quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The public thinks scientific and educational institutions can do no wrong (white is right, especially if it's wearing a white lab coat). I've already given up hope and have already moved on from academia, so when the scandals came to light recently (e.g. Douglas Latchford, etc), I thought it was positive, but I thought the same thing you're saying. It is what it is.
I remember in college in one of my elective classes which was Forensic Science, our professor taught us that no one is 100% "objective" not even scientist.
But yea it definitely is what it us until non-Eurocentrics get their own platform.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can count one oe hand how many AAs actually care about African history let alone A. Egypt and let alone Identify with Africa or Egypt.
If anything Black Hebrewism is way more of a thing at least in my experience, which makes sense in a way due to ADOS history with forced Christianization and identifying with the enslaved and oppressed Hebrews of the OT, AAs saw their plight and hope for redemtion similar to our own.. .
Yet you'd think every single AA is fawing over A. Egypt, rubbing their hands and laughing like a cartoon villan fox everytime they see an Egyptian...."Im GoNnA StEaL ThEiR CuLtUrE Me He he"
Esp. here on ES, 99% of the experience of the black Diaspora is centered obsessivly on AAs, esp. by non AA, non Black posters. AAs are the low hanging fruit of the Diaspora, so it makes sense, We Wuz Kangs and Hoteps is just making fun of AAVE...after all.
Weird how there is no prejorative slang for Afrocentric Africans(and Ive met plenty) who claim a black Egypt, or you know actual black Egyptians who say the same..
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Aside from the bias, I personally believe there is some politics involved. Take it as an anecdote as I can't say anything about it now. But we've likely arrived past a tipping point in which it'd take decades to fix. The Cleopatra thing was pretty much the nail in the coffin as far as public perception goes. And there's a certain idea being pushed to where North West Africans and East Africans will become residual. Afrocentrism takes a lot of public heat but as far as influence goes it's merely a niche. I can't fully explain how the criticisms became more influential than the "movement" but that where we are.
If anything Afrocentricism(or hoteps) gets clowned/made of by other Black people in the Black community. Yet, non-Black Americans(mainly the non-Black ones) think its some huge force in the Black community.
Yea you'll have some Black Americans who will be like, "mAn... eGyPt iS iN aFrIkA! hOw cAnT tHe aNciEnTs bE bLaCk!?" but outside of that most keep it moving and don't even care about the deep stuff most Afrocentrics talk about.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Esp. here on ES, 99% of the experience of the black Diaspora is centered obsessivly on AAs, esp. by non AA, non Black posters. AAs are the low hanging fruit of the Diaspora, so it makes sense, We Wuz Kangs and Hoteps is just making fun of AAVE...after all.
Partly this has to be because the US in general has such a big cultural imprint on the rest of the world. People all over the globe are more familiar with our stuff than they are any other country's, so African-Americans probably have more media visibility than any other Black ethnic group. Though, yes, I have seen some Black immigrant people in the US look down upon native-born "ADOS" Black people.
posted
I strongly disagree with the "it's a minority" "we make fun of them." This is a false impression simply because most people of African descent in the diaspora may not initially show a strong interest in history. However, upon discussing the topic, you'll find that many of them do indeed hold Afrocentric beliefs and theories. Even within the academic field, several black scholars demonstrate clear biases, like SOY Keita or that clown of "Molefi Asante," of whom I recently read an article where he suggests that Septimius Severus was black solely because he hailed from Africa. I couldn't believe this was actually published...
Furthermore, I was surprised to learn about the existence of black academies in the US, where the majority of students and teachers are black. Of course and no surprise these institutions tend to teach Afrocentric theories when it comes to history.
In my personal experience, particularly online, I've encountered very few black individuals who were not proponents of Afrocentrism. Additionally, in real life, there's a persistent belief among some SSAs that North Africans are seen as Arab invaders. However, I won't blame them because that's how most North Africans identify and how they are viewed by Europeans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not really about black diasporan immigrants looking down on AAs but AAs being an easy target since this type of mockery is common entertainment in America, esp, with White Americans who have way more of a cultural influence that AAs. Maybe I should have worded it different.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Esp. here on ES, 99% of the experience of the black Diaspora is centered obsessivly on AAs, esp. by non AA, non Black posters. AAs are the low hanging fruit of the Diaspora, so it makes sense, We Wuz Kangs and Hoteps is just making fun of AAVE...after all.
Partly this has to be because the US in general has such a big cultural imprint on the rest of the world. People all over the globe are more familiar with our stuff than they are any other country's, so African-Americans probably have more media visibility than any other Black ethnic group. Though, yes, I have seen some Black immigrant people in the US look down upon native-born "ADOS" Black people.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly the Afrocentrics are getting what comes to them, folks like Keita were warning fools 10 yrs ago, and they did'nt listen. Obsession with Historical figures and cultures simply because they involve Europeans or Western Culture has always been the achilles heel of Afrocentrism.
The Moors, Hebrews, and even black Olmecs etc. Slop plain and simple...
Granted I doubt the producer of the "Black Cleopatra" documantary was Afrocentric but really a black Cleopatra...smh. Just plain Sloppy and trivial.
The Kandace Queens of Merowe did way more for African people than Cleo did but because Cleo is Greek, clowns obsess over her.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Aside from the bias, I personally believe there is some politics involved. Take it as an anecdote as I can't say anything about it now. But we've likely arrived past a tipping point in which it'd take decades to fix. The Cleopatra thing was pretty much the nail in the coffin as far as public perception goes. And there's a certain idea being pushed to where North West Africans and East Africans will become residual. Afrocentrism takes a lot of public heat but as far as influence goes it's merely a niche. I can't fully explain how the criticisms became more influential than the "movement" but that where we are.
If anything Afrocentricism(or hoteps) gets clowned/made of by other Black people in the Black community. Yet, non-Black Americans(mainly the non-Black ones) think its some huge force in the Black community.
Yea you'll have some Black Americans who will be like, "mAn... eGyPt iS iN aFrIkA! hOw cAnT tHe aNciEnTs bE bLaCk!?" but outside of that most keep it moving and don't even care about the deep stuff most Afrocentrics talk about.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@-Just Call Me Jari- I seen way more Caribbean Pan-Africanists/Afrocentrics. Pro-Blackness=/=Pan-Africanism/Afrocentricism imo. But agreed with your overall post.
And yea AAs are easy to target, gaslight and blame due to our hypervisibility among Black groups.
@Antalas
It seems that way to you because you're North African and you run into those types online due to that segment of the Black community having an interest in your history. But more importantly you're not from the USA.
Trust me most Black Americans aren't claiming Egyptian heritage. At most they'll be like "why they tryna white wash Africa!" if they see a Ancient Egyptian depicted as non-Black in a movie but that's about it. In fact most Black Americans(the ones who are Afrocentric) talk about moving to Ghana or visiting Ghana, a West African country and not Egypt.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Honestly the Afrocentrics are getting what comes to them, folks like Keita were warning fools 10 yrs ago, and they did'nt listen. Obsession with Historical figures and cultures simply because they involve Europeans or Western Culture has always been the achilles heel of Afrocentrism.
The Moors, Hebrews, and even black Olmecs etc. Slop plain and simple...
Granted I doubt the producer of the "Black Cleopatra" documantary was Afrocentric but really a black Cleopatra...smh. Just plain Sloppy and trivial.
The Kandace Queens of Merowe did way more for African people than Cleo did but because Cleo is Greek, clowns obsess over her.
I mean it is what it is. Afrocentrics are a non-factor tbh. Yea I understand that some North Africans see they have to defend their history in what they believe are "culture vultures" but at the end of the day Afrocentrics never had a platform to begin with. Unless you believe a few blogs, books, YouTube videos, etc are a deal breaker.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Oh I 100% agree Askia, Ive been saying that for years that Afrocentrics have no clout within Academia, no one is seriously publishing Afrocentric ideas in serious Academic institutions.
The best critics can point to is the odd Black Achilles or Black Vikin Jarl, which is not even Afrocentrism but Diversity quotas pushed by Hollywood...
I agree with the N/As having to defend thier history, Its really sad too because all you have to do is read the primary sources to understand the black Moor thing is nonsense(at least in Al Andalus) and obsessing over N/A/Moorish History means that it neglects an actual Medieval Black Muslim Civilization, I.E the Swahili States that accomplished a lot of what the Moors did on African soil, and they were even called "Moors" by the Portuguese(Though this was in the "Modern" era)
Dar Tichiltt is another sadly neglected part of African history that folks who obsess over N/A don't care about...smh.
Yeah you're right, it is what it is.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Honestly the Afrocentrics are getting what comes to them, folks like Keita were warning fools 10 yrs ago, and they did'nt listen. Obsession with Historical figures and cultures simply because they involve Europeans or Western Culture has always been the achilles heel of Afrocentrism.
The Moors, Hebrews, and even black Olmecs etc. Slop plain and simple...
Granted I doubt the producer of the "Black Cleopatra" documantary was Afrocentric but really a black Cleopatra...smh. Just plain Sloppy and trivial.
The Kandace Queens of Merowe did way more for African people than Cleo did but because Cleo is Greek, clowns obsess over her.
I mean it is what it is. Afrocentrics are a non-factor tbh. Yea I understand that some North Africans see they have to defend their history in what they believe are "culture vultures" but at the end of the day Afrocentrics never had a platform to begin with. Unless you believe a few blogs, books, YouTube videos, etc are a deal breaker.
The issue goes far beyond a few YouTube videos. I have previously discussed this phenomenon in a thread (that got closed for no reason) , highlighting the recurring instances where North African characters in video games and movies are portrayed by black actors. Moreover, certain museums and universities have been granting platforms to Afrocentrist individuals, allowing them to hold exhibitions and conferences. An example of this is the rapper Akala, who has been given opportunities to present his Afrocentric views in Oxford : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUtAxUQjwB4&t=1s&pp=ygULYWthbGEgZWd5cHQ%3D (3.4 million views...)
This is just the beginning mark my words.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
There is plenty of historical evidence that ancient Hebrews were black, same with the Egyptians, although I do not believe black people of the diaspora have any relation to ancient Egyptians.
I don't subscribe to DNA methodology but there is also genetic evidence that says ancient north africans had dark skin and did not possess the gene for light skin pigmentation, and that the gene for light skin came from somewhere else.
So what is the problem? I'm glad people have started to dig deeper and research these topics to expose the lies that the world has been fed by anti-black institutions.
I don't understand why someone or something is labeled "afrocentric" just because people present resources showing that XYZ population was black or dark-skinned. Not all black or dark-skinned people originated in africa.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The population in question belongs to the Paleolithic/Mesolithic era. Notably, light skin has been present in North Africa since at least the middle of the 6th millennium BC, and this characteristic was introduced by the early European farmers.
Furthermore, it's important to clarify that the term "dark skin" does not imply any genetic or craniometric similarity to black Africans. In contemporary times, there are numerous dark-skinned populations that differ significantly in appearance from black Africans, and this was even more pronounced in the past.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ^The population in question belongs to the Paleolithic/Mesolithic era. Notably, light skin has been present in North Africa since at least the middle of the 6th millennium BC, and this characteristic was introduced by the early European farmers.
Furthermore, it's important to clarify that the term "dark skin" does not imply any genetic or craniometric similarity to black Africans. In contemporary times, there are numerous dark-skinned populations that differ significantly in appearance from black Africans, and this was even more pronounced in the past.
antalas listen every dark skin population is Black, you do not have to look like Africans to be Black.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Antalas
Thank you for acknowledging that light skin is not native to north africa, that is the point I was making.
In response to your second paragraph: not all "black africans" have the same craniometrics. So there's that. Secondly, the Haratin people who are native to north africa (keyword: native) look exactly like the people you find in the ghettos of america.
I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to accept the fact that "black africans" are native to north africa.
That's like saying white europeans can't be native to northern europe.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tazarah Good so you acknowledge the presence of light skinned populations in North Africa already during the mid holocene 7500 years ago. Regarding the Haratin, they form a small minority and have a significant degree of mixed ancestry as they have also incorporated more recent West African ancestry as a result of the slave trade :
quote: We thus come to the conclusion that black populations have always inhabited the Sahara but gradually came under the dominance of the Paleoberber people: the Equidians, Garamantes, Gaetulians, and later the Tuaregs, and in the northern Sahara, the Arabs and Arabo-Berbers. The Saharan melanoderms from prehistory did not disappear entirely. It is certain that their descendants, known as the Haratin (referred to as Izzagaren in Tamahaq, meaning 'the Reds'), cannot have retained faithfully the characteristics, which are, in any case, diverse and imprecise, of the Ethiopians. It is evident that they have, over the centuries, experienced numerous influences from Sudanese origins, which are genuinely negroid. If we are to identify the present-day human groups that most likely preserved the characteristics of these ancient Ethiopians, we must turn our attention to the Tubus and the Fulani (Peuls).
Gabriel Camps, Les berbères, p. 79
The black North Africans in question were not Berbers; they were primarily located in the Sahara, including its northern fringes, and eventually came under the dominance of the Paleo-Berber groups. Among the black Saharans, the Tubus are the notable ones who appear to have successfully resisted Berber expansions. Most Ancient North africans, like today, lived in the mediterranean part of the region and they were not black nor similar to Haratin.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ^The population in question belongs to the Paleolithic/Mesolithic era. Notably, light skin has been present in North Africa since at least the middle of the 6th millennium BC, and this characteristic was introduced by the early European farmers.
Furthermore, it's important to clarify that the term "dark skin" does not imply any genetic or craniometric similarity to black Africans. In contemporary times, there are numerous dark-skinned populations that differ significantly in appearance from black Africans, and this was even more pronounced in the past.
antalas listen every dark skin population is Black, you do not have to look like Africans to be Black.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: ^The population in question belongs to the Paleolithic/Mesolithic era. Notably, light skin has been present in North Africa since at least the middle of the 6th millennium BC, and this characteristic was introduced by the early European farmers.
Furthermore, it's important to clarify that the term "dark skin" does not imply any genetic or craniometric similarity to black Africans. In contemporary times, there are numerous dark-skinned populations that differ significantly in appearance from black Africans, and this was even more pronounced in the past.
antalas listen every dark skin population is Black, you do not have to look like Africans to be Black.
Uhhh... No.
Excuse me, but skin color is what makes you Black. Don't try to support antalas.
You cannot deny Black heritage to people of light brown heritage
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To address something Elmaestro posted earlier:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Has anyone in this space ever wondered what would have been the case if any of the African samples with Northeast African or Egyptian related ancestry were sequenced and published before the Raqefet Natufian were?
Let me note with a degree of certainty that if:( the Pastoral Neolithic Samples, Taforalt, IAM or Oub02, Skhirat, The ancient Swahili, Kulubnarti and christian Nubian samples, or even Abusir el Meleq.) ..any of these samples were published before the Natufian, a lot would have been different in these spaces.
How do you think those ancient African aDNA samples would get modeled without the Natufians or Neolithic Levantines being sequenced? I have a feeling the Eurocentrics would have still tried to Eurasianize their ancestry as much as they could.
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Antala
Great... so we both agree that light skin is not a trait native to north africa. I don't subscribe to an evolutionary timeline btw.
Your own source acknowledges that black populations have always inhabited the sahara (north africa) and in that context it is clearly speaking about so-called "negro" populations.
quote: We thus come to the conclusion that black populations have always inhabited the Sahara but gradually came under the dominance of the Paleoberber people: the Equidians, Garamantes, Gaetulians, and later the Tuaregs, and in the northern Sahara, the Arabs and Arabo-Berbers.
You then say: "the black north africans in question were not berbers..." yet there is ample historical evidence acknoweldging that this was in fact the case.
quote: "The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
"The Negro Law of South Carolina" by John Belton O'Neall, page 5 (1848) J.G. Bowman
posted
@Tazarah Nobody here denied that light skin alleles were introduced during the mid holocene nor that the Sahara was bereft of "black" populations. But it seems that you have a hard time understanding that most north africans did not reside in the Sahara during Antiquity. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the idea that they spoke Berber dialects. It seems you may have overlooked my previous quote, which clearly mentioned that they "came under the dominance of the Paleoberber people." It was only after this Berber expansion into the Sahara that Berber became the predominant language in the region.
I fail to see the relevance of your early 19th-century American quote to the topic. Are you suggesting that "Berbers" lived in West and Central Africa, where the American slave trade obtained its slaves? It would be more appropriate if you could provide a credible academic source, as relying on outdated and unreliable works does not contribute to a thorough understanding of the subject matter.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Antalas
I referenced that source to show that even in the 19th century, scholars knew ancient Berbers were "negro". Dismissing something as "outdated" simply because it disproves you is such a cop out. You yourself have referenced information that predates the 19th century so let's not play that game.
I never said Berbers lived in west or central africa, but that doesn't mean Berbers did not physically resemble or have relation to west african or central african populations.
You seem to believe that "west africans" have always been isolated in west africa, always lived there, and do not have origins from anywhere else. Are you aware of any ancient samples that speak on ancient "west african" specimens going back tens of thousands of years?
Where are the ancient "west african" samples that demonstrate a black "west african" presence going back tens of thousands of years, to prove that "west africans" are nothing but "west africans" who have always been in west africa and only west africa?
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Tazarah The source discusses "Slave Africans" within the context of the "Negro law of South Carolina. Additionally, it points out that John Belton O'Neall lacks the credentials of a historian and fails to provide any sources or explanation for his inclusion of "ancient Berbers" alongside "Slave Africans." Are you implying that our historical books should be rewritten to suggest that these "Negroes" actually originated from North Africa rather than West or Central Africa?
It's evident that you are once again wasting my time, and you seem unaware of the absurdity of your stance. He dismisses genetic, anthropological, archaeological, and iconography studies entirely, based on an unreliable claim made by an American judge during the early 19th century... I will refrain from engaging further.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Antalas
The source demonstrates it was common knowledge during that time period that ancient berbers were negroes. It literally acknowledges them as such.
I mean, he submit the document to the state agricultural society as well as the governor and they requested that he lay it before the legislature. So unless you're willing to claim that all of the above were incompetent, ignorant of history and willing to propagate blatantly false information, then I don't know what else to tell you buddy.
I guess they all just made it up for the hell of it without having any actual knowledge on the topic.
quote: In 1848 O'Neall (who was reported by a personal acquaintance to have owned "about 150" slaves and to have been "a most humane master")[3] wrote a digest of the negro law of South Carolina, which he read to the State Agricultural Society. The Society directed him to submit the document to the governor, with a request that he would lay it before the legislature, at its approaching session in November 1848.
Everything else you said is a strawman (as usual). I said what I said, and I didn't say what I didn't say. I said nothing about west or central africa.
It's also very telling how you competely ignored my request for you to prove with ancient samples how your fantasy about "west africans" being locked in west africa for tens of thousands of years is actually a valid idea.
Refusing to engage any further is your safest option at this point. But please keep in mind -- you reached out to me and tried to address me. I did not reach out to you or address you. I could care less what you think or have to say about any of these topics.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: To address something Elmaestro posted earlier:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Has anyone in this space ever wondered what would have been the case if any of the African samples with Northeast African or Egyptian related ancestry were sequenced and published before the Raqefet Natufian were?
Let me note with a degree of certainty that if:( the Pastoral Neolithic Samples, Taforalt, IAM or Oub02, Skhirat, The ancient Swahili, Kulubnarti and christian Nubian samples, or even Abusir el Meleq.) ..any of these samples were published before the Natufian, a lot would have been different in these spaces.
How do you think those ancient African aDNA samples would get modeled without the Natufians or Neolithic Levantines being sequenced? I have a feeling the Eurocentrics would have still tried to Eurasianize their ancestry as much as they could.
Well. I can't say that they wouldn't but it would be a bit harder to do so. Especially to the extent they do now. With the Natufian genome came a shift in how people viewed anthropology. "...no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians" (Lazaridis, et al. 2016) That paper created a hard line separating African (whether north or below the Sahara) and Near eastern Ancestry. It was an untrue assessment which was only countered or addressed twice in academia. Once by Daniel Shriner and then by Lazaridis in paper making another critical assumption. The former gets no recognition and the latter is stuck in preprint for over a half a decade. I believe that the estimates of Eurasian DNA in samples such as Taforalt would be lowered by default and failure in forming 2-3 way models with any Eur+Afr combination would have prompted everyone to see that region as either an outlier or a progenitor for later populations in Africa and the middle east. Same with the pastoral neolithic. With combination of uniparental and physical data, more of their ancestry would have been looked at as African because that intellectual bias; the hardline which was created by the Natufian paper would not exist. A lot of the issues in genetic anthropology relating to Africans is downstream. From G25/Vahaduo to Schuenemen and the Abusir mummy interpretation.
@Antalas Some of the problems you mentioned is not the result of Afrocentrism. I believe we discussed where academia is trying to paint a certain narrative that isn't in conjunction with geo-history of the studied region. For some perspective: It was also an Afrocentric view point that Africans could be "white" if they adapted to certain regions. Ancient depictions of lightskinned people for example have always been acknowledged by Afrocentric scholars to whichever extent. It wasn't an Afrocentric talking point that everything of value was brought to North Africa by Arabs. It wasn't Afro-centrists that made romantic and medeival frescoes showing dark skinned North Africans. It wasn't Afrocentrists who written classical descriptions of blackened North Africans differentiating them from Southern Europeans. If it wasn't for Brenna Henn 2012 study suggesting North africans being 12kyo back migrants I don't believe anyone but Afrocentrists would respect NA Autochthony or Non-Arab NA in general. And the only reason why the tide has turned on that view was Ancient Egyptian proxima. And even then NA were basically classified as 12yo meta-Arabs.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Well. I can't say that they wouldn't but it would be a bit harder to do so. Especially to the extent they do now. With the Natufian genome came a shift in how people viewed anthropology. "...no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians" (Lazaridis, et al. 2016) That paper created a hard line separating African (whether north or below the Sahara) and Near eastern Ancestry. It was an untrue assessment which was only countered or addressed twice in academia. Once by Daniel Shriner and then by Lazaridis in paper making another critical assumption. The former gets no recognition and the latter is stuck in preprint for over a half a decade. I believe that the estimates of Eurasian DNA in samples such as Taforalt would be lowered by default and failure in forming 2-3 way models with any Eur+Afr combination would have prompted everyone to see that region as either an outlier or a progenitor for later populations in Africa and the middle east. Same with the pastoral neolithic. With combination of uniparental and physical data, more of their ancestry would have been looked at as African because that intellectual bias; the hardline which was created by the Natufian paper would not exist. A lot of the issues in genetic anthropology relating to Africans is downstream. From G25/Vahaduo to Schuenemen and the Abusir mummy interpretation.
I agree that the samples currently available can affect how data gets interpreted, and it certainly seems that the aDNA fandom has a tendency to interpret models literally (e.g. various statements I've seen that ancient Nubians had to have been half Natufian and half East African or Dinka simply because some Sudanese aDNA gets modeled that way). It's not unlike how some Afrocentrics took the DNA Tribes reports on Egyptian royal mummies to literally mean that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to peoples of the African Great Lakes.
That being said, I always viewed Lazaridis's concept of "Basal Eurasian" as an euphemism for pre-OOA African ancestry. Some people in the aDNA fandom are more open to an African origin for BE than others, but I can tell a lot of them are uncomfortable with what significant BE ancestry in ancient West Eurasians (and North Africans) implies. We all know that the original BE people wouldn't look like modern Arabs, after all. And if you to present such people to most of the posters at ForumBiodiversity, we all know what word would first come to those dudes' heads.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I strongly disagree with the "it's a minority" "we make fun of them." This is a false impression simply because most people of African descent in the diaspora may not initially show a strong interest in history. However, upon discussing the topic, you'll find that many of them do indeed hold Afrocentric beliefs and theories. Even within the academic field, several black scholars demonstrate clear biases, like SOY Keita or that clown of "Molefi Asante," of whom I recently read an article where he suggests that Septimius Severus was black solely because he hailed from Africa. I couldn't believe this was actually published...
Furthermore, I was surprised to learn about the existence of black academies in the US, where the majority of students and teachers are black. Of course and no surprise these institutions tend to teach Afrocentric theories when it comes to history.
In my personal experience, particularly online, I've encountered very few black individuals who were not proponents of Afrocentrism. Additionally, in real life, there's a persistent belief among some SSAs that North Africans are seen as Arab invaders. However, I won't blame them because that's how most North Africans identify and how they are viewed by Europeans.
Whomp whomp whomp, omg do you ever stop crying about these Afrocentric boogeymen? Nobody cares about wanting to be North African. No one in the African diaspora or on the continent itself claims to be north African, so what are you whining about?
Also, how the hell can you be "Afrocentric" when talking about history/genetics that involves AFRICA?? Are North Africans, and you yourself, not African? That makes no damn sense, and yall keep using that buzzword because at this point we know what your types mean when you say it which makes you look stupid.
There were black people in North Africa way prior to the AST. And that fact got you seething and foaming at the mouth behind your monitor. Now go and smoke some kief and be happy h0e.
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
^ Facts lol.
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the most extreme Afrocentrists should be called "blackcentrists" instead", since for some of them the most important seems to be if ancient peoples could be characterized as "black" or not. At least on social media one often hear claims like "ancient Egyptians were black", ancient Israelites were black", "ancient Minoans were black". One gets the impression that for these people so called blackness is very important and that they like to identify with ancient peoples they claim were "black".
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
No different than Europeans obsessing over every ancient European to be white and going into paroxysm of rage and paranoia when anything is presented as darker than the average modern European.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, extremists exist both among African Americans and Europeans/European Americans. I just saw an example online how several Afrocentrists obviously could not take that an Egyptian woman showed a video about an ancient Egyptian statue, which they thought was too light, or did not conform to their ideas of how ancient Egyptians ought to look like.
So a dark skinned Ötzi, or a pale Egyptian statue obviously attracts angry "centrists" from both sides.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ @ Archeo, Yeah I saw that thread, its dumb. Do people really think only one type of phenotype existed in A. Egypt for thousands of years despite how close it is to the Levant and Med...?
SMH, and Kemet Queen was really nice in her initial response to them. I did'nt watch the video...so IDK how she handled the comments after she explained the statue.
Yeah its dumb, just a lack of critical think tbh
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed extremists exists on both sides so if some people are are "blackcentric", then there are those who are obviously "whitecentric". Though some Eurocentrics are smarter than that and don't cling to "whiteness" instead if dark skin is found in Paleolithic Europeans and even Neanderthals they then use dark-skin as a non-factor to whether someone is African or more specifically 'Sub-Saharan' or not. Hence many Afrocentrics still fall into their okie-doke trap.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the topic of the thread, the current model of "Western" history is based on the imperial model of Greece and Rome. They were the first to introduce the concept of a "universal" history of all peoples and cultures into the lexicon of history. Before that, empires and cultures came and went but others, especially he victors, were not interested in documenting their history or achievements. And much of the Greek and Roman practice of documenting this 'universal' history was for the aim of promoting "Pax Universalis" as in peace and harmony of all the worlds cultures under the aegis of a single beneficent ruling empire. And this is exactly what colonialism and its economic justification, capitalism, seek in the world. Which means they have to create a narrative about world history where Eurasians aka "white" people have always been dominant in human affairs, to normalize European conquest and control. And in terms of anthropology that has been tied to creating a "universal" social, economic and cultural hierarchy based on skin color, with darker skin on the bottom.
Now, it is in that context that African Americans have been opposing and challenging the Eurocentric and white supremacist propaganda of history, long before such a thing as "Afrocentrism" even existed. Because the whole origin of racial anthropology started with the study of the ancient Nile where people like Samuel Morton and others were using cranial studies to "prove" ancient Nile Valley civilization was created by white caucasoids. Not to mention WMF Petrie also was promoting Eugenics arguments in his model of Nile Valley history in his various works, partly because one of his family members was a prominent Eugenicist.
quote: Petrie's association with both of these men, and the exchange of ideas, materials and theories among them, was influential on his own practical and theoretical work on civilization, race, and culture. It was also important for the research Galton and Pearson were doing, since Petrie supplied them with needed human data and aided them in their statistical analyses. A brief examination of some of the anthropometric research published by the Eugenic Laboratories at UCL reveal that the faculty depended heavily upon Petrie to supply raw data in the form of human remains. It also establishes Petrie as a reliable source of statistical information and eugenic conclusions. Furthermore, the historical analysis of the development of civilization in Petrie's own works, such as Janus in Modern Life (1907) and The Revolutions of Civilisation (1911), demonstrate his adherence to a social evolutionary framework.[11] Petrie's social ideas were formed, not only by well-known works such as Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859), but also, and even more so, by the statistical analysis and eugenic conclusions drawn from the anthropometric data he gathered with Galton and Pearson.[12] Like other social scientists at the time he presented and supported the evolutionary framework; he then went a step further by encouraging individuals to participate in social change through artificial selection, by choosing better mates.
So from the very beginning of anthropology and Egyptology there has been an inherent conflict about race and the colonial paradigm on which it was based. And this all came to a head in the 1960s when various black organizations began to protest on college campuses as part of the black power movement to retake control of the identity and history of "Negroes" in the United States and the world. This is what led to the creation of various black studies departments on university campuses to study and document African American and African history. And some of the most notable scholars of African history arrived on these universities in this era or just prior.
Keep in mind however, that for the most part, African studies has always been dominated by European scholars.
quote: Why is African Studies in North America dominated by white scholars? In this reflection piece, the 2018 president of the African Studies Association revisits the organization’s sixty-year history, exposing the processes by which white privilege was hardwired into African Studies at the organization’s founding in 1957 and then secured first by the displacement of the much older tradition of African American scholarship on Africa and second by the “recolonization American-style” of knowledge production on the continent in the postcolonial era.
quote: The African Studies Association (ASA) is a US-based association of scholars, students, practitioners, and institutions with an interest in the continent of Africa. Founded in 1957, the ASA is the leading organization of African Studies in North America, with a global membership of approximately 2000. The association's headquarters are at Rutgers University in New Jersey. The ASA holds annual conferences and virtual events for its members year-round.
As a result of racial and political disputes over exclusion from leadership positions of black academics and ASA leaders' ties with the US intelligence and military in the mid-twentieth century, the ASA split in 1968, when the Black Caucus of the ASA, led by John Henrik Clarke, founded the African Heritage Studies Association (AHSA).
The ASA is different from the African Studies Association of Africa (ASAA), which was founded at the University of Cape Town in October 1-2, 2012.
So the population of the ancient Nile Valley was always a flash point in the racial politics of the USA and by extension Europe. It was also a flash point Egypt as the European and especially British domination of Egypt and its antiquities, especially the discovery of King Tut's tomb, which occurred in the same year Egypt declared its independence from Britain.
quote: The summer of 1923 gave newspaper readers a break from the press circus surrounding the tomb of Tutankhamun, the discovery of which just a few months earlier had grabbed the world’s attention. But an anonymous editorial in the Harlem-based weekly Negro World was suspicious of the sudden lull in what had been near constant coverage. The archaeologists must have clammed up for a reason, the editorial surmised, and that reason could only be race. If Tutankhamun proved to have skin the colour of ‘unbleached coal’, public interest would disappear, for ‘white Americans call nothing creditable Negroid if they can possibly find another name for it’.
As a result of this historical racial politics in American academia, some African scholars began to form a new approach to African history called "Afrocentrism" or "Afrocentricity". The core idea being that Africans should have an African centered approach to history, culture, economics and society in order to recover some of their lost heritage and identity. It is also based around the idea of refuting this "white washing" of the past based no stereotypes of inferiority of Africans and people with black skin. And the core of that challenge lay in the fact that all human history starts in Africa and that for 200,000 years or more, humans were exclusively evolving in Africa and nowhere else. And it is because of that history of the African evolution of humanity that you get the civilization of the ancient Nile Valley. This also included documenting the legacy of ancient "black" (skinned) populations around the world who created civilizations before Europe, where they were challenging things like the Aryan Invasion theory of the Indus Valley. Because this entire system of historical propaganda was a global phenomenon and no part of the planet was immune to the this racist historiography. But it wasn't just African Americans who participated in this struggle as historically various Caribbean and African scholars also were involved such as Marcus Garvey and Cheik Anta Diop.
Below is an example of what these African scholars were challenging which is the Eurocentric view of history that human evolution and advancement of culture and civilization started in Europe:
quote: In the present work the color of the human body has been taken as the most invariable criterion of race character, and on that fundamental fact, assisted by other physical traits and by intellectual peculiarities of development, particularly by the great fact of language, the classification has been made. This has been done on the hypothesis of the general unity of mankind and the derivation of all the races from some common source localized in time and place. The character and method of classification chosen as the basis of the present treatise on the races of mankind will sufficiently appear in the chapter devoted to that topic.
...
We shall begin with that which is clearly the most important division of mankind; that is, the Ruddy or White, Races. We shall see, first of all, the great Aryan Family parting from its central locality in Western Asia into its Eastern, or Asiatic, and its Western, or European, stem. These we shall endeavor to follow, considering in turn the ancient and modern Iranic races, and afterwards the Indie Aryans, from the time of their establishment in the Indus valley to their modern developments in the powerful races of Hindustan . Then in order we shall follow the Western division of the Indo-European family, noting its emergence in the Hellenic, the Italican, the Celtic, and the Teutonic races. This department of the work will bring tis into contact with the great classical nations of the ancient world. Since it includes essentially all the peoples of Europe, we shall here find those races in whom history has the most abiding interest. We must needs dwell long with the great Greeks, the Romans, the Celts, the Germans, and their descendent races in Europe and the West.
The important Aryan family, however, is by no means coextensive with the White, or Ruddy, races of mankind. Of these te next general division is the Semitic family, second only in fame to the Indo-Europeans. We shall in proper order take up the ancient Semites and follow them from their earliest ethnic life in the valley of the Euphrates, through the great Aramaic and Hebraic developments, down to the modern Arabic evolution in Southwestern Asia. Afterwards the Hamites, of still narrower activities and race dispersion, will be considered, thus completing the cycle of the Ruddy division of mankind.
And generally, what has happened since the 1970s is that European racist dogma has become less overt in academic discourse owing to the end of legal racism in the United States and the independence of many former colonies world wide. But that does not mean the underlying mentality doesn't still exist, they just have suppressed many of its more overt characteristics. Therefore, the fundamental Eurocentric elements of that historiography still exist, as in the famous image of human evolution:
Now all of that leads to the great cultural upheavals of the late 1980s and the early 1990s with the rise in awareness of Malcolm X in the black youth of the United States and the rise of various "Afrocentric" scholars like Dr John Henrike Clarke, Asa Hilliard, Runoko Rashidi, Ivan Van Sertima and others. And they were well known for being both scholars in various Universities but also in participating in numerous lectures around the country which were recorded and sold on VHS tapes at various black events and bookstores around the country.
It is from this era that the term "Afrocentric" became identified with the argument over the ancient black Nile Valley and the effort to denigrate African scholars by stereotyping all their work as pseudo science and feel good history. But it wasn't only African scholars, as Martin Bernal, a European historian also caused a great uproar in the Eurocentric academy with his book "Black Athena". And this is when the word "Afrocentrism" became a "bad word" in European academic circles, namely because of much of the "underground" element of the discourse involving VHS tapes, photocopies of articles and other forms of information circulating in the community. And of course, this era also saw the rise of the Black Hebrew Israelites and other black street corner "conscious" movements like the 5 percent nation and other movements that were more social than actual scholarly, along with the resurgent popularity of the Nation of Islam. But at the end of the day, with or without those other elements, the attack has always been against Africans telling their own history and especially challenging the status quo of European dominated study of history, archaeology and anthropology.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding the quote in the OP. Max Dashu may not be the most objective of historians, but to her credit, she hasn't claimed to be either.
Max Dashu, presentation on Wiki:
quote: Maxine Hammond Dashu (born 1950), known professionally as Max Dashu, is an American feminist historian, author, and artist. Her areas of expertise include female iconography, mother-right cultures and the origins of patriarchy. She identifies as a lesbian.
In 1970, Dashu founded the Suppressed Histories Archives to research and document women's history and to make the full spectrum of women's history and culture visible and accessible. The collection includes 15,000 slides and 30,000 digital images. Since the early 1970s, Dashu has delivered visual presentations on women's history throughout North America, Europe and Australia.
Dashu is the author of Witches and Pagans: Women in European Folk Religion, 700–1100 (2016), the first volume of a planned 16-volume series called Secret History of the Witches.
posted
Today I want to talk about the common West versus East distinction, as supported for example by articles like this.
Putting aside the obvious over-generalizations about both "Western" and "Eastern" cultures, I always wondered how the rest of the world would fit into this schemata. I assume the West means Europe and the East means Asia, but where do the cultures of Africa, the Pacific, and the Americas fit lie on the continuum?
I suppose one could argue that Native Americans, Polynesians, and Australasians are Eastern due to their ancestors having arrived to their respective locations from Asia. That still leaves Africa, the cradle of humanity, unaccounted for. You do see more Islamic cultural influence in northern Africa and more European cultural influence further south nowadays, but I'm talking African cultures without the influence of European colonialism or the Arab invasions of North Africa.
For that matter, there are cultures that developed in Asia that have stronger ties to Europe than the West/East model allows. For all that we in the West tend to exoticize Islam, it shares the vast majority of its religious DNA with the "Western faiths" of Christianity and Judaism, both of which also developed in Asia rather than Europe. Hinduism and Buddhism too probably share more religious DNA with many ancient European religions than they do those of China or Japan, although there might be some indigenous South Asian influences on them as well. Therefore, I don't think it's quite right to say Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism are really Eastern faiths.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Seems like Djehuti already had a victim mentality back in 2005 ! It is amusing to witness his continuous efforts to depict the present Academic field as a racially exclusive club reminiscent of the early 20th century. However, this is merely a desperate and insincere endeavor to validate his afrocentrist perspectives, while simultaneously suggesting the existence of an obscure and covert academic elite conspiring to inferiorize Africans. Meanwhile the truth is that they either tend to remain neutral or are politically correct due to their white guilt.
You've been on here crying all the time.
You are not in the position to speak on victim olympics.
Amenhotep III, 18th dynasty The 18th dynasty spanned the period from 1549/1550 to 1292 BC.
Peintures provenant du tombeau du roi dans la Vallée de l'Ouest, rive gauche de Louxor enduit peint H. : 25,50 cm. ; L. : 25 cm.
posted
“We analyzed the patterns of Native American admixture seen for the three largest genetic ancestry groups in the US population: African descendants,” […] Native American ancestry in the modern African descendant population does not coincide with local geography, instead forming a single group with origins in the southeastern US, consistent with the Great Migration of the early 20thcentury.” […] “The post-Colombian settling of North America brought African, European, and Native American populations into close proximity for the first time. The inevitable admixture among these groups resulted a reservoir of Native American ancestry in modern US populations, outside of traditional Native American groups. Here we characterize that Native American ancestry in a geographically diverse set of African descendant, […] “
quote:“The pioneering study of ADNMT carried out on Olmec individuals, one from San Lorenzo and the other from Loma del Zapote, resulted, in both cases, in the unequivocal presence of the distinctive mutations of the “A” maternal lineage.
That is, the origin of the Olmecs is not in Africa but in America, since they share the most abundant of the five mitochondrial haplogroups characteristic of the indigenous populations of our continent: A, B, C, D and X.
Beyond what happened in other latitudes, immersed in their particular environmental mosaic from which they took advantage, the Mesoamerican peoples resolved in a practical and innovative way multiple challenges of their day to day. This led them to forge such diverse societies, whose achievements in countless areas of human endeavor made Mesoamerica an extraordinary cultural area of the ancient world. The underlying talent and its bearers were of local descent, and an example of this is Olmec society, the first Mesoamerican civilization.
Enrique Villamar Becerril. Physical anthropologist from ENAH. Candidate for a doctor in Mesoamerican studies (UNAM), with an analysis of ADNMT in bone remains from various sites of the Preclassic period.”
(Villamar Becerril Enrique, "DNA Studies and the Origin of the Olmecs", Mexican Archeology, no. 150, pp. 40-41.)
quote:“mtDNA haplotypes of representatives of the cosmopolitan peoples of north-central Mexico were studied. Two hundred twenty-three samples from individuals residing in vicinities of two localities in north-central Mexico were analyzed. A combination of strategies was employed to identify the origin of each haplotype, including length variation analysis of the COII and tRNALYS intergenic region, nucleotide sequence analysis of control region hypervariable segment 1, and RFLP analysis of PCR products spanning diagnostic sites. Analysis of these data revealed that the majority of the mtDNA haplotypes were of Native American origin, belonging to one of four primary Native American haplogroups.
Others were of European or African origin, and the frequency of African haplotypes was equivalent to that of haplotypes of European derivation. These results provide diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic evidence that, together with results of previous studies of classical genetic systems, is informative with regard to both the magnitude of African admixture and the relative maternal contribution of African, European, and Native American peoples to the genetic heritage of Mexico. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that African sequences formed a basal, paraphyletic group.”
(Lance D. Green, James N. Derr and Alec Knight - mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Has anyone in this space ever wondered what would have been the case if any of the African samples with Northeast African or Egyptian related ancestry were sequenced and published before the Raqefet Natufian were?
Let me note with a degree of certainty that if:( the Pastoral Neolithic Samples, Taforalt, IAM or Oub02, Skhirat, The ancient Swahili, Kulubnarti and christian Nubian samples, or even Abusir el Meleq.) ..any of these samples were published before the Natufian, a lot would have been different in these spaces.
[_]
That aside I don't think academia has been improved, and with that being said, I don't think the issue is the amount of "white dudes" in academia. For one there are many cultural representatives contributing to these publications. Also, it's inconceivable to me that so much people white or not will enter the field with such bad intentions. I believe its just cumulative bias built from anti-black and anti-African foundation. Part of what hold this "conscious bubble" together nowadays is the almost universal perception of black people as primitive. This is an idea that was bolstered by propaganda and scientific publication starting by at least late 19th century. It is a pervasive idea which is at the stem of even some of the most progressive personalities. And to be honest, the progressive types are the worst as their ideals are often not in a place to be challenged. These guys are like PETA, in the case which the "A" stands for African.
Aside from the bias, I personally believe there is some politics involved. Take it as an anecdote as I can't say anything about it now. But we've likely arrived past a tipping point in which it'd take decades to fix. The Cleopatra thing was pretty much the nail in the coffin as far as public perception goes. And there's a certain idea being pushed to where North West Africans and East Africans will become residual. Afrocentrism takes a lot of public heat but as far as influence goes it's merely a niche. I can't fully explain how the criticisms became more influential than the "movement" but that where we are.
I stated the political side of things years ago. And it was clearly visible in the last ten years on social media.
The time I didn't spend here, I was on other platforms like YouTube. Especially around 2014 till 2019. And I did see a movement of alt right types. Some in academia. Do guess what happens when such individuals go into certain fields?
Recently we had Affirmative Action being removed, with the help of Asian panderers.
Now it has shot them in the foot, as they complain how racism and college admissions is targeting them.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I strongly disagree with the "it's a minority" "we make fun of them." This is a false impression simply because most people of African descent in the diaspora may not initially show a strong interest in history. However, upon discussing the topic, you'll find that many of them do indeed hold Afrocentric beliefs and theories. Even within the academic field, several black scholars demonstrate clear biases, like SOY Keita or that clown of "Molefi Asante," of whom I recently read an article where he suggests that Septimius Severus was black solely because he hailed from Africa. I couldn't believe this was actually published...
Furthermore, I was surprised to learn about the existence of black academies in the US, where the majority of students and teachers are black. Of course and no surprise these institutions tend to teach Afrocentric theories when it comes to history.
Summarize the fields of Africana studies. So we can have a better understanding what you're taking about.
As BrandonP had stated, many in this field are actually white males. So, what's your argument here?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: In my personal experience, particularly online, I've encountered very few black individuals who were not proponents of Afrocentrism. Additionally, in real life, there's a persistent belief among some SSAs that North Africans are seen as Arab invaders. However, I won't blame them because that's how most North Africans identify and how they are viewed by Europeans.
This is partially true that Arabs invaded North Africa and that North Africans in some cases feel more commonality with Arabs. This has a deep rooted history in Eurocentrism. But of course it's much easer to blame Afrocentrism, right?
On the other hand those in SSA and the North are not really familiar with one another. Although during ancient times it appears to have been different. Even you have claimed that the only contact between SSA and North Africans was based on slavery. And you have claimed to have Arabic ancestry.
You honestly are not going to deny here tat some in North African have this "superiority complex" over SSA's. I met and encounter both sides, so I say some.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed extremists exists on both sides so if some people are are "blackcentric", then there are those who are obviously "whitecentric". Though some Eurocentrics are smarter than that and don't cling to "whiteness" instead if dark skin is found in Paleolithic Europeans and even Neanderthals they then use dark-skin as a non-factor to whether someone is African or more specifically 'Sub-Saharan' or not. Hence many Afrocentrics still fall into their okie-doke trap.
That's true, and well observed.
And I have to admit that some "Afrocentric's" have done a lot of damage as well, by claiming other peoples history. This left has left a bad taste in some mouths.
Some have been on this site, and we all know who they are. Some wrote ridiculous claims, where they feel (felt) entitled to claim other peoples history.
And it’s not so much having common interests in ancient cultures and civilizations, but having the audacity to claim them and replace the actual people of the history, culture and civilization.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, extremists exist both among African Americans and Europeans/European Americans. I just saw an example online how several Afrocentrists obviously could not take that an Egyptian woman showed a video about an ancient Egyptian statue, which they thought was too light, or did not conform to their ideas of how ancient Egyptians ought to look like.
So a dark skinned Ötzi, or a pale Egyptian statue obviously attracts angry "centrists" from both sides.
This ignorance is certainly real. However it's even more ridiculous to claim that there was no Black (dark skinned) individuals in the Nile Valley region for thousands of years and the inhibitors were actually from eurasian back migrations.
I have been to Egypt and most all of the statues and murals have dark complexions. I estimated 90%, others say it's even more.
And the vast majority in rural Egypt look like the girl in this picture (in color complexion), who happens to resemble this ancient statue. But for convenience we are going to call her a "dark skinned caucasian".
One thing I know for certain, Black Americans didn't start this.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since i see some info above about admixture in u.s. i will some updated info below about it.
Native Americans in the United States
Admixture and genetics
quote: Intertribal marriage is historically common among many Native American tribes, both prior to European contact and in the present. Historically, tribal conflicts might result in the eventual adoption of, or marriages with, captives taken in warfare, with former foes becoming full members of the community. Individuals often have ancestry from more than one tribe, and this became increasingly common after so many tribes lost family members to colonial invasions bringing disease, war and massacres. Bands or entire tribes were often reduced to very small numbers, and at times split or merged to form stronger communities in reaction to these pressures. Tribes with long trading histories with Europeans show a higher rate of European admixture, reflecting admixture events between Native American women and European men. The Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism has also said that haplogroup testing is not a valid means of determining Native American ancestry, and that the concept of using genetic testing to determine who is or is not Native American threatens tribal sovereignty.Author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, Kim TallBear (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), agrees, stating that not only is there no DNA test that can indicate a tribe, but "there is no DNA-test to prove you're Native American."Tallbear writes in Native American DNA that while a DNA test may bring up some markers associated with some Indigenous or Asian populations, the science in these cases is problematic,as Indigenous identity is not about one distant (and possibly nonexistent) ancestor, but rather political citizenship, culture, kinship, and daily, lived experience as part of an Indigenous community.She adds that a person, "… could have up to two Native American grandparents and show no sign of Native American ancestry. For example, a genetic male could have a maternal grandfather (from whom he did not inherit his Y chromosome) and a paternal grandmother (from whom he did not inherit his mtDNA) who were descended from Native American founders, but mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses would not detect them." Given all these factors, DNA testing is not sufficient to qualify a person for specific tribal membership, as the ethnicity admixture tests cannot distinguish among Native American tribes. They cannot even reliably indicate Native American ancestry. "Native American markers" are not found solely among Native Americans. While they occur more frequently among Native Americans, they are also found in people in other parts of the world. The only use of DNA testing by legitimate tribes is that some, such as the Meskwaki, may use DNA for paternity tests, or similar confirmation that an applicant who was not enrolled at birth is the biological child of an enrolled tribal member. It is solely about confirming or ruling out biological paternity, and has no relationship to race or ethnicity.
African American admixtures
quote: DNA testing and research has provided some data about the extent of Native American ancestry among African Americans, which varies in the general population. Based on the work of geneticists, Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr. hosted a popular, and at times controversial, PBS series, African American Lives, in which geneticists said DNA evidence shows that Native American ancestry is far less common among African Americans than previously believed. Their conclusions were that while almost all African Americans are racially mixed, and many have family stories of Native heritage, usually these stories turn out to be inaccurate, with only 5 percent of African American people showing more than 2 percent Native American ancestry. Gates summarized these statistics to mean that, "If you have 2 percent Native American ancestry, you had one such ancestor on your family tree five to nine generations back (150 to 270 years ago)."Their findings also concluded that the most common "non-Black" mix among African Americans is English and Scots-Irish. Some critics thought the PBS series did not sufficiently explain the limitations of DNA testing for assessment of heritage.Another study, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, also indicated that, despite how common these family stories are, relatively few African-Americans who have these stories actually turned out to have detectable Native American ancestry.A study reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics stated, "We analyzed the European genetic contribution to 10 populations of African descent in the United States (Maywood, Illinois; Detroit; New York; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Baltimore; Charleston, South Carolina; New Orleans; and Houston) ... mtDNA haplogroups analysis shows no evidence of a significant maternal Amerindian contribution to any of the 10 populations." Despite this, some still insist that most African Americans have at least some Native American heritage.
Source wikipedia
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
African Americans constitute the second largest racial group in the U.S. after White Americans, as well as the third largest ethnic group after Hispanic and Latino Americans.[ Most African Americans are descendants of enslaved people within the boundaries of the present United States. On average, African Americans are of West/Central African with some European descent; some also have Native American and other ancestry.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (~95%). Immigrants from some Caribbean and Latin American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term.
quote: Harvard University historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote in 2009 that "African Americans...are a racially mixed or mulatto people—deeply and overwhelmingly so" (see genetics).
Note- Henry Louis got carried away and is incorrect. African americans on average are not mulattos/mixed Henry just like the average white american(even hispanic and non hispanic combined) is not mixed race just because most have admixture as well. Now on average these groups have admixture,but that's not the same as mixed.
quote:
African Americans/Genetics Genome-wide studies Recent surveys of African Americans using a genetic testing service have found varied ancestries which show different tendencies by region and sex of ancestors. These studies found that on average, African Americans have 73.2–82.1% West African, 16.7%–24% European, and 0.8–1.2% Native American genetic ancestry, with large variation between individuals.Genetics websites themselves have reported similar ranges, with some finding 1 or 2 percent Native American ancestry and Ancestry.com reporting an outlying percentage of European ancestry among African Americans, 29%.
According to a genome-wide study by Bryc et al. (2009), the mixed ancestry of African Americans in varying ratios came about as the result of sexual contact between West/Central Africans (more frequently females) and Europeans (more frequently males). Consequently, the 365 African Americans in their sample have a genome-wide average of 78.1% West African ancestry and 18.5% European ancestry, with large variation among individuals (ranging from 99% to 1% West African ancestry). The West African ancestral component in African Americans is most similar to that in present-day speakers from the non-Bantu branches of the Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) family.
Correspondingly, Montinaro et al. (2014) observed that around 50% of the overall ancestry of African Americans traces back to the Niger-Congo-speaking Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria and southern Benin, reflecting the centrality of this West African region in the Atlantic Slave Trade. The next most frequent ancestral component found among African Americans was derived from Great Britain, in keeping with historical records. It constitutes a little over 10% of their overall ancestry, and is most similar to the Northwest European ancestral component also carried by Barbadians. Zakharaia et al. (2009) found a similar proportion of Yoruba associated ancestry in their African-American samples, with a minority also drawn from Mandenka and Bantu populations. Additionally, the researchers observed an average European ancestry of 21.9%, again with significant variation between individuals. Bryc et al. (2009) note that populations from other parts of the continent may also constitute adequate proxies for the ancestors of some African-American individuals; namely, ancestral populations from Guinea Bissau, Senegal and Sierra Leone in West Africa and Angola in Southern Africa.
Altogether, genetic studies suggest that African Americans are a genetically diverse people. According to DNA analysis led in 2006 by Penn State geneticist Mark D. Shriver, around 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5% European ancestry (equivalent to one European great-grandparent and his/her forebears), 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25% European ancestry (equivalent to one European grandparent and his/her forebears), and 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50% European ancestry (equivalent to one European parent and his/her forebears). According to Shriver, around 5 percent of African Americans also have at least 12.5% Native American ancestry (equivalent to one Native American great-grandparent and his/her forebears). Research suggests that Native American ancestry among people who identify as African American is a result of relationships that occurred soon after slave ships arrived in the American colonies, and European ancestry is of more recent origin, often from the decades before the Civil War.
According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (~95%).Immigrants from some Caribbean and Latin American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term.
________________________ Note- in real life some black or african americans just like white americans and native americans do not have any other race admixture. Well most black americans may have european dna but it still not significant enough.For it be significant and impact phenotype it needs to be 25% or up and that is not always the case for some.Having 1% asian or native american dna is really small and not significant as well and does not impact phenotype as well. Most white americans have other race admixture as well but tends to be smaller on average then the average black american real life race admixture but they have race admixture and for most of then too it's insignificant. By the way in comicbook superhero stories,shows,movies etc.. most white and black americans do not have any other race admixture and when a few do it's simplified.So the person is either 100% black or white,50% or 75% etc..
By way most latino/hispanic americans in comics are not white and are not classified as white,while in real life most are classified as white.
White Americans
quote: Admixture Admixture in non-Hispanic whites White Americans (European Americans) on average are: 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American. Inferred British/Irish ancestry is found in European Americans from all states at mean proportions of above 20%, and represents a majority of ancestry, above 50% mean proportion, in states such as Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Scandinavian ancestry in European Americans is highly localized; most states show only trace mean proportions of Scandinavian ancestry, while it comprises a significant proportion, upwards of 10%, of ancestry in European Americans from Minnesota and the Dakotas.
DNA analysis on White Americans by geneticist Mark D. Shriver showed an average of 0.7% Sub-Saharan African admixture and 3.2% Native American admixture. The same author, in another study, claimed that about 30% of all White Americans, approximately 66 million people, have a median of 2.3% of Black African admixture. Shriver discovered his ancestry is 10 percent African, and Shriver's partner in DNA Print Genomics, J.T. Frudacas, contradicted him two years later stating "Five percent of European Americans exhibit some detectable level of African ancestry."
Older studies have also been performed. In a 2007 study, Gonçalves et al. reported Sub-Saharan and Amerindian mtDNA lineages at a frequency of 3.1% (respectively 0.9% and 2.2%) in a sample of 1387 American Caucasians as compared to 62% in white Brazilians (respectively 29% and 33%), 98% for white Colombians (respectively 8% and 90%) and similarly high levels for Argentines, Chileans, and Costa Ricans. A 2003 study on Y-chromosomes and mtDNA found African admixture in European-Americans to be "below the limits of detection".
Admixture in Hispanic whites
quote: In contrast to non-Hispanic or Latino whites, whose average European ancestry is 98.6%, genetic research has found that the average European admixture among White Hispanic and Latino Americans is 73%, while the average European admixture for Hispanic Americans overall (regardless of their self-identified race) is 65.1%.
Source wikipedia and the above thread Topic: Comedian Kevin Hart feb 2023 tour to Egypt, call for boycott on "Afrocentric views"
quote: Most white americans in real life have recent african admixture and native american dna. White hispanic/latino americans have higher non european dna,so if you combine white americans and white latino americans then the non europeans dna for white americans is higher.
posted
I'm not quite following your post Firewall? I get that Skip Gates is a sellout who is racially confused but I'm not understanding your post.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just posting dna info from other sources that are updated for the varied groups in america.I saw some dna info above so i wanted to post dna info and well. This thread also stays in one place as well unlike most other ones.
The gates thing was just connected to that post from the other thread i just did not feel to leave out.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Just posting dna info from other sources that are updated for the varied groups in america.I saw some dna info above so i wanted to post dna info and well. This thread also stays in one place as well unlike most other ones.
The gates thing was just connected to that post from the other thread i just did not feel to leave out.
The issue is not admixture, the issue is that some come with this replacement theory and call the actual Native Americans / Amerindians fake, or recent immigrant from Asia to actually replace (them) ABOS.
It's a weird and strange bubble these folks are living in, where the earth is flat, gravity doesn't exist, one can only enter space trough the core (center) of the earth, mankind arose in North America and came out of the soil etc. And more weird pseudo intellectual babble that will put Black American children up for failure in life.
If you want to know how dumb these people actually are. Listen to this: a conversation with a self proclaimed ABOS, who doesn’t understand that the amount of humans can have the same weight as other cargo.
He doesn’t understand that 100 pounds is 100 pounds, no matter the type of cargo.
Someone (Nikki Justice On The Run) in the comment section stated: “these people are dumb in real life”.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic