quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
But its ok to call genes and lineages "Black African derived", you're contradicting yourself on this.

---

Actually Charlie, Thought isn't contradicting himself. You are.

You imply that Black African derived is an incorrect term because Black African is not a genetic division, correct?

Now that is a flawed premise but nonetheless, let's take it as your operating premise and hold you to it.

Sub-sahara is also not a genetic division. Rather like "Mid-East" it is political geography.

Actually none of the terms used by Sforza in the quote in question are genetic divisons, including Africa, Asia, Europe, or Arab, Berber, Semitic, Jewish etc. all of which are terms used to describe lineages by geneticists because they relate either whom the lineages originate amongst, or where they originate or both.

Moroever: you yourself use some of these terms to discribe lineages. And you do not object to geneticists who use such terms.

Therefore whenver you object to others doing as YOU DO you are not applying a consistent principal of logic.

You are merely rationalising your objection to a particular term that you don't like -> Black African.

This term is not different in principal from other terms also used to identify lineages by whom they originate amongst.

And after all, that's what lineages are - lines of descent among people.

Your error of logic is known as special pleading where you do not hold your own thinking to the same standard that you apply to others.

It's an easy mistake to make. But it is a mistake.

"...the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a sub-Saharan African component." - Brace et al.

Or...

"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element." - Brace et al.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

But its ok to call genes and lineages "Black African derived", you're contradicting yourself...

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Actually Sforza's work does support his views: classification into race has proven to be a futile excercise .

---

Cavalli-Sforza's work supports racial clusters. As does the subsequent work of Wilson (2001), Calo (2001), Rosenberg (2002), Hua Tang (2005), Nan Yang (2005) and Agrawal (2005).

quote:

---

Sforza also labled the Greeks as outliers in the European genetic landscape and shows them as such in his Fst linkage trees, opposite the Dutch, Danes and English:

---

Greeks are as distant from Africans as the rest, a fact which is confirmed in this other tree that pools the Greek, Danish, English, Basque and Italian samples. And what about those Italians? In the first tree, they're right in there with the Danes and English. I thought Italians were "Black African" too.

quote:

---

And Cavelli Sforza's oulier Greeks have MORE of it than the NorthWest European Dutch, Danish, Swiss and Germans which is what makes the Greeks outlier, according to Sforza, to begin with.

---

Post a quote from the book where Cavalli-Sforza states that Greeks are outliers because of Black admixture. You can't because it's bullsh*t.

Greeks are fully European:

quote:

---

Gutless Ginny writes: I thought Italians were "Black African" too

---

quote:

---

Eurobabble writes: Greeks are fully European

---

In terms of paternal lineage Greeks are less than 1/2 European.

The Greeks carry 24% African and 23% West Asian male lineage.

And this reflects the history of Neolithic African and West Asian migrants whom they are mixed with and whose lineages they still carry. Sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb: Evil, Rasol knows Greeks are fully European.

---

We are talking about genetics Professor so do me a favor - define 'fully European' in terms of genetics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
We are talking about genetics Professor so do me a favor - define 'fully European' in terms of genetics.

Thank you.

---

Times up Professor.

Oh well, Dumb Euro doesn't have an answer either, but I'm sure he'll google something up, perhaps a Dienekes-distortion or another fake map from Nu-sapiens - should be fun.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
In terms of paternal lineage Greeks are less than 1/2 European.

The Greeks carry 24% African and 23% West Asian male lineage.

And this reflects the history of Neolithic African and West Asian migrants whom they are mixed with and whose lineages they still carry. Sorry.

---

Translation: You have no evidence from Cavalli-Sforza that Greeks are outliers because of "Black admixture". That was a lie.

I, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence from multiple sources that Greeks are European, both paternally and autosomally:

quote:

---

ErroneousArgument whimpers: You have no evidence from Cavalli-Sforza that Greeks are outliers because of "Black admixture".

---

translation: You have no answers.

You can't even answer your own favorite source, CL Brace:

quote:

---

there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element - CL Brace.

---

quote:

---

Mansa Musa writes: Euro if you were ever going to get somewhere with your argument you'd have to email Loring Brace yourself. By not doing so you only back up the belief that all you are here for is mindless banter while you repeat the same old rhetoric

---

What's taking so long?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squirming Ape:
translation: You have no answers.

---

The answer is that you're a dishonest Afronut monkey who got caught in a lie, and is left with nothing to do but spam off-topic in the hope that no one will notice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Underpants Man:

Why are we talking about Greeks in an Egyptology forum?

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Euroloser writes: the answer is....

---

...that you've been rejected by your own source and thus have no answers, of course.

quote:

---

there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element - CL Brace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I have no problem answering this question, although the answer is BLATANTLY CLEAR to those who have been following the Black Athena debates for the past 10 years. In order to understand the peopling of Egypt we need to understand the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin in general. Egypt was not peopled in a vacum. After all of the information provided on this forum to date we still have lames who claim that "Lower Egypt was mixed and Upper Egypt was African". This is bullsh*t! The true meeting point of Africans and Eurasians during the establishment of the neolithic was around the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I have no problem answering this question, although the answer is BLATANTLY CLEAR to those who have been following the Black Athena debates for the past 10 years. In order to understand the peopling of Egypt we need to understand the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin in general. Egypt was not peopled in a vacum. After all of the information provided on this forum to date we still have lames who claim that "Lower Egypt was mixed and Upper Egypt was African". This is bullsh*t! The true meeting point of Africans and Eurasians during the establishment of the neolithic was around the Levant. You also need to understand that there are some who have a motivation to make Egypt mixed while claiming that Greece is PURE "CAUCASOID". Hence, the purpose of discussing Greece within the context of Ancient Egypt is the same as the purpose of discussing ancient Assyria in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt - Egyptians interracted and affected these socities and likewise these socities interracted with and affected Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I have no problem answering this question, although the answer is BLATANTLY CLEAR to those who have been following the Black Athena debates for the past 10 years. In order to understand the peopling of Egypt we need to understand the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin in general. Egypt was not peopled in a vacum. After all of the information provided on this forum to date we still have lames who claim that "Lower Egypt was mixed and Upper Egypt was African". This is bullsh*t! The true meeting point of Africans and Eurasians during the establishment of the neolithic was around the Levant. You also need to understand that there are some who have a motivation to make Egypt mixed while claiming that Greece is PURE "CAUCASOID". Hence, the purpose of discussing Greece within the context of Ancient Egypt is the same as the purpose of discussing ancient Assyria in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt - Egyptians interracted and affected these socities and likewise these socities interracted with and affected Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

In the interest of stirring the pot do you have any pics of modern Greeks that you think represent the mixture you are speaking of in Neolithic times?

---

Thought Writes:

I think you can pick any modern human being and generally conclude that they have genetic lineages that derive from disprate geographic locals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

The Ancient Greeks were *NOT* racially mixed nor mixed race people. I do not understand the obsession with Greece, if white western academia wants to say Greeks were pure or whatever, so be it, but whether Greeks were racially mixed or not holds no central meaning in studying Egypt. Ancient Greece was *NOT* an African civilization. I know I said I wouldn't come back, but this is ridiculous.

---

Thought Writes:

This is an interesting case study of how those who purport to be of the "No-Race School" actually work with models that revolve around deep seated "Racial" underpinnings. Greece, Egypt, Nubia, Sumeria, Elam, Mohenjo-Daro, etc. are all WORLD CULTURES that as human beings we ALL share in. Some of us have greater cultural and/or genetic affinity with these cultures than others, but this in no way invalidates the HUMAN attachment to these cultures. On a more superficial level we can trace the spread of the Black African derived lineage E3b around the circum-Mediterranean basin as well as far east into eastern Pakistan where the base of Mohenjo-Daro began.

Of course the Greeks are not Racially mixed nor are they mixed Race people becuase the primise of Race itself is invalid in a biological sense. The Greeks DO however carry lineages that derive from numerous geographic locals, among people who have origins in Black Africa. You have a problem with Black African derived genes and then turn around and espouse a "White Western Academia" model. Of course ancient Greece was NOT a African civilization. This is a Red-Herring, in that I NEVER claimed that Greece was a African civilization. Again, I wonder if you are naive, dishonest or simply use English as a second language.

To be coherent you *must* challenge both manifestations of the same root fallacy - of typological race.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

This is an interesting case study of how those who purport to be of the "No-Race School" actually work with models that revolve around deep seated "Racial" underpinnings. Of course the Greeks are not Racially mixed nor are they mixed Race people becuase the primise of Race itself is invalid in a biological sense. The Greeks DO however carry lineages that derive from numerous geographic locals, among people who have origins in Black Africa. You have a problem with Black African derived genes and then turn around and espouse a "White Western Academia" model. Of course ancient Greece was NOT a African civilization. This is a Red-Herring, in that I NEVER claimed that Greece was a African civilization. Again, I wonder if you are naive, dishonest or simply use English as a second language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Charlie: Racial purity and racial mixture are opposite sides of the same fallacy.

To be coherent you *must* challenge both manifestations of the same root fallacy - of typological race.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 October 2005).]

---

Its ok to challenge in Egypt, thats understandable, but Greece? The obsession with Greece is the reason why African-centered thought isn't taken serious. All I'm saying is let the western academia have Greece, Egyptians civilization was already thousands of years old when Greek civilization began, so Greece has no significance when challenging western academia about Egypt. Instead, what needs to be focused on is the areas to the south and souhwest of Egypt, thats called being truly African-centered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

The only lineages that Greeks carry that originated in sub-Saharan Africa are the delta cluster of E3b1, the alpha cluster did *NOT* originate in sub-Saharan Africa, but I guess this means nothing to you.

---

Thought Writes:

This is Eurocentric insanity at its worst! The purpose of this discourse is to understand the peopling of Ancient Egypt. The purpose of understanding the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin is to create a FRAMEWORK of probability to understand the peopling of Ancient Egypt. For example, if we understand that the Natufians were an admixed population with genetic, linguistic, cranial and technological antecedants that derive in part from Ancient Egyptians then when we speak of Neolithic Lower Egyptians being "Mixed" we have a proper FRAMEWORK. Hence, we study the dispersal of lineages such as E3b1 delta to understand the spread of the neolithic economy in Eurasia, which is Black African in origin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Some East Africans carry non African lineages in considerable frequencies but they are still black Africans thus there's no need to discuss them, the same holds for Greeks in the inverse.

---

Thought Writes:

Of course we should study these lineages. They give us the ability to understand human interrelatedness. This interrelatedness in no way invalidates the uniqueness of these Africans as Africans, it does create a complex picture of human variability. This complexity may have you and Evil E baffled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

If we're going to deal with ancient Egypt lets stick to Egypt and let the white western academia have Greece.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

The obsession with Greece is the reason why African-centered thought isn't taken serious.

---

Thought Writes:

African-centered thought isn't taken serious by who? I detect a Freudian slip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

All I'm saying is let the western academia have Greece, Egyptians civilization was already thousands of years old when Greek civilization began, so Greece has no significance when challenging western academia about Egypt.

---

Thought Writes:

The point is NOT about challenging "White Western Academia", but Eurocentrism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Instead, what needs to be focused on is the areas to the south and souhwest of Egypt, thats called being truly African-centered.

---

Thought Writes:

Kinda sounds like the old-school racists who used to say "Nigg*r, stay in your place". Well, I for one WON'T stay in my place. The entire paradigm of Western Civilization is a ruse to cover-up the African orgin of humanity and human culture. The latest twist on this ruse is to accept the OOA migration, but reject LATER contributions of Africans to global culture after the European mesolithic.

Whatever you do in life have some "Nutts" with the sh*t that you do Black Man!

quote:

---

This is Eurocentric insanity at its worst! The purpose of this discourse is to understand the peopling of Ancient Egypt. The purpose of understanding the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin is to create a FRAMEWORK of probability to understand the peopling of Ancient Egypt. For example, if we understand that the Natufians were an admixed population with genetic, linguistic, cranial and technological antecedants that derive in part from Ancient Egyptians then when we speak of Neolithic Lower Egyptians being "Mixed" we have a proper FRAMEWORK. Hence, we study the dispersal of lineages such as E3b1 delta to understand the spread of the neolithic economy in Eurasia, which is Black African in origin.

---

E3b1 delta is found in *LOW* frequencies even in Africa, so whats the point? The spread happened 14.7 kya, Greek civilization some thousands of years later. The Natufians remains are dated back to the Mesolithic, what bearing do they have on Greeks?

quote:

---

Of course we should study these lineages. They give us the ability to understand human interrelatedness. This interrelatedness in no way invalidates the uniqueness of these Africans as Africans, it does create a complex picture of human variability. This complexity may have you and Evil E baffled.

---

Again, I'm going to ignore your lame insult, I've been on this forum discussing interrelatedness and lineages ad-naseum, I'm not the one who is baffled, don't lump me the same as Evil Euro, I've e-mailed and asked the experts for their insight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

E3b1 delta is found in *LOW* frequencies even in Africa, so whats the point?

---

Thought Writes:

The point is that we can use that lineage as ONE form of evidence to trace the spread of human culture from Black Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

The spread happened 14.7 kya, Greek civilization some thousands of years later. The Natufians remains are dated back to the Mesolithic, what bearing do they have on Greeks?

---

Thought Writes:

Again, the CONTEXT of this discussion is around the peopling of the circum-Mediterranean basin in general and Ancient Egypt specifically. Most "White Western Academics" trace the origins of African and "Western Civilization" back to the establishment of the Neolithic. This was Childe's Neolithic Revolution. The establishment of the Neolithic in turn is important to the expression of Eurocentrism in that Childe and other arcaheologists claim that "civilization" developed from the establishment of sedentism. We deconstruct Eurocentrism NOT by excepting its paradigms, but by challenging it with up to date information. The so-called Neolithic Revolution is based upon technological developments that began in Sub-Saharan Africa AFTER the OOA migration and then spread through the Rift Valley, down the Nile and around the circum-Mediterranean as well as east into the Indus-Kush valley.

Thought Posts:

First Framers
Peter Bellwood
2005

"The archaeological COURSE TOWARD domestication in the Levant can be traced from around 19,000 B.C. at the peak of the last Glaciation. At this time, people camped at a locality called Ohalo II..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Kinda sounds like the old-school racists who used to say "Nigg*r, stay in your place". Well, I for one WON'T stay in my place. The entire paradigm of Western Civilization is a ruse to cover-up the African orgin of humanity and human culture. The latest twist on this ruse is to accept the OOA migration, but reject LATER contributions of Africans to global culture after the European mesolithic.

Whatever you do in life have some "Nutts" with the sh*t that you do Black Man!

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 23 October 2005).][/B]

---

Do I detect some frustration here? Whats up with the insults? My point is let the white folks have their European civilizations, we do not need to discuss Greece to get a better understanding of Ancient Egypt and personally I don't care two cents about the achievements of Europeans, I have had listen to it from junior high up until present in college. I'm not going to obsess over E3b1 derived lineages in Europeans and hoot and holla about it, I don't care. There is so much on the African continent that hasn't been discussed, thats my point. I don't have an old-school "niggas stay in your place attitude" if you're that obsessed with Europe and E3b1 that makes *YOU* the hankerchief head here, not me. There is no big conspiracy, if you disagree with whats written in journals by population geneticists e-mail them and state your case, thats what I do, instead of whinning about conspiracies.

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

African-centered thought isn't taken serious by who? I detect a Freudian slip.

---

Thats why Afrocentrism is often criticized because of dumb nonsense like "black Greeks" for example. Why obsess over a lineage that spread into the Levant in 14.7 kya and is found in low frequencies in both Europe and Africa?

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

The point is NOT about challenging "White Western Academia", but Eurocentrism.

---

And your point being? What does this have to do with Greece? Obsessing over a Y chromosone lineage isn't going to bring Eurocentrism to its knees, especially when the lineahe is found in low frequencies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Its ok to challenge in Egypt, thats understandable, but Greece?

---

Another example of special pleading. If you agree that racial typologies are a fallacy then they are a fallacy no matter where they are applied. You are practising exceptionalism for ancient Greece.

quote:

---

The obsession with Greece is the reason why African-centered thought isn't taken serious.

---

That's called argument by ridicule.

The primary sources for African influence in the Levantine and neolithic Greece, include Christopher Ehret, Larry Angel, Bar Yosif, McGown, Keita, etc..

Please provide evidence that the above scholars are not taken seriously - and by whom? Greek nataionalists Dienekes Pontikos? You can be assured that he takes the above scholars very seriously.

The mistake is in *your* taking *him* seriously.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is let the western academia have Greece

---

All I'm saying is, you're not making any sense. No civilisation 'belongs' to "ws.t" academia. Even ws.t scholars know better than to assert such imperialistic concepts.

The job of the historical scholar is to seek truth, wherever it may lay, not affirm western race ideology and imperialism - in Egypt, in Greece or anywhere else.

quote:

---

Instead, what needs to be focused on is the areas to the south and souhwest of Egypt, thats called being truly African-centered.

---

Of course, you may focus on whatever you think is best - who's stopping you?

Right now, by your own logic you are wasting your time by focusing on Greece.

You speak of obsession with Greece.

Yet you return this forum after grandiosely announcing your departure soley to argue in support of white racial purity in ancient Greece. A notion you know is a lie, yet you argue it should remain unchallenged? ? ?

Your position is dissonant.

Yeah, someone's obsessed. Physican heal thyself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

My point is let the white folks have their European civilizations

---

Thought Writes:

And my point is that this view is not only Racist and asinine, but historically spurious. Greek culture has affected many parts of Africa, just as Egyptian culture affected Greece. The Islamic scholars of Timbucktoo and/or Kilwa read the works of the ancient Greeks. Again, these cultures are interrelated and the concept of Western Civilization as currently defined is spurious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

we do not need to discuss Greece to get a better understanding of Ancient Egypt

---

Thought Writes:

Of course we do. Every tool that is at our disposal is value-added and develops a broader scope of understanding. More knowledge is allways better than less knowledge, unless one is anti-intellectual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

I'm not going to obsess over E3b1 derived lineages in Europeans and hoot and holla about it, I don't care.

---

Thought Writes:

The issue is NOT about E3b1 in Europeans per say. The issue is understanding the spread of African culture around the circum-Mediterranean basin to better contextualize the implications of insinuated back-migration from Eurasia into Egypt during the early Neolithic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

There is so much on the African continent that hasn't been discussed, thats my point.

---

Thought Writes:

Then discuss it. No one is stopping you. Instead of focusing on these issues, you have taken the position of being a DEFENDER of the Racial Eurocentric paradigm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

I don't have an old-school "niggas stay in your place attitude" if you're that obsessed with Europe and E3b1 that makes *YOU* the hankerchief head here, not me.

---

Thought Writes:

Again, I question your ability to comprehend the issue at hand. My focus is NOT on E3b1 in Europe to make Europeans African. My focus is on understanding the spread of this lineage to support the understanding of the spread of African culture as the basis for the "Neolithic Revolution".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

There is no big conspiracy, if you disagree with whats written in journals by population geneticists e-mail them and state your case, thats what I do, instead of whinning about conspiracies.

---

Thought Writes:

Another Red-Herring, I never claimed that there was a conspiracy. In fact I have emailed many scientists, including emailing Brace YEARS before you. But this is not relevent to the issue of you not having the nutts to challenge the Eurocentric paradigm of "Western Civilization". Or perhaps you simply don't understand the implications of the construct of "Western Civilization".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Thats why Afrocentrism is often criticized because of dumb nonsense like "black Greeks" for example.

---

Thought Writes:

Attempting to understand WHY someone criticizes another is a waste of time, because the motivations of others is subjective. But clearly there were SOME Black Greeks, just as there were SOME Whites in Ancient Ghana. But what does that have t do with the spread of Black African derived genes and culture to Greece?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Why obsess over a lineage that spread into the Levant in 14.7 kya and is found in low frequencies in both Europe and Africa?

---

Thought Writes:

First of all I doubt that a lineage that derived ~14,000 years ago in the Horn of Africa spread to Greece ~14,000 years ago, but ok. But again, the real issue is utilizing the spread of E3b to understand the spread of African culture via the Neolithi and the implications this has on the concept of "Western Civilization".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

And your point being? What does this have to do with Greece? Obsessing over a Y chromosone lineage isn't going to bring Eurocentrism to its knees, especially when the lineahe is found in low frequencies.

---

Thought Writes:

E3b1 alpha is derived from E3b1 which spread down the Nile and into Eurasia AFTER ~14,000 years ago. This knowledge gives us an additional tool in understanding the diffusion of neolithic culture from Africa to Eurasia and hence another tool to deconstruct the concept of "Western Civilization" which is the basis of Eurocentrism.

quote:

---

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the implications of the construct of "Western Civilization".

---

We have a winner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
We have a winner.

---

I don't care about "western civilization" nor European civilization. What I do care about is bringing out more of the light of whats African, I don't care two cents about western academia constructs, they've been saying the same crap for years and years, so it will never stop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

I don't care about "western civilization" nor European civilization. What I do care about is bringing out more of the light of whats African...

---

Thought Writes:

How can one care about the AE's and not care to understand the Hittites. How can one care about the Garamantes and not care to understand the Romans. Howcan one care about ancient Ghana and not care to understand the Kingdom of the Two Shores (Iberia and Morrocco). How can one care about the Swahili and not care to understand the Omani. How can one care about Aksum and not care to understand the Perian Empire. The list goes on and on, but the point is that the Racial paradigm is faulty genetically and culturally.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

I don't care two cents about western academia constructs, they've been saying the same crap for years and years, so it will never stop.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
I don't care about "western civilization" nor European civilization. What I do care about is bringing out more of the light of whats African, I don't care two cents about western academia constructs, they've been saying the same crap for years and years, so it will never stop.

---

I think you are a bit frustrated from arguing with Dodona dumbells for too long.

I mentioned earlier that those folks are propagandists and should never be 'debated' from the perspective of 'convincing them' that you are right.

When you do that for too long, you end up feeling like you're beating your head against the wall.

I assure you this is not the case.

I am actually quite impressed with the progress being made in conceptualising African civilisations including in the context of ancient Greece.

Here is an example:

A whole bunch of people in the Classics departments have made their careers - and they deeply feel this - the wonder of the Ancient Greeks. They get great joy and happiness from doing this. If you make any connection between Africa and what the Greeks were doing, our Western upbringing can come back to surface in a way people don't realize is taking place.

They don't realize it because they feel they have eliminated racism from their thinking. They're sure that Africans, given different circumstances, would have been just as advanced as everyone else. They don't realize that, actually, Africans were just as advanced. They have, maybe, more continent to move into; they have less dense population and only some areas move into urbanization. Societies develop more oral literature, so they don't have the written documentation—people choose alternative modes to develop their history. And then there's the thought of Egypt was this place that got great but then just stopped, stagnated. And that's not a correct reading of history either. The New Kingdom was doing things that were far different from the Old and Middle periods. Now, beyond the New Kingdom, nobody pays much attention. I want to fix up Civilizations of Africa to go into 7th century Egypt. There are important things, new things, happening there.

Anyway: the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. I don't think it does at all. After all, human societies invent new patterns through encounter with other societies. What Greeks achieved is all the richer if we understand that they were grappling with ideas from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. - Professor Christopher Ehret.

This is essentially my position on this matter.

I enjoy it when someone else tries to ridicule the above, because I know they do so because they don't like it, but can't refute it.

Charlie: Never be afraid to tell the truth, and no need manufacuture convoluted excuses for why you "choose not to".

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
They don't realize it because they feel they have eliminated racism from their thinking. They're sure that Africans, given different circumstances, would have been just as advanced as everyone else.

---

Thought Writes:

I call it Jared Diamondism......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

It sounds like they have pacified you. Get some nutts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

... just because I don't buy into this "Black African derived" lineage nonsense does *NOT* make me pacified.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I think you are a bit frustrated from arguing with Dodona dumbells for too long.

I mentioned earlier that those folks are propagandists and should never be 'debated' from the perspective of 'convincing them' that you are right.

When you do that for too long, you end up feeling like you're beating your head against the wall.

I assure you this is not the case.

I am actually quite impressed with the progress being made in conceptualising African civilisations including in the context of ancient Greece.

Here is an example:

A whole bunch of people in the Classics departments have made their careers - and they deeply feel this - the wonder of the Ancient Greeks. They get great joy and happiness from doing this. If you make any connection between Africa and what the Greeks were doing, our Western upbringing can come back to surface in a way people don't realize is taking place.

They don't realize it because they feel they have eliminated racism from their thinking. They're sure that Africans, given different circumstances, would have been just as advanced as everyone else. They don't realize that, actually, Africans were just as advanced. They have, maybe, more continent to move into; they have less dense population and only some areas move into urbanization. Societies develop more oral literature, so they don't have the written documentation—people choose alternative modes to develop their history. And then there's the thought of Egypt was this place that got great but then just stopped, stagnated. And that's not a correct reading of history either. The New Kingdom was doing things that were far different from the Old and Middle periods. Now, beyond the New Kingdom, nobody pays much attention. I want to fix up Civilizations of Africa to go into 7th century Egypt. There are important things, new things, happening there.

Anyway: [b]the idea of all this Egyptian influence on Greece is threatening to people who fear that it challenges Greek uniqueness and originality. I don't think it does at all. After all, human societies invent new patterns through encounter with other societies. What Greeks achieved is all the richer if we understand that they were grappling with ideas from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere. - Professor Christopher Ehret.

This is essentially my position on this matter.

I enjoy it when someone else tries to ridicule the above, because I know they do so because they don't like it, but can't refute it.

Charlie: Never be afraid to tell the truth, and no need manufacuture convoluted excuses for why you "choose not to".

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 October 2005).][/B]

---

I've never denied Egyptian influence in Greece nor do I believe in a Greek miracle in which Greek civilizations just arose out of nowhere, of course there was influences from outside of Greece that help shape that civilization. All I was arguing against was this obsession with E3b1.

quote:

---

All I was arguing against was this obsession with E3b1.

---

Again Charlie this is argument by ridicule - to be fair - as were some of the comments made by others and aimed toward you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

All I was arguing against was this obsession with E3b1.

---

Thought Writes:

This is an asinine statement as well. How can one determine what another is obsessing over via the internet? This is subjective and an excuse for the subtle support of the Eurocentric paradigm. There is a great deal of interest in E3b because it is a new tool that supports theories long established by Diop. To claim that another is obsessing over it is a cheap attempt to throw us off of the trail of a Eurocentric double-agent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Hmmm, lets see. You DO buy into the "Sub-Saharan derived" lineage espoused by Peter Underhill, but can't understand that Black African and Sub-Saharan mean the same thing? A Black African is a Sub-Saharan African. Again, Eurocentric lunacy at its worst.

---

How thick and dumb are you in the brain? When Underhill says "sub-Saharan" in his studies its phylogeographic, *NOT* racial. E3b1 obsessed lunacy at its worst.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Again Charlie this is argument by ridicule - to be fair - as were some of the comments made by others and aimed toward you.

As for E3b1 obsesssion, one of the signs may be dividing it into as many clusters as possible in hopes that this some can somehow deflect the fact of it's origins in Black Africa.

---

Again for the last time, population geneticists admit the origin of the E-M78 clade of E3b[E3b1] lies in East Africa, hence there is no conspiracy to deflect its African origins, thats a strawman argument because no one is suggesting it originated elsewhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
How thick and dumb are you in the brain? When Underhill says "sub-Saharan" in his studies its phylogeographic, *NOT* racial. E3b1 obsessed lunacy at its worst.

---

Thought Writes:

Yet as Rasol and others have pointed out there is no set boundary to Sub-saharan Africa. As I have pointed out obbsession is subjective and as with most of your views your position relies on emotion than reason. With that said I will add that it is odd that you seem to accept the existance of Black African people, but deny that genes that derived among them are truly Black African derived.

Thought Posts:

COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo 50(3):249-262.
ISSN 0018-442X.
Abstract:

We studied three northern African samples of human cranial remains from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary: Afalou-bou-Rhummel, Taforalt, and Sudanese Nubia (Jebel Sahaba and Tushka), and compared them to late Pleistocene Europeans and Africans. Despite their relatively late dates, all three of our own samples exhibit the robusticity typical of late Pleistocene Homo sapiens. As far as population affinities are concerned, Taforalt is Caucasoid and closely resembles late Pleistocene Europeans, Sudanese Nubia is Negroid, and Afalou exhibits an intermediate status. Evidently the Caucasoid/Negroid transition has fluctuated north and south over time, perhaps following the changes in the distribution of climatic zones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

This is an asinine statement as well. How can one determine what another is obsessing over via the internet? This is subjective and an excuse for the subtle support of the Eurocentric paradigm. There is a great deal of interest in E3b because it is a new tool that supports theories long established by Diop. To claim that another is obsessing over it is a cheap attempt to throw us off of the trail of a Eurocentric double-agent.

---

Eurocentric double agent? Now I know you'refool. If you're hurl stupid indults please refrain from addressing me at all. You are obsessing over a lineage that appears in low frequencies in and out of Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

Again for the last time, population geneticists admit the origin of the E-M78 clade of E3b[E3b1] lies in East Africa, hence there is no conspiracy to deflect its African origins, thats a strawman argument because no one is suggesting it originated elsewhere.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Africa is a place. E3b1 derived among PEOPLE. The debate we are really having is that there is an attempt to sugar-coat the fact that this lineage derived among Black people by referencing the geography where these Black people came from.

---

Now its back to the conspiracy to hide and sugarcoat something. Of the 4 subclades of E3b1, only one has an origin outside of Africa. If you have a problem with what is publsihed by population geneticists quit being lazy and address them, whinning about it over a messabe board isn't going to change anything. E3b1 alpha did not originate in a black African population, nor did it originate in Africa itself, so whats the obsession?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:

You are obsessing over a lineage that appears in low frequencies in and out of Africa.

---

Thought Writes:

I will continue to refer to you as long as you pretend to have an African-centered worldview.

The fact that you keep attempting to stress obsession is indicative of a weak position. You want to throw us off your trail with non-issues.

quote:

---

Underhill says "sub-Saharan" in his studies its phylogeographic,

---

So is Black African, your objection to the term Black African is pseudo-didactic; meaning a false 'moral' position lacking in moral consistency, which is to say, moral intelligence.

Y chromsome Haplotypes denote paternal lineages.

Lineages denote ancestry among groups of people, not strictly speaking 'geographical units'

Thus there is no more basis for objecting to Black African lineages, than Berber or Arab or Jewish or other lineages.

By your reasoning, Black Africans are the only people on earth, who don't have lienages.

See the following:

In particular, Near Eastern samples tend to separate according to the presence of Arab Y chromosome lineages - Population Structure in the Mediterranean Basin: A Y Chromosome Perspective
C. Capelli1,2,*, N. Redhead1, V. Romano3, F. Calì4, G. Lefranc5, V. Delague6,, A. Megarbane6, A. E. Felice7, V. L. Pascali2, P. I. Neophytou8, Z. Poulli9, A. Novelletto10, P. Malaspina11, L. Terrenato11, A. Berebbi12, M. Fellous13, M. G. Thomas1 and D. B. Goldstein1

Bergen, A.W. et al. An Asian-native American paternal lineage identified by RPS4Y resequencing and by microsatellite haplotyping. Ann. Hum Genet. 63, 63−80

highest frequency of haplotype 5 (68.9%) was previously observed in Berbers from Morocco, and it has been established that this haplotype is a characteristic Berber haplotype in North Africa - North African genes in Iberia studied by Y-chromosome DNA haplotype 5

This is not uncommonlocally since the ancestral Jewish haplotype is prevelant - Paternity Testing: Benefits of the Marriage of Tissue Typing and STR Analysis

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

I will continue to refer to you as long as you pretend to have an African-centered worldview.

The fact that you keep attempting to stress obsession is indicative of a weak position. You want to throw us off your trail with non-issues.

Whatever the frequency of E3b1 delta, the fact remains that it can be utilized as another tool to trace the spread of Neolithic technology and culture from Black Africa around the circum-Mediterranean basin and into the Indus-Kush Valley.

---

Sure, a lineage that has a frequency of less than 3% can be used in the manner you described just like Eurocentrists use non-African lineages in Africans to explain civilization and achievements among Africans , your logic is sooo much better than the white man's.