive, there may also be more languages spoken in Africa than any other parts of the world. Which is why I cant understand why these "phenotype" belevers find it difficult to absorb, that white people are nothing but a product of recessive black genes-albinos.(LMAO)...I know this is gonna get some people started.

---

What you fail to realize is that that Table of Nations corresponds to Nations not races. The original purpose of calling blacks hamites was to justify enslaving them so it was never good in the first place, it just got worse when they changed its meaning to denote dark-white people. The first reference of hamites with blacks came from a Jewish rabbi, long after Biblical times. The Bible calls people by place names, not Hamites and Semites to denote race, ie, Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, Edomites,etc. None of those names denotes race. You guys(you and wally) are buying into the racist pseudo-science that was intended to enslave black people. Furthermore, why should blacks be restricted to the line of ham? You're both shortsighted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
As for that term hamitic, it has nothing to do with a race of people Phoenicians and Libyans were not black people originally who became whitter through mass immigration, even Shomarka Keita and JL Angel will not say this.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Early north African remains from coastal Africans(Proto-Mediterraneans, Mideans) are distinct from both tropical Africans and Europeans, though showing a slight cline towards the latter.

---

Sight Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
This is a fact, the same with Phoenicians, they were not "Negroes" who became whiter.

---

Sight Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
By the way,it was Caanan who was cursed and not the other desendants of Ham. Last time I checked the Caananites were Semetic speaking people not traditionally known to have been black.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Did anyone read my post NOMADISM??????

---

Yes,and a very well documented post on Proto-Semetic languages. However,we are reffering to the Caanites which are not related to the Proto-Semetic speakers at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Yes,and a very well documented post on Proto-Semetic languages. However,we are reffering to the Caanites which are not related to the Proto-Semetic speakers at all.

---

Thought Writes:

To Said Mohammed:

I have to disagree with the Libyans because two different Libyan ethnic groups were depicted in Kemetian bas-reliefs. You had the Tehennu and Tamahou. The Tehennu and Tamahou were phenotypically different than each other and the latter begins to replace the former. I will agree with you,however,that Costal type Africans were as you described them to be. I believe you are refering to the Metcha Al Arbi,Oranian,Capsians,and Iberian-Marousian.

I have read verying opinions of these types of people ranging from they were Boskop-capoid to Afro-Mediterranean to Cro-magnoid. I don't know Keita opinion on these types except he sees Magrebian series as intermediates.

My recomendation would be to read Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fortess book ''The Berbers'' Later on I might post some excerpts from the book.

For the most part,the Sahara was mostly tropical African up untill around 2500 B.C. Read the texts from M.C. Chamla on remains in this region. We also have rock art from Central and Southern Sahara which show cultural affinities with so-called ''Inner Africans''.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Sight Writes:

Please refer me to your source on this?

---

If you read Keita's abstract of early North African holocene remains he says that early North Africans were diverse, but that they differ from inhabitants of Upper egypt, read:

<i>Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also <b>suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region.</b> Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites</i>

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa.
Keita SO.

To Keita "tropical Africans" includes peoples of the Horn of Africa also. Here he clearly said multivariate ananlysis suggest a craniometric pattern common to Late dynastic NORTHERN EGYPT and the coastal maghreb region. That right there clearly differenitaed them from Upper Egyptians whose affinities were/are closer to tropical Africans. Clearly were are dealing with two disnct populations. Keita made the same distinction, read:

<i>Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans...</i>

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University

Here he even says dynastic Northern egyptians differ from Southern ones again. Come on now Thought, I'm not trying to whitewash anybody or anything, These people in the north were still distinct from Europeans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Sight Writes:

The whole concept of the Phoenicians period is psuedo-science. There were no people known as Phoenician during the Bronze Age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

To Said Mohammed:

I have to disagree with the Libyans because two different Libyan ethnic groups were depicted in Kemetian bas-reliefs. You had the Tehennu and Tamahou. The Tehennu and Tamahou were phenotypically different than each other and the latter begins to replace the former. I will agree with you,however,that Costal type Africans were as you described them to be. I believe you are refering to the Metcha Al Arbi,Oranian,Capsians,and Iberian-Marousian.

I have read verying opinions of these types of people ranging from they were Boskop-capoid to Afro-Mediterranean to Cro-magnoid. I don't know Keita opinion on these types except he sees Magrebian series as intermediates.

My recomendation would be to read Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fortess book ''The Berbers'' Later on I might post some excerpts from the book.

For the most part,the Sahara was mostly tropical African up untill around 2500 B.C. Read the texts from M.C. Chamla on remains in this region. We also have rock art from Central and Southern Sahara which show cultural affinities with so-called ''Inner Africans''.

---

When I said Libyans, in this sense I was referring to the coastals, not the Saharans, who were Negroid. Furthermore, I don't know if homeylu is aware of it, but Phut can also be Punt, which is located in the Horn of Africa.

The Ethiopians were also a Semitic speaking people, who traditionally are know to by Black. As I noted before you all place too much emphasis on phenotypes, that you fail to internalize, that several tribes have been discovered through out Africa,that are Jews like, the Abayudaya in Uganda, the Lemba in Zimbabwe, the Beta Israel in Ethiopia, just to name a few. In fact a DNA sample was done on the Lemba and they had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry.

So here again we have the more reliable "genotype" placing Blacks in the land of Canaan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Ozzy:
[b]LOL not started! Stoped! You display your limited understanding of gentics, and the relationship of world populations

Obvious you have done no research on Mitochondrial DNA, which traced the ancestry of all homo sapiens to Black Africans, long before the 160,000 year old skull was even found. So all of the "worlds" populations can be traced back to Africa, because as I stated before, African genes are the MOST divergent. Africans have more dominant genes, and the Europeans are the most recessive.I think its you that have the limited understanding.[/B]

---

LOL, and you have no underestanding of genetics at all. Genotype refers to genes and phenotype is what we see. Genes cannot be "Negroid", "caucasoid", "white" or "black." At the time the mitochondrial Eve was living, there were no human races that corresponded to what we call Negroid and caucasoid, I suggest you consult some anthrolopogical journals before stating this.

Africans have more dominant genes, and the Europeans are the most recessive.

Now you're sounding like Leonard Jeffries , you have to do better than that to make an argument.

The ancients writers were showing how certain races, ruled certain Nations. And again it was Canaan that was cursed, not Ham.

It was not uncommon in Ancient times to use religion, i.e. this land was promised to be by God, to conquer another nation.

Now according to some scholars, if Shem meant "dusky" and Japheth meant "fair" or so he like(from the hebrew word "yapheh" o, more or less "fair skinned"), then Ham must have meant "black" since its supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black".

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Ausar
[b]By the way,it was Caanan who was cursed and not the other desendants of Ham. Last time I checked the Caananites were Semetic speaking people not traditionally known to have been black

The Ethiopians were also a Semitic speaking people, who traditionally are know to by Black. As I noted before you all place too much emphasis on phenotypes, that you fail to internalize, that several tribes have been discovered through out Africa,that are Jews like, the Abayudaya in Uganda, the Lemba in Zimbabwe, the Beta Israel in Ethiopia, just to name a few. In fact a DNA sample was done on the Lemba and they had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry.

So here again we have the more reliable "genotype" placing Blacks in the land of Canaan.

And I do recall a particular passage in the Bible with regards to the Semites entering the land of Cannaan "Let our daughter marry their daughters, and our sons, their sons".[/B]

---

You are all wrong. Not all Ethiopians are Semitic speaking or at least are originally Semitic speaking. The Oromoia or Oromo, who make up the majority of the population in Ethiopia are Cushitic speaking peoples. Might I mind you that Elam is also mentioned in the Table of Nations under Shem's line yet Elamite the language is NOT a Semitic language. Another thing to remember is that the Ethiopia the ancients refer to are not the same Ethiopians we talk about today. Ethiopia=Nubia to the ancients, and Nubian's are Nilo-Saharan speaking, not Semitic speakers.

quote:

---

As I noted before you all place too much emphasis on phenotypes, that you fail to internalize, that several tribes have been discovered through out Africa,that are Jews like, the Abayudaya in Uganda, the Lemba in Zimbabwe, the Beta Israel in Ethiopia, just to name a few. In fact a DNA sample was done on the Lemba and they had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry.

---

The Beta Israel are nearly pure African and acquired their religion or should I say are Jews, without any foreign admixture. The lemba apparaently do share that Y-chromosone that is charactersitic of the priestly caste(Levite) by that gene is not considered as African according to phylogeography, and the Lemba are Bantu speakers, not Semitic speakers. The Abayudaya of uganda has no genetic study outlining their genes, so the genetic evidence does not support you. A Jew is a person who's religion is Judaism, not a race of people.

You haven't proven anything, just blowing hot air as usual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by S. Mohammed
[b]What you fail to realize is that that Table of Nations corresponds to Nations not races

The ancients writers were showing how certain races, ruled certain Nations. And again it was Canaan that was cursed, not Ham.

It was not uncommon in Ancient times to use religion, i.e. this land was promised to be by God, to conquer another nation.

When one Kingdom conquers another, the language of the conqueror typically dominates. So its feasible to explain how Canaanite came to speak a Semitic tongue.[/B]

---

Absolute rubbish, even in the Bible the Jews were told not to mix with the daughters of Canaan, read for yourself. And no, the ancients were not showing races. Will you please show direct evidence that this is the case.

quote:

---

Now according to some scholars, if Shem meant "dusky" and Japheth meant "fair" or so he like(from the hebrew word "yapheh" o, more or less "fair skinned"), then Ham must have meant "black" since its supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means "to be hot" and "to be black".

---

Please post a reference that supports this. What scholars said these things? there is no reason to think that the Table of Nations corresponds to races. Using your "black genes are dominant logic" since Ham was black, Shem and Japeth were also black, so those terms don't mean anything, do they? whether you know it or not you're rehahsing the same thing the racists said.

Keep it up, you're refuting yourself more and more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Please post a reference that supports this. What scholars said these things? there is no reason to think that the Table of Nations corresponds to races. Using your "black genes are dominant logic" since Ham was black, Shem and Japeth were also black, so those terms don't mean anything, do they? whether you know it or not you're rehahsing the same thing the racists said.

Keep it up, you're refuting yourself more and more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Ozzy:
[b]LOL not started! Stoped! You display your limited understanding of gentics, and the relationship of world populations

Obvious you have done no research on Mitochondrial DNA, which traced the ancestry of all homo sapiens to Black Africans, long before the 160,000 year old skull was even found. So all of the "worlds" populations can be traced back to Africa, because as I stated before, African genes are the MOST divergent. Africans have more dominant genes, and the Europeans are the most recessive.I think its you that have the limited understanding.[/B]

---

When you show you have a knowledge of genetics perhaps people would be inclined to see you have some credibility

(I hope you realize how ridiculous you sound at times).

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
A Jew is a person who's religion is Judaism, not a race of people
The Lemba are a "black race" whose religion is "Judaism." No one said, all blacks are jews or all jews were black.

Again, nothing else needs to be said.

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
Absolute rubbish, even in the Bible the Jews were told not to mix with the daughters of Canaan, read for yourself
These black jews and white jews wouldnt have the same genetic make-up if they didnt have a common ancestor.

The Jews were told not mix with the Canaan unless they became circumsised. Gen:34:16

And Esau the twin brother of Jacob married a Canaan. Gen:36:2

NOW READ FOR YOURSELF

Originally posted by S. Mohammed:
What scholars said these things?
The Scholars that wrote the Hebrew Bible, now pick up a Hebrew dictionary and define the races of Noah's 3 sons yourself.

Originally posted by S. Mohammed:
Using your "black genes are dominant logic" since Ham was black, Shem and Japeth were also black
Since Blacks have more divergent genetics, the can give birth to offsprings ranging from Black,Brown,to White(albino), therefore Noah must have been Black, to give birth to 3 different races of sons. History has never shown a white perso to give birth to a black person, however blacks give birth to Albino's quite often.

Originally posted by S. Mohammed
When you show you have a knowledge of genetics perhaps people would be inclined to see you have some credibility

While I dont claim to be a biologist/physicist I think its common knowledge in the scientific community, that the first humans were black/negros. For further references, just type "out of africa theory" into any search engine.

But since I'm such a sweet young lady, I'll post a few links for you:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/uoc--1fs061003.php
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020225/eve.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html