quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Must be you, you're the goofball that posted the pic of Lenora because you thought she was a good example of northern mixture into Fulanis.
Ups! Well, someone clue me that picture as a proof Nigerians did not looked like Idi Amin. My fault and touche!
quote:...Very rare that Fulani look like that. One study in which Fulani sampled were shown to have 100% West African lineages.
Therefore, your selective picture spams mean nothing.
Why it is so strange that people living south of the Sahara have certain degree of Berber, Arab or even European admixture?
I am not talking about people of Congo or South Africa in here, but of people that lived in contact with Tuaregs and other foreigners at some point of time. And you know those groups have admixture.
I am not saying there is the impact in West Africa is very significant, but only that you can find evidence of it once in a while.
For Coastal East Africa the things are different. In Egypt, Ethiopia and even Somalia. In there the admixture of peoples is evident, and it is coincident with the historical records.
posted
What's wrong Jaime? Can't you post your mestizo madness on that mixeduprace.org forum anymore?
Of course most of us humans are mixed. Instead of whining about it we live with and identify with whatever ethny we were raised up in regardless of phenotype or out-parentage.
quote:..The idea is to say Moors are Africans "therefore" Blacks..
Nope. We just said 'Berber' is a language group that says nothing about appearance, but the original Berbers were indeed black.
quote:..That Berbers did not exist..
LOL Who said that?!
quote:..That Africa is Black no matter there are hundred of millions in there that aren't precisely Black Africans. etc.
LOL Last time I checked it was the hundreds of millions who are black Africans, while the non-blacks are a minority! You've obviously lost it.
quote:Yes. Let's show the white man they are blacks.
Well we've tried showing this Mestizo (YOU) the facts, but apparently his mind is not taking.
quote:But if someone even hint at the fact many "Blacks" are not "Black" but mixed people as well, even in Africa, some people get upset.
Sorry, but your "mixed" claims have been proven wrong. *see my last post above*
quote:Face it. Black Americans are mixed.
Yeah, and?
quote:Millions of people in North and East Africa are mixed as well, with (horror!!) whites or arabs.
Not the majority. Sorry to ruin your 'mixed-up' fantasies.
quote:Saying that is perceived like an attack to the religious dogma of Black purity.
Nope. No one ever claimed any dogma of 'purity' but your dogma of 'mixture' is just as ridiculous and just as bad though.
quote:Yes, Sicilians are "Blacks" but Black Africans can't have a non-Black ancestor at all. They are all pure Black. That's R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S.
Nope. Just your premise is ridiculous and that is all.
quote:Realize it, all people has admixture.
Once you learn that the whole premise of typological race is rooted in fallacy than you will realize that 'admixture' is essentially baseless as is 'purity'. But I doubt everyone in the world has ethnic admixture the way you claim. Are Pygmies mixed with Arabs or Europeans? Are Andamanese mixed??
quote:And the conclusion is: There is not a Black History because "Black" is a fuzzy, not well defined concept.
Define who is Black and who is not, please. Try.
black /blæk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[blak] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb
–adjective
a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
quote:As far as I know the Blackest person I have seen in my life it was an East Indian.
Which is why 'black' is strictly in reference to skin color not ancestry. However this does not change the FACT that indigenous Africans are black and have always been black and that they inhabitated *all* of Africa not just "Subsaharia"! LOL
quote:KAWASHKAR
What a headcase. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People that has the facial features of Arabs, starting for those long and narrow noses they have and thin lips. Many Ethiopians and Somalians, and also most "Black" Tuaregs are "Arab-looking"
Here is were you are mistaken. Such features are indigenous to the African continent without admixture from any external pressence. Long narrow noses and thin lips come from climatic adaptations to dry climates instead of moist climates that tend to have more ''broad'' features.
No such thing as exclusive traits to Arabs or Europeans so you cannot call them ''Arab'' or ''European'' looking. The reverse is actually true.
See my references[which you will probably ignored] about narrow noses and lips within the African continent:
Journal Title: American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume 87 Issue: 3
Month/Year: March 1992 Pages 245-254
Article Title Keita,S.O.Y
'Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dyansty Egyptian Tombs Using Multiple Discriminant Functions
'''........Hiernaux [1975] has accounted for variations in Africa using a nonracial approach;he does not specifically address the northern Nile Valley in great detail ,but his concepts ,based on microevolutionary principles[adaptation,drift,selection], are applicable in this region in the light of recent archaeological data. For example, in living and fossil tropical Africans ,narrow faces and noses [versus broad ''Negro'' ones] donot usually indicate European or Near Eastern migration or ''Europoid''[Caucasian] genes called Hamitic as once thought ,but represent indigenous variation,either connoting a hot-dry climatic adaptation or resulting from drift [Hiernaux,1975]. Hiernaux calls this morphology ''Elongated African.'' Some of the neolithic Saharans of tropical African affinity [Sutton ,1974;Hiernaux,1975; after Chamla,1968] who emigrated to the Nile Valley[Hassan ,1988] might be an example. The view that ''elongated'' chracteristics are indigenous and equally tropical African [''Black''] for specific archaeological series and peoples is supported by Gabel [1966], Hiernaux[1975] and Rightmire[1975a,b] The range of variation,''Broad''[streotypical Negro] to Elongated , can be assumed within a single unit designated Africoid ,thereby acknowleading the wider affinities and multiple tropical microadpative strategeies,as well as drift...........'''
""....Nose form is function largely of climatic factors,such as temperature and mositure content of the air,rather then a simple result of racial affinities. The nose serves moisten the inspired air,so in the drier regions of thwe world people have noses which pocess the greatest surface area of the moucous membrane,a condition achieved by the longer ,more narrow nose form;so among desert and mountain peoples the narrow nose is predominant.[7] Even in cold and drier climates the Eskimos have a narrow nasal aperature,which provides an effiecent mechanism for warming as well as moistening the inspired air. It is simple matter of fact that a high narrow nasal opening can warm and mositen air more effeciently than a short borad one,and in climates where the moisture content of the air is very low ,selective forces act on this particular nose form ,wheather the dryness is due to intense heat or intense cold[Table 3-8]
Since face form is due to the interaction of the growth processes of several facial bones,and single feature is interacting forces. This is especially true of nose form,whose width is correlated with climate,as noted above ,but also with the size and proportion of the upper dental arch.As the palate gets wider,the nasal aperature becomes broader. The case of the Australian Aboriginees is a good example;though they live in a very dry area of the world,their noses are extremely broad ,and this dimension is related to the chewing process exerted on the velop. Also,prongnathism tends to be associated with a short borad nose,and significant correlation is found between the length of the skull base and nasal width.
These factors of climatic influence and structural interrelationship suggest that human face form is extremely complex,numerous varible being invovled in growth and development. Conclusions should not be drawn about relationships between two populations on the basis of a similairty in structure ,because face form[like the small statue in pgymies and Negritos discussed above] develops according to local factors of natural selction. It is not ncessary to postulate migrations and intermixtures to explain similairites between populations,as once was done for the Nilotic face form found in groups like the Nuer,Shilluk,and others in Eastern Africa. At one time their long striaght noses were believed to be due to contact and interbreeding with caucasoid groups form Western Asia. subsequent genetic studies donot borne this theory out . No doubt,over a period of thousand years,contact with Western Asia populations has taken place and some interbreeding has resulted,but people with Nilotic face are the result of local selective forces acting on the population;it is not merely a matter of interbreeding between races......."""""[/b]
Page 63-64
Race,Types,and Ethnic Groups the problem with human variation Stephen Molnar
As already discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, a number of African populations have an elongated body build, with narrow head, face, and nose. Their skin is dark(in varying degree), their hair is spiralled, and they have thick but everted lips. In many of these people, such as the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi and related Hima of Uganda, the Masai of the East African steppes and the Fulani communities of the Western Sudanic savanna, there is no evidence of an exotic(Arabic or North African) element in their gene pool. Their physical features can best explained in terms of genetic adaptation to dry heat. Apparently they represent the result of a peculiar evolution in the semi-arid crescent which caps sub-Saharan Africa to the north and northeast.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) page 126
kawashkar said:
quote:Are you sure? Many Ethiopians, Somalians and other coastal groups of Africa still say "Arab" in their faces
What do you mean by costal groups of Africa? Somalis and Ethiopians have a specific phenotype that is not due to Arab admixture. I also cited references in my above post refuting the notion that their phenotype is from mixture with Arabs.
Since you don't seem very knowledgeable with genetics you might not know there is no genetic signiture that corresponds to physical bone morphology. If you don't believe this then please send an email to Dr. Peter Underhill. Genetics is not sophisticate enough to break down bone morphology or percentages of mixture in people.
kawashkar said:
quote:Those pictures were contemporary to the rulers
How about a reference from Al-Andulasian art historians that date the specific paintings to their contemporary rulers. You have provided no reference or any dates for the pictures but insist based upon your own words that such pictures are contemporary.
kawashkar said:
quote:I would say it is true that some groups could have casual European looks without having ancestry. That happens with some Zulues, for example. However, most Africans up north that look "European" or "Arabs" is because they do have some degree of "foreign" ancestry
What do you mean by Africans up north? I already disproved your claim that such phenotype as narrow noses and narrow lips are exclusively to Europeans or Arabs. Such apperance comes from adaptation to dry hot climates as opposed to moist climates.
kawashkar said:
quote:The same happened in West Africa to a small degree. Perhaps I am wrong but the following show clear northerners admixture.
What makes the people in the picture appear to have ''northern'' mixture?
Your reference of a website about Shuwa Arabs migrating into Nigeria shows how little you know or understand about African history. What you might not know is that the Shuwa are really Arabized Nilotic Sudanese that migrated from Sudan into Nigeria. The Shuwa are not ethnic Arabs from the Arabian peninsula but actually closely related to Southern Sudanese groups like the Dinka,Nuer,and Shilluk. The Shuwa are a sub-group of the Baggara bedouins in Sudan.
pg 126
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M Kawash, get a grip. We have SHOWN you from EUROPEAN sources that the WORD Moor in has had a HISTORY of being identified with BLACK Africans, including THOSE who invaded and occupied Spain in the Medeival period. MOROS is indeed Spanish and the Spanish definition is NOT exactly that of the English and other Europeans. FINE.
That's my point. In Spanish the word Moro is used to describe, the Muslims and the Berbers. So when people go to Spanish sources (which are important to study Moors in Spain) they must realize the people described were Muslims; not necesarily Blacks. Moors is also used for the coastal peoples of North Africa, like Berbers and Arabs.
Now, I will tell you something I have not said before so I don't add confussion. Moor also means a person that is "impure" because it has some degree of Black African blood, like all North Africans are. So, Moors is an insult against North Africans accussed of being Blacks.
It was used like a hate word during the Middle Ages against all Muslims, which the Europeans accused of being Mulattoes. Racist propaganda of Christians addressed againts the Muslims emphatized the fact some of them have Black ancestry out of all proportions.
I hope do you get why the word Moors has a relation with Black African. It is because Northern Africans (all of them) have admixture with Black Africans.
However, in Iberia people don't call Moor a Subsaharan subject, but only to "White-looking" North Africans.
I know that because my mother language is Spanish and I grew up knowing Hispanic culture.
KAWASHKAR
Kawashkar,
Modern Spanish views preferences, biases and usages of the term Moros have NOTHING to do with the fact that 1300 years ago Muslims invaded Spain and among them were BLACK Africans. No amount of MODERN Spanish word games will change that fact. I could care LESS about how MODERN Spanish people use or abuse the word, it does not CHANGE what happened to history. NOBODY can DECIDE who they want to or DONT want to be a part of their own history. What is done is done and there is NOTHING that can change the past. I am not here to argue about whether or not Spanish people do or DONT look down on people of color from Africa, because we KNOW that the Spanish, as well as other Europeans were RACISTS in the period after 1492. Therefore, that is all the MORE reason for ESPECIALLY the Spanish to downplay any BLACK presence among the MOROS because it CONTRADICTS many of their own CHERISHED beliefs about RACE. THAT is the only reason why it is important to point out that BLACK Africans played a signifigant role in the introduction of civilization to Europe, no matter whether Spanish people want to accept it or not.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Ups! Well, someone clue me that picture as a proof Nigerians did not looked like Idi Amin. My fault and touche!
KAWASHKAR
Since when the heck does an African anywhere on the continent, let alone in the Congo have to look like Idi Amin?!
Maybe I should start using Carlos Mencia as an example of what people in South America should look like!
Deet-dee-dee
quote:Why it is so strange that people living south of the Sahara have certain degree of Berber, Arab or even European admixture?
Again, Berber is not a phenotype. Many Berber groups are black and *originally* all Berber speakers were black.
'Arab' is also not a phenotype as they are of diverse origins themselves. The original Qahtani Arabs of Arabia were actually of black African descent!
Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Africans are not as "mixed" as you think?!
quote:I am not talking about people of Congo or South Africa in here, but of people that lived in contact with Tuaregs and other foreigners at some point of time. And you know those groups have admixture.
Tuaregs are among the blackest Berber groups and how are Tuaregs "foreign" when they are indigenous Africans themselves?!
quote:I am not saying there is the impact in West Africa is very significant, but only that you can find evidence of it once in a while.
Sorry but I already corrected your false "evidence" of looks to judge 'admixture'.
quote:For Coastal East Africa the things are different. In Egypt, Ethiopia and even Somalia. In there the admixture of peoples is evident, and it is coincident with the historical records.
Nope. Again, I have already corrected your false belief in evidence of admixture because of features.
And I don't know what historical records you've read, but Ethiopia and especially Somalia has no record of large incursions of non-Africans into their country.
quote:KAWASHKAR
Deet-dee-dee! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
* What constitutes a 'pure' African versus an African of 'mixed' non African ancestry??
Answer: No one is truly ‘pure’ because all humans originated from Africa. Because of this fact, *indigenous African populations possess the greatest genetic and phenotypic diversity in the world in a number of features such as skin complexion, cranial features, and hair form, but ALL are adapted to tropical to subtropical climate.*
Skin color: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Relethford JH. Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA. Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.
African skin complexions range from almost jet-black along the equator to yellowish-brown just outside the tropical latitudes which are the sub-tropical zones. With some North African Berber groups living just north of the tropic of Cancer and South African Khoisan groups living just south of the tropic of Capricorn.
Khoisan
Hair form: Hair form naturally varies among indigenous Africans so not all Africans have the ‘kinky’ type hair form found among the stereotypical African. Hair can range from wavy to the spiral tuft form found among the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa. The ‘kinky’ type seems to be in between these extremes. Even outside of Africa, those indigenous black populations who remained in the tropics also maintained this diversity inherited from their African ancestors.
Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
Cranial features: The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.
Which is why we have studies like this:
J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al. ...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
And...
Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:
It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial” program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.
These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,- JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa
So features like narrow faces and noses do *NOT* indicate foreign ancestry or ‘admixture’!
Fulani (West African)
Somali (East African)
Egyptian (North African)
Tutsi (Central African)
^^Ironically, another trait all of these people above share in common besides facial features is skeletal structure of their bodies. Their body structure has been called *super-negroid* indicating their extra-tropical adapted bodies compared to stereotypical blacks of West Africa who only have plain “negroid” builds. This is another indication that these people definitely have NO non-African ancestry!
The same can be said about so-called "negroid" features like broad noses and such. The person below has features similar to those of a stereotypical 'Bantu' or other but is in fact an aboriginal of Southeast Asia.
Andamanese (Asian)
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
So all this talk of such peoples being “not black” and “mixed” because of certain looks is.. well, stupid!
Deet-dee-dee! Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Tuareg are shown to have diverse maternal lineages. Some from East Africa, some from West Africa, and some from Europe.
Shown where?
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Galouis constitute a "dynasty" of Caids that ruled a swathe of south Morocco (which varied in size) from the XVIII century (2) to the Iindependence of Morocco in 1956 (3).
Madani Glaoui was the Grand - Vizir (prime minister) of Moulay Hafid, ever since the latter acceded to the throne ( Madani was the major contributor to this accession ) in 1908 until 1911. His junior, Thami , was pasha of Marrakech (sort of vice-king for the southern half of Morocco) from 1912 to Independence.
Picture of the most FAMOUS pascha of Moroccan colonial times: Thami El Glaouis
Stories (in French):
quote: Discussion with Abdessadeq El Glaoui, author of the book the Rallying "El Glaoui was a hero" The objective first of Abdessadeq El Glaoui, wire of most famous of the Moroccan pashas, is initially to bring its lighting of eyewitness over the last years of French Protectorate to Morocco. For him, Thami El Glaoui is a patriot deceived by the French authorities of the time.
quote: Thami El Glaoui, pasha de Marrakech, rehabilitated by his/her son the lord of the gangsters Abdessadeq El Glaoui tries by the publication of its deliver-testimony, "the Rallying", to rehabilitate his/her father the pasha Thami El Glaoui. A book which recalls the last years of French Protectorate in Morocco. Return on the fabulous life of the pasha El Glaoui. Amale Samie ? Thami El Glaoui. The Glaoua country is a hard country, summer like winter, but the rains, and especially snow, are abundant there. Glaoua, Iglioua in amazigh, constitute an influential tribe which increased little by little with the detriment of its neighbors. They live close to the highest summits of the Western Atlas, it is a ground of mountain pastors and small farmers specialized in cereals of mountain. The most powerful chief, a Berber kind of kinglet, was to face his neighbors, pertaining to other such powerful tribes of the High Western Atlas, Mtougga and Goundafa, which will provide caïds almost as famous as those of Glaoua. Most known of the children of this tribe, it is Thami. He is the younger brother by Madani, allied and protected early from the French of 1907 to 1911, where he was relieved of his post of Large Vizier by the sultan Moulay Hafid. He will die in 1918. It was the first "félon" of the family, it had made a pact with colonial France before even as she does not invade Morocco and protectorate does not impose to him.
Here is how Alfonso X(1252-1284), king of Spain described the Moors and their conquest of Al Andalus:
All the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibly acquired; the reins of their horses were like fire; their BLACK faces were like pitch and the most handosme of them was like a cooking pan; thus their eyes shone like flame ; their horses fast as leopards....The vile people of AFRICA, who were not used to kindness and all of whose deeds were accomplished with tricks...were now exalted....Poor Spain, Your death was so afflicted that none remainded to lament you in your dire suffering, for you are considered more dead than alive".(From Anwar Chejne, MUSLIM SPAIN--ITS HISTORY AND CULTURE, p.126)
Note agin from the same author: "The Berbers were perhaps the most important group participating in the conquest of al-Andalus. They constituted the first group al-Andalus under Tariq b. Ziyad, who succeeded in conquering a good portion of the peninsula. The Berbers were dissafected from the onset because their share of the booty did not equal that of their Arab co-religionists. Initially they outnumbered the Arabs....The conquering grouips of Berbers were never integrated. After the copnquest, the various components of those armies settled in regions distinguished by ethnic lines, the the Arabs taking the fertile plains, the Berbers the mountains....the relationship between the two groups was marked by constant friction and bloody wars...."(p.112-113)
ON SLAVERY IN AL ANDALUS
"The [/]Saqualibah[/b] were originally captives or slaves from Northern Spain, France, Germany, and Eastern European countries. As slaves, they were bought in the market places at a tender age. They were easily indoctrinated into the Arabic language and religious prcatices and mores of the court...."(p.114-115)
"Some male Saqualiba were castrated to become eunuchs in the caliphs' harems, and others served as guards. Female saqualibah with fair skin and blue eyes were eagerly sought as concubines. The price could be very high depending upon a girl's talents as a singer or dancer and upon her physique...."(p.135).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Hausa, like many people of just below the Sahara had admixture from you know who. Many Black Africans have Arab or European face features, and some of them do have admixture. That's why some of them look like Black Americans (who are 25% European descendent)KAWASHKAR [/QB][/QUOTE] --------------------------------------------------
I DISAGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS ABOVE. THIS IS NOT TRUE,MOST HAUSA ARE UNMIXED black africans.DID VERY FEW INTERMARRIED WITH OUTSIDE GROUPS FOR A EXAMPLE IN RECENT TIMES? MAYBE BUT MOST IF NOT ALL ARE STILL UNMIXED BLACKS TODAY.
By the way most folks on earth marry within thier own groups.IF A GROUP TENDS TO HAVE most folks with some form of mixture,there are a few reasons for that.one reason,rape,another reason they are a small group in that state and lived amoung others for along time and alot OF rape OR WARS do get thier women happen and a decline of populatian at one point etc, etc..this is what happen to many nubians in modern times,not all however. a small group who lives in state does not effect the larger population in most cases anyway unless that small group has the upper hand like the mongols in russia for example or the europeans in many latin america states,but this does not happen all the times in history for an example.most of africa is a good example,of course european rule in africa as awhole was way much shorter than it was in latin america.
Most europeans did not mingle with most africans from what i read in history books. A matter of fact,EUROPEANS allowed the local rulers to govern while the europeans stay on the coast and pulled the strings to a certain extent.ARABS WERE a small group in africa .the greater impact that arabs had on the population of africa was in north africa and most of northern sudan.some arabs in the sudan are really unmixed black brain washed nubian,but that is another topic.EVEN IN north africa most berbers do not have any arab backgrounds and many arabized berbers too.alot of those arabs in north africa by the way are arabized berbers and many do not have any arab background.they would be called brainwashed berbers.some berbers talk about this on thier webites and scholar have books on this too.
YES some black africans have some form of admixture from outside groups ,but most do not have any admixture. THE % OF BLACK AMERICAN WITH SOME FORM OF EUROPEAN ADMIXTURE ON average is about 17% i think ,but some of it is lower or much lower and some of higher.it depends on the family and region. Some african americans do not have any european admixture and some do not have any admixture. AFRICAN americans are not mixed or mixed like many latinos,mixed means biracial or recent parents of different races as well. I WOULD clear this one up fast,let me help you.I POSTED SOMETHING awhile ago on this topic.MOST AFRICAN AMERICANS HAVE SOME FORM OF MIXTURE(about 80%, mark shiver the dna expert said so.),AND AS YOU KNOW the admixture any african american has VARIES,but there are some that do not have any admixture.I DO NOT SEE BY THE WAY ANY EUROPEAN IN THE SAN PEOPLE. another point i would not call somebody mixed if they have only 25% european admixture.they would not be mixed if they have only 10% or less than 1% admixture too,but they would have some or very little admixture.WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH WORDS .alot of white americans have recent african and indian adamixture but i would not call them mixed either and white americans and other groups would agree.
THAT IS ALL I have say about this subject because it has been talk to death before.Now back to the topic on the moors. peace.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moors also means "Islamized". Muslims founded Timbuktu, and the books they wrote were in Arabic. No matter they were "Blacks".
Not entirely true. They also found many books in Timbuktu that are in indigenous African languages like Songhai,Mande and Tamelsheq. Most Western Africans wrote in their own language but used the Arabic script to develop their own alphabet.
TRUE AND A native AFRICAN script was created by the mande in called vai IN LIBERIA and they did not used any arabic letters .
Speaking of scripts,there is another african native script too in cameroon that was created by non-mande africans .
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, ALL Moors werent black. The problem is that Moroccan history is a patchquilt of people and ideologies that is CONFUSING if you dont know the major players. Firstly and rightly, there are the berbers. But there are MANY Berber groups and in the past SOME of these Berber groups did NOT convert to Islam. Berber tribes put up FIERCE resistance to the Islamic onslought under Al Kahina and the Sannhadja federation. This confederation eventually was defeated, with various Berber groups allying with the Muslims and orginizing their own local kingdoms. Throughout the history of North Africa there is a history of DIFFERENT berber tribes with DIFFERENT names all being involved at some point or another. The problem is that ALL of these tribes dont look alike and MANY of the Berber tribes that ONCE inhabited the desert have been destroyed or moved by the Arabs. This is because many of the kingdoms established by the Berbers in various parts of North Africa were seen to have become rebellious against the ARAB rulers and caused a NEW wave of Arab invaders to enter North Africa. One example of a such a saharan tribe is the Tuareg. They were once the primary traders in the trans saharan caravan routes from Sudan to Morrocco. They helped make the Southern Morroccan city of Marrakesh (land of the couch men) profitable because of its trade. The did not convert to Islam until relatively late after the second wave of Arab invasions. As I said before, the second and subsequent Arab intrusions into North Africa have had the largest affect on the populations. Many more have been arabized and with this second wave MANY indigenous people to the sahara, including Berbers were enslaved. Many Berber groups have migrated from place to place, with some sharing MUCH arab blood. Therefore, it is HARD to try and identify all the various people who were involved in Berber historical movements because of the amount of time that has passed AND because of the fact that things have changed A LOT since then. But at the time of the Arab invasions, ALL people of the Saharan north Africa from Sudan to Morocco were called Berbers. OBVIOUSLY all these people did not look the same. Many SOUTHERN Berber groups were decimated because the Sahara has continued to grow, causing them to move in search of arable land. All of this makes it hard to establish a true Berber identity and history. Suffice to say, modern Kabyle and other "white" Berbers have come to DOMINATE Berber identity, even though this only represents COASTAL berber people and does not reflect the diversity of Berber groups from the 7th century in ALL of North Africa.
Keep in mind also that SOME berbers in the Sahara are descended from the GARAMANTES an ancient population that had been cultivating land in the Sahara using underground irrigation canals. These tribes were decimated partly due to the spread of desertification and the arrival of the arabs. Remnents of the garamantes went south and West becoming part of the Tuareg groups, settling amongst those of the Ghana empire and moving west to form the tribes of what became Morrocco. Their knowledge of irrigation and agriculture is partly descended from the Original tribes that were once in the Sahara. This is the technique that was used among the Moorish tribes who invaded Spain.
quote: There is considerable disagreement in the literature as to whether the takouba was historically limited to the Ihaggaren (the Tuareg aristocratic warrior class) or whether it was carried into battle by noble and vassal alike (Nicolaisen (1997, pp 589, 595) and Spring (1993, p. 28, 30)). Today, Spring (1993, p. 30) notes that the takouba has been adopted for wear by prosperous men of numerous ethnic groups in Sudanic Africa. The smiths, ineden, who make and mount these swords are predominantly of Negroid Sudanic African ancestry, and form a separate caste which has its own secret language ténet. Members of the blacksmith caste do not intermarry with the Tuaregs and are often regarded as possessing dark mystic powers (Nicolaisen (1997, pp 57 - 61)).
Other tidbits about Morrocco that are significant:
quote: Marrakech is a Berber city, with little influence by Arabs. Marrakech has been the capital of Morocco, as well as for smaller countries up through history. There are many monuments in Marrakech, most famous is the Koutoubia mosque. It is the old city, the suuq and the square in front, Jamaa l-Fnaa, that attracts most tourists. It is from Marrakech that Morocco has received its modern name. Europeans got the name of the city wrong, first reducing the "ch"-sound to s, and later even removing the ending until the French were left with "Maroc" and the English "Morocco".
HISTORY 1062: A capital for the Almoravids is founded by Yussuf bni Tashufin. It gets the name "Marra Kouch", which means "Land of the Kouch-men". Kouch was the name given to warriors with black complexion from modern Mauritania.
Also note that the ORIGINAL Almoravid rulers of Mauretania were CONQUERED by Arab tribes in the 1700s.
Many of the BERBERS you see in Marrakesh today are NOT the Berbers or BLACK Africans who founded the city in ancient times. El Hiba was one of the last Saharan rulers to exert authority over the area and the Glaouis tribe, which I posted about earlier, are the remnants of the black Berbers who were influential in Moroccan history. More info on the Glaois: http://lexicorient.com/morocco/telouet.htm
It must also be mentioned that the Berbers of the Mountains RESISTED Islam for a LONG period after the Arab invasions, THAT is why they WENT to the mountains in the FIRST place. Many of the Berber warriors and tribes involved in the spread of islam were BLACK Saharan berbers like those of the Almoravid Dynasty from the South. There WAS no Morrocco when the Arabs invaded and the LINK above shows you that the name derives from the BLACK Islamic populations that migrated there and founded cities like Marrakesh. However, there is a strain of white berber that also did go to Spain and there is no doubt that the Flamenco tradition of the Spanish traces back to the traditions of some of the white Berber tribes who also are renowned for their beauty in North Africa, like the Ouled Nail and other LATER Berber Groups.
But modern day people speak of Berbers as a SINGLE race when they are not a race. Berber is a language that has come to identify MANY DIFFERENT people under a single banner both in MODERN and ANCIENT times, which causes much of the confusion.
Also, the MODERN ARAB rulers of Morocco, Algeria and Mauretania often DOWNPLAY the history of BLACK Africans in their countries. This is a RECENT development because in ANCIENT times, black Africans were a SIGNIFICANT part of the ruling and WARRIOR classes.
posted
Moorish coat of arms for the Christian pope Benedict XVI:
quote: Caput Aethiopum. According to the website of his former Archdiocese:
"The shield, which is divided into three sections, displays the “Moor of Freising." The Moor’s head, facing left and typically crowned, appeared on the coat of arms of the old principality of Freising as early as 1316, during the reign of the Bishop of Freising, Prince Konrad III, and it remained almost unchanged until the “secularization” of the Church’s estates in that region in 1802-1803. Ever since that time the archbishops of Munich and Freising have included the Caput Aethiopum, the head of an Ethiopian, in their episcopal coat of arms."
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
I don't have my pc with me right now, so it will take me time to find the info that was posted here about Tuareg lineages.
I do have the data table about Tuareg paternal lineages.
But from what I remember from Rasol, Tuareg possess maternal lineages from indigenous East Africa, West Africa, North Africa, and a few with European. But the majority of those lineages are African.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Example of the Moors I talk I about:
The Galouis constitute a "dynasty" of Caids that ruled a swathe of south Morocco (which varied in size) from the XVIII century (2) to the Iindependence of Morocco in 1956 (3).
Madani Glaoui was the Grand - Vizir (prime minister) of Moulay Hafid, ever since the latter acceded to the throne ( Madani was the major contributor to this accession ) in 1908 until 1911. His junior, Thami , was pasha of Marrakech (sort of vice-king for the southern half of Morocco) from 1912 to Independence.
Picture of the most FAMOUS pascha of Moroccan colonial times: Thami El Glaouis
Stories (in French):
Discussion with Abdessadeq El Glaoui, author of the book the Rallying "El Glaoui was a hero" The objective first of Abdessadeq El Glaoui, wire of most famous of the Moroccan pashas, is initially to bring its lighting of eyewitness over the last years of French Protectorate to Morocco. For him, Thami El Glaoui is a patriot deceived by the French authorities of the time.
Thami El Glaoui, pasha de Marrakech, rehabilitated by his/her son the lord of the gangsters Abdessadeq El Glaoui tries by the publication of its deliver-testimony, "the Rallying", to rehabilitate his/her father the pasha Thami El Glaoui. A book which recalls the last years of French Protectorate in Morocco. Return on the fabulous life of the pasha El Glaoui. Amale Samie ? Thami El Glaoui. The Glaoua country is a hard country, summer like winter, but the rains, and especially snow, are abundant there. Glaoua, Iglioua in amazigh, constitute an influential tribe which increased little by little with the detriment of its neighbors. They live close to the highest summits of the Western Atlas, it is a ground of mountain pastors and small farmers specialized in cereals of mountain. The most powerful chief, a Berber kind of kinglet, was to face his neighbors, pertaining to other such powerful tribes of the High Western Atlas, Mtougga and Goundafa, which will provide caïds almost as famous as those of Glaoua. Most known of the children of this tribe, it is Thami. He is the younger brother by Madani, allied and protected early from the French of 1907 to 1911, where he was relieved of his post of Large Vizier by the sultan Moulay Hafid. He will die in 1918. It was the first "félon" of the family, it had made a pact with colonial France before even as she does not invade Morocco and protectorate does not impose to him.
^^nice info, Doug. Of course these were the same Moorish types that invaded Spain.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Moorish coat of arms for the Christian pope Benedict XVI:
Caput Aethiopum. According to the website of his former Archdiocese:
"The shield, which is divided into three sections, displays the “Moor of Freising." The Moor’s head, facing left and typically crowned, appeared on the coat of arms of the old principality of Freising as early as 1316, during the reign of the Bishop of Freising, Prince Konrad III, and it remained almost unchanged until the “secularization” of the Church’s estates in that region in 1802-1803. Ever since that time the archbishops of Munich and Freising have included the Caput Aethiopum, the head of an Ethiopian, in their episcopal coat of arms."http://www.ewtn.com/pope/life/arms.asp
Yes, and here are the other coat of arms:
The Maure was used in Corsica beginning in 1281, and later during the struggle for independence, by both sides, beginning in 1736. The Corsican Maure was female.
General Paoli ordered the chain removed from the Maure in 1760, and a few years later had the blindfold on the coat-of-arms morphed into a headband because 'Corsicans want to see things in a clear way...'. However, the blindfold remained on the Corsican currency.
The current Corsican flag, called the "Bandera testa Mora" has a regular knot at the back of the head. The "Mora" is used out of respect for Corsica's most popular historic figure, General Pascuale Paoli, who led the struggle for independence [1755 to 1769], and who wrote the egalitarian Constitution which insipired Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson.
From 1281 to 1387 the Maure was used on the seals of the kings of Aragon. The white ground Maure (sans Adinkra) was also the original flag of the Africans during the successful slave revolt in Haiti (San Domingo) in 1799 AD.
Corsica's old Coat-of-Arms bearing distinctly female Maure
In heraldic tradition that has grown out of this rich past, the Moor's Head refers to "a black's head, generally in profile, and frequently banded". There are various kinds of medieval descriptions of the Maure that include "Argent, three moor's heads couped at the shoulders proper filleted or and gules (1732-35), or, in referance to a Blackmore blazon, "on a fesse between three Moor's heads erased sable as many crescents argent"; "...a blackamoor's head couped sable"; "a cross gules between four blackamoor's heads affrontee, couped at the shoulders proper, wreathed about the temples gold (1633); "Per fesse argent and sable, a pale counterchanged three negro's heads proper".
The escutcheons (coat of arms) of the blackamoor proliferated in both private and civic European Orders throughout the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Heraldic descriptions such as "Argent, three blackamoors' heads couped sable, capped or, fretty gules" on coats of arms became common shortly after 1096.
Even today, Sardinia's coat of arms bears four African heads each displayed in one of the four quarters created by the cross on the white shield.
Sardinian coat of arms Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of which, where is Karwash anyway?
It seems that our little presentation of FACTS has scared him off.
I don't know what it is with these 'mixed-race' folks who come to this site with their notions of 'mixed-race' supremacy! LOL
Rasol is right, mixed-racism is just as bad as the original 'purist' racism!
Although he would never admit it, the guy is obvioulsy racist himself, especially for using Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as some exemplar of what 'pure' Sub-Saharans look like!
So I suppose Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is the exemplar of all Asians then!
Perhaps Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez should be used as the exemplar of how all South Americans look..
LMAO
What a nutcase!
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems that our little presentation of FACTS has scared him off.
Which facts Djehuti? I have a hard time to keep answering so many pieces of bull that I can't answer it all. By the way, how is the "temple"?
quote: I don't know what it is with these 'mixed-race' folks who come to this site with their notions of 'mixed-race' supremacy!
Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
quote: Rasol is right, mixed-racism is just as bad as the original 'purist' racism!
Racism? How can that exist? If you say "ethnocentrism" then things could be better explained.
quote: Although he would never admit it, the guy is obvioulsy racist himself, especially for using Ugandan dictator Idi Amin as some exemplar of what 'pure' Sub-Saharans look like!
Yes, most don't look like Idi Amin. It is just that people get so blind to mixtures in Subsaharian Africa that they take an attitude similar to the Nordicist in Sweeden
Yes, the guy above was a nuts.
So I suppose Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is the exemplar of all Asians then!
Yes, the guy above is also a nuts, with nuclear power.
[IMG] Perhaps Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez should be used as the exemplar of how all South Americans look.. [/IMG]
Well, a little bit exagerated like its personality. That guy is also a nuts.
Ugly nuts people is everywhere. And as you know, in "Black" Africa people don't look the same.
posted
Curiously enough and LOL, Idi Amin's ethnic group was Nubian. Maybe his ancestral line includes Taharqa! LOL. In actual fact though Idi resembles those Nuba wrestlers than appear ever so often in National Geographic. The problem with Idi was that he remained practically illiterate though recruited by the British to join the "King's Africa Rifles" corp--not requiring more skills than of goat herder--which he was in his youth.
In any case he has a strong authoritarian face--much more than Kim or Chavez.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Yes, Jaime is "YaguarSalsero" or "Salssasin". I am not Jaime. He does not agree with me in many topics, but in some we think similar.
And you are correct. I usually post in forums that try to change the history of Hispanics (and Native American) peoples. As the matter of fact, I have been banned several times because of my oppinions. Nordicist hate me because I recall them they are mixed too. And some Afrocentrists hate me because I recall them theirs lack of rigor. I hate Nazism and all racist ideologies.
I believe in the equalities of people but if given a choice I am with my people: the Iberians, the Latin Americans of any color, and particularly the Native Americans.
posted
That genetic distance table above from Cavalli Sforza(?) is problematic. It contradicts much of what haplotype analysis tells us. An obvious problem is that the compiler of such starst off with 2 countries--Egypt and Libya--then proceeds to offer anlysis of ethnic and regional groups. Just sloppy!
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: That genetic distance table above from Cavalli Sforza(?) is problematic. It contradicts much of what haplotype analysis tells us.
Why?
quote:An obvious problem is that the compiler of such starst off with 2 countries--Egypt and Libya--then proceeds to offer anlysis of ethnic and regional groups. Just sloppy!
Yes, I agree that comparisons between ethnic groups on the one hand and nationalities on the other is not the best methodology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
I would add that most of the so called West Eurasian is often U6, which is most properly considered North African.
By one study, Kikuyu of Kenya have more U6 than Palestinian Arabs.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
What a weird conclusion, friend. I will speak for Latinos, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, forget it. "Mixed race" people belong to "mixed cultures" societies. Those people has an identity very clear that comes from the LAND they were born.
At least for Latinos, Europe, Asia and Africa are far away lands that have not much to do with our lands. In the past, perhaps, but not today.
quote: USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
You are confussing "race" with class. And you still believe that the upper classes in Latin America belong to a different culture and circles than the poor ones. That's true in a few poor countries but in most the culture of all people is the same: Hispanic (or Portuguese) with syncretism of Native American and/or African traditions.
quote: Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Attacks on Whites are common as well. I tell you.
quote: Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
That's not true. Bigots exist in all human groups. In all without exception. Most mixed people (the normals, of course) have a sense of universality that "pure" groups lack. After all we have 2 or more heritages, and many feel proud of all of them.
Just a question for all. The women above is African and Tuareg (Niger).
When I see her I have the sensation she is a darker skinned variety of the same "white" Berbers of other pictures, but I don't see her as "Black". Perhaps is a problem of perception.
I believe that is important to define before continuing the discussion.
Do you think the women above is "Black"? Or do you see her as distinctively "Berber" or "North African"?
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The Chilien poster is not Jaime. He is a Chiliean poster that regularly posts on a certain forum dedicated to racially mixed people. All of this is no relevant to me. He has not personally attacked anybody or made any racist remarks. He has remained civil in the debate.
Yes, Jaime is "YaguarSalsero" or "Salssasin". I am not Jaime. He does not agree with me in many topics, but in some we think similar.
And you are correct. I usually post in forums that try to change the history of Hispanics (and Native American) peoples. As the matter of fact, I have been banned several times because of my oppinions. Nordicist hate me because I recall them they are mixed too. And some Afrocentrists hate me because I recall them theirs lack of rigor. I hate Nazism and all racist ideologies.
I believe in the equalities of people but if given a choice I am with my people: the Iberians, the Latin Americans of any color, and particularly the Native Americans.
KAWASHKAR
And from another post:
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
Kawash, you are confused.
FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF. BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN. Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs. The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans. Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people. Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you. What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world. THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important. Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today. Remember there WERE no latinos in America when the Moors ruled Spain. The SPANISH learned about America from stories told to them by Africans in West Africa.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the recent study U5 and U6 subclades were listed separately from H/HV*/U*/R* figures that I counted as (West) Eurasian. U6 is African specific as are some U5 subclades. Unfortunately the recent report's team -- which included two Malien members -- deemed U6 to be of "west Eurasian provenance."
Also, it's been found that some H subclades are apparently African specific too. There are others, often considered "backflow" Hgs, that show up only in Africa. This is true of certain NRY Hgs as it is of some mtDNA Hgs.
Ps - I asked the question mainly with respect to getting the details on European mtDNA, though it is not inconceivable that Tuaregs and other West African groups exchanged DNA with coastal "Berber" groups, and hence, would share these lineages with them to some degree.
I don't have my pc with me right now, so it will take me time to find the info that was posted here about Tuareg lineages.
I do have the data table about Tuareg paternal lineages.
I was responding to your claim about maternal lineages, not paternal.
From what I can recall on, Tuareg matrilineages are predominantly west African, but I don't have reason to doubt that they carry some frequencies of East African lineages, and to an even lesser degree, some Eurasian markers obtained from genetic exchange with coastal "Berber" speakers. I would like to see the finer details of this, including the title of specific study(s) in question, which nobody has done here to date.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re that picture of Idi, does anyone have a picture of Princess Elizabeth of TORO whom he imprisoned for a while. Idi was Nubian and the Princess is Acoli--a classic case of a Nilotic African from Uganda. Before the colonial era most Africans would not know how to distinguish Niltotics from other Africans because the traits that the Europeans considered important are found in random distibution from family to family.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were brought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn brought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were bought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn bought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
quote:Originally posted by kawashkar: facts Djehuti? I have a hard time to keep answering so many pieces of bull that I can't answer it all. By the way, how is the "temple"?
Everything I cited from legitimate sources, yet YOU hasn't cited any evidence yet calls such info "bull"!
quote:Mixed race supremacy? I don't believe on that. I just believe that the Moors of Spain are a people we know, and that they were not subsaharian Africans. How "Black" they were is a business that I don't care very much. I care for culture, not skins.
Keep telling yourself that. All your other words sasy otherwise.
quote: Racism? How can that exist? If you say "ethnocentrism" then things could be better explained.
While 'race' does not exist as a true scientific concept, it still exist as a social one. And your actions have demonstrated that quite well.
quote:Yes, most don't look like Idi Amin. It is just that people get so blind to mixtures in Subsaharian Africa that they take an attitude similar to the Nordicist in Sweeden
Nope. Sorry, but I all your notions of "mixture" have been disproven several times already. Comparatively, there is more mixture in Europe than in Africa-- even Sweden as I have already shown with the genentic map of Europe.
quote:Yes, the guy above was a nuts.
And so are you! LOL
quote:Yes, the guy above is also a nuts, with nuclear power.
And again so are you, except you have no power, not even the ability to be educated.
quote:Well, a little bit exagerated like its personality. That guy is also a nuts.
Exaggerations and tall tales of entire populations is what you seem to be good at.
quote:Ugly nuts people is everywhere. And as you know, in "Black" Africa people don't look the same.
Yes, but it is not due to "admixture"! LMAO
quote:
Just a question for all. The women above is African and Tuareg (Niger).
When I see her I have the sensation she is a darker skinned variety of the same "white" Berbers of other pictures, but I don't see her as "Black". Perhaps is a problem of perception.
I believe that is important to define before continuing the discussion.
Do you think the women above is "Black"? Or do you see her as distinctively "Berber" or "North African"?
^Yes I believe that you ARE indeed suffering from a problem of perception most likely stemming from problems of self-perception and you are projecting that onto others, even whole populations whom you have no connection to.
How can that Tuareg girl be a darker skinned member of any "white" people??
Yes she is relatively light skinned compared to say.. Idi Amin, but she is obviously a melanoderm (high melanin content) and NOT a leucoderm. She actually fits perfectly well into the range of complexions found in Sub-Sahara being similar in complexion to golden brown Khoisan. Unless you are saying the Khoisan peoples are now a "darker variety of white people"! LOL
Again...
Skin color: Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Relethford JH. Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA. Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: These "mixed race" are mostly of predominant (so much so that if no asked they would be taken for) European strain but many live in a casta society where strict attention is paid to origins of ancestors as far back as the fifth generation (1/32).
USA citizens with the mixed race bug are incensed because the USA, until the last decade, couldn't've cared in the least how much European strain they had if it wasn't 99.9% European. This was unlike the rest of the Americas where so much a percentage of European strain, or a lot of money, allowed one entrance into all the benefits of being European or European creole.
Consequently these mixed race folk take out all their frustrations on those who have no qualm proclaiming or identifying with their African antecedents. The mixed race folk attack the "blacks" as if the blacks made up the casta system or the one drop system.
Visit their forums, blogs, and websites and you'll see they nearly never castigize whites/Europeans whereas in the words of Elvis Costello they "blame it all upon the darkies."
In essence the mixed race folk have the same mentality of whites/Euros who think lowly of the blacks and Africans and echo the same sentiments denying dark folk their accomplishments and roles in past civilizations and cultures and ignorant or not wanting to know about or examine the achievements of dark folk today.
I think you hit mark with this one Takruri, or should I say the nerve.
quote: A recent genetic study lists Mali/Niger/Nigeria "Tuareg" to have 12.5% H/HV*/U*/R* mtDNA in a population sample size of 24 individuals.
Other groups ranked as below for the above Hgs:
5.0% Hausa (20 from Niger/Nigeria) 3.3% Fulani (151 from Niger/Nigeria, Guinea Bisseau, Cameroun) 1.8% Bambara (57 from Mali, Senegal) 1.3% Mandenka (150 from Senegal, Guinea Bisseau) 0.8% Temne (121 from Sierra Leone)
A study from 5 years ago showed 26 "Tuareg" to have 7.7% (+/- 5.2%) "West Eurasian" mtDNA.
Both of these studies based their "Tuareg" figures on a 10 year old study, except for one "Tuareg" in Mali in the recent report.
In the recent study U5 and U6 subclades were listed separately from H/HV*/U*/R* figures that I counted as (West) Eurasian. U6 is African specific as are some U5 subclades. Unfortunately the recent report's team -- which included two Malien members -- deemed U6 to be of "west Eurasian provenance."
Also, it's been found that some H subclades are apparently African specific too. There are others, often considered "backflow" Hgs, that show up only in Africa. This is true of certain NRY Hgs as it is of some mtDNA Hgs.
Sorry Takruri, but I don't it matters how many genetic studies you throw at his face, you have already idenitified the socio-psychological ill that affects him and unfortunately many others like him who try to "mix-up" the world because they are of mixed-ancestry themselves.
Notice how he focuses on trying to mix-up Africa instead of Europe or Asia. And notice how he completely ignores all evidence we show him.
Sorry, but the only one that could help him now is probably a therapist.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:..Nope. Sorry, but I all your notions of "mixture" have been disproven several times already. Comparatively, there is more mixture in Europe than in Africa-- even Sweden as I have already shown with the genentic map of Europe.
..
So Africa is the "pure" race? Don't tell me bulls, please. Black people is nothing special. Admuxture exist in all the point of contacts of Africa with other continents. In the North, the North East and the East. Look for Malgaches in Madagascar, for example.
quote:..Yes I believe that you ARE indeed suffering from a problem of perception most likely stemming from problems of self-perception and you are projecting that onto others, even whole populations whom you have no connection to.
How can that Tuareg girl be a darker skinned member of any "white" people??[QUOTE]..
[QUOTE].. Yes she is relatively light skinned compared to say.. Idi Amin, but she is obviously a melanoderm (high melanin content) and NOT a leucoderm. She actually fits perfectly well into the range of complexions found in Sub-Sahara being similar in complexion to golden brown Khoisan. Unless you are saying the Khoisan peoples are now a "darker variety of white people"!
Again...
[b]Skin color:
Yes, I know that you are a melanine fanatic. No. Skin color is not the only difference in phenotype between peoples. If so, South Easts Indians and Nubians would look like siblings.
For me, the Tuareg woman above is MOOR, not European or Subsaharian African, but a people in between. They could be lighter or darker but all share about the same facial features.
So, let get the terminology clear before continue. If you insist in a melanine based division between people, I believe very little can be say about the people of North Africa.
quote:..Sorry Takruri, but I don't it matters how many genetic studies you throw at his face, you have already idenitified the socio-psychological ill that affects him and unfortunately many others like him who try to "mix-up" the world because they are of mixed-ancestry themselves.
Notice how he focuses on trying to mix-up Africa instead of Europe or Asia. And notice how he completely ignores all evidence we show him.
Sorry, but the only one that could help him now is probably a therapist...
Yes. Pretty simple analysis. Change history and wait for people to accept it without complains, otherwise call them racists or sent to the therapists. lol.
I focus in North Africa because that is the part which is related to the history of Spain. Aren't we talking about Moors? Well that part of history is important for me. All Spaniards have same ancestry from North Africa. They are part of Spain history. And I want the truth is seen. Simple.
Why one to be ashamed of being "mixed"? Race is just the hardware. The important part is the software and the results.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kawash, you are confused.
I don't think so.
YES, you ARE and I will show you
quote: FIRST, Iberians are the CAUSE of the discrimination in latin America. It is FUNNY how you dont seem to grasp that FUNDAMENTAL point.
Which discrimination? If you are thinking in class discrimination, then yes. They brough that from Europe but it also existed in the Americas in pre-contact times. If you are thinking in racial discrimination then you should now in the Americas racism is a lot less dramatic like in South Africa or the United States. There are people of all mixtures and races everywhere.
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now. They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish. But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
quote: SECOND, the history of Latin America is of IBERIANS FORCING their cultures and DOMINATION on the native peoples, through genocide, murder and miscegenation. THEREFORE, how can Iberian culture be seen as GOOD?
Forcing domination is correct. You should study "miscegenation" more and you'll find out most of it was by the own will of people.
In the topic of genocide I will tell you that most Native Americans survived in the lands under the Spanish rule. I advice you to study the topic deeper and left beside the books written by English speakers.
Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
quote: THIRD, Indians are NOT Iberians. They are the ORIGINAL people of America who were KILLED OFF in many areas, BECAUSE of the Iberians.
Yes, Indians were not Iberians. However, Native Americans were considered Spanish citizens during colonial times. Most natives assimilated to Spanish society. The Killing off natives was a British practise, not Spanish. Not even in the Caribbeans Natives dissapear but assimilated. Today, 50% of the Puerto Rican DNA is Native American and the same is true for Cuba and Dominican Republic. Today there are 80 million Native Americans (pure) in Hispanic America and 200 million mixed descendents in Latin America. Besides, no country in Latin America has less than 20% of average Native American DNA.
For instance, In Chile alone, 1 million people is Native American, and non natives have 25% of Native American mtDNA.
So, for genocide ask British. Spanish were brutes but not nazis like the Brits.
So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups? Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule. And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites. What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
quote: FOURTH, as we have TOLD you over and over again, Moor is a REFERENCE to SKIN COLOR. It is YOU who keeps trying to EQUATE black with SUB-SAHARAN. THAT is a racist ideaology IN AND OF ITSELF.
You are forgetting North Africans are a different people from Subsaharian Africans. No matter the colors of skins overlap somehow. Racism is believing people ARE skin colors. People are cultures not skin colors.
YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans. Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO. Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa. The coastal regions where these "white" berbers live is less than 1% of the TOTAL North African landmass. It has been SHOWN to you over and over again that the ORIGINAL populations of North AFrica have been affected by European and Arab migrations over the last 1300 years, just as South American populations have been affected by European migrations. The reason these migrations have had MORE of an impact on the Saharan groups is because the DESERT is sparsely populated and MOST populations of North African countries live NEAR the shore. However, this does NOT mean that the current ethnic makeup of North Africa is the SAME as it was in ANCIENT times. Firstly the populations were distributed differently, the CITIES of ancient times mostly no longer exist and MODERN cities where MOST people live DID NOT exist then along with the MODERN countries we have now. 1300 years is a LONG time and more than enough time to have a substantial change in population density and settlement. Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America. These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa. Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Nobody doubt Northern Africans have admixture. But outsiders very much know they are a different people.
They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same
quote: Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
Actually, the COASTAL Berbers are precesily the ones that Southern Europeans call "Moors". People knows Southern Europeans and Moors went from and to Europe continuosly.
NO they are not. YOU are the one saying that. We have SHOWN you repeatedly that the word Moor in Europe refers to BLACK Africans (from ALL of Africa). What SOUTHERN Europeans define as MOOR is IRRELEVANT. MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. Mauretanea MEANS land of the BURNT or BLACK faces, from the root MAURE which is a DESCRIPTION of the PEOPLE THERE when it was FOUNDED. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
quote: The sahara was not ALWAYS a desert and modern research shows us that "subsaharan" Africans are DESCENDANTS of those who migrated from the Sahara and went SOUTH when it dried up. THEREFORE, Saharan population and Subsaharan populations ARE RELATED and the sahara is NOT a barrier that DIVIDES saharans from subsaharans.
People knows that. People also knows in prehistorical times waves of Middle Easterners entered Northern Africa as well.
Those prehistoric waves did not change the MAJORITY of populations INLAND from the coast. The MAJOR thrust of Arabs into Africa came with the Arab entry into Egypt and then the subsequent waves of Arabs across the Sahara. The make up of MANY North African populations is a result of RECENT Arab migrations.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times. This is not something INTRODUCED by foreigners, this is a NATURAL adaptation.
Well, I believe those people spread to Europe as well. Don't you see that Europeans somehow find them "familiar"?
WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
quote: So if you are going to websites and PROMOTING Iberian culture then OF COURSE the Indians and other NATIVE groups, INCLUDING AFRICANS, would be AGAINST you, because you DISTORT the history of Iberians in America in order to try and make it seem as if Iberians were a POSITIVE force and NOT a force of destruction of indigenous people.
Not true. You are the one that still believe in the good and bad guys of history.
Because that is a FACT of life.
quote: Iberians (Spanish) have NOT been a positive force in terms of Africa or America historically, so if you are CHANGING that aspect of Iberian history then expect people to BAN you.
The ones that have banned me are white nordicists. Not Hispanics or Native Americans.
quote: What we are trying to do is REJECT a Euroentric model of history that tries to promote European culture and history as the PINNACLE of humanity and a POSITIVE force for the people of the world.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do. But who believes in pinnacles of humanities? I hope in the process of rewriting history don't replace some bias for new lies.
It is YOU who is attempting to distort and rewrite history with your OWN lies.
quote: THAT is why the history of BLACK Africans in Spain is so important.
The problem with that is that there were not many "Blacks" in Spain. Africans yes, but they were Berbers.
And many Berbers ARE and WERE black. The Almoravids were BLACK Berbers from OUTSIDE Morocco and NOT white Kabyle or Rif berbers who tend to be WHITE. These BLACK berbers are the ones who established the city of Marrakesch. ALL Berbers DO NOT LOOK THE SAME.
quote: Unfortunately, you seem to LIKE the fact that the Spanish came to America and committed genocide against so many native Americans ...
You are repeating the "Black Legend of Spain" like a parrot. Sorry to say so.
YOU are parroting that ALL berbers and North Africans are and have always been WHITE. Sorry to tell you NO as well.
quote: and promoted African subjugation and slavery and INSTITUTED the forms of racism and colorization found in latin America today.
Spaniards brought Black to the Americas to aliveate the suffering of Native Americans. Most of African brought to the Spanish Americas were brought to the Portugueses, Dutchs or Brits, who, in turn brought them from the Black chiefs of Ghana and other African kingdoms, that sold humans to the Europeans in exchange of goods.
KAWASHKAR
Spaniards were among the FIRST to enslave blacks even BEFORE the British. It was only AFTER the Spanish NAVY was defeated that the British began to control the seas and hence the slave trade. The Spanish navy was a THREAT to British Colonial interests. The Spanish were the FIRST to import African slaves to America.
quote: 1502
* 1502: Juan de Córdoba of Seville becomes the first merchant we can identify to send an African slave to the New World. Córdoba, like other merchants, is permitted by the Spanish authorities to send only one slave. Others send two or three.
1504
* 1504: a small group of Africans - probably slaves captured from a Portuguese vessel - are brought to the court of King James IV of Scotland.
1505
* 1505: first record of sugar cane being grown in the New World, in Santo Domingo (modern Dominican Republic).
1509
* 1509: Columbus's son, Diego Cólon, becomes governor of the new Spanish empire in the Carribean. He soon complains that Native American slaves do not work hard enough.
1510
* 22 January 1510: the start of the systematic transportation of African slaves to the New World: King Ferdinand of Spain authorises a shipment of 50 African slaves to be sent to Santo Domingo.
1513
* 2 April 1513: Juan Ponce de Leon becomes the first European to reach the coast of what is now the United States of America (modern Florida).
1516
* 1516: the governor of Cuba, Diego Velázquez, authorises slave-raiding expeditions to Central America. One group of slaves aboard a Spanish caravel rebel and kill the Spanish crew before sailing home - the first successful slave rebellion recorded in the New World. * 1516: in his book Utopia, Sir Thomas More argues that his ideal society would have slaves but they would not be 'non-combatant prisoners-of-war, slaves by birth, or purchases from foreign slave markets.' Rather, they would be local convicts or 'condemned criminals from other countries, who are acquired in large numbers, sometimes for a small payment, but usually for nothing.' (Trans. Paul Turner, Penguin, 1965)
1518
* 18 August 1518: in a significant escalation of the slave trade, Charles V grants his Flemish courtier Lorenzo de Gorrevod permission to import 4000 African slaves into New Spain. From this point onwards thousands of slaves are sent to the New World each year.
posted
Almost all of us, at least those of us in "cosmopolita," are mixed. The thing is we're not mixed up (confused).
The problem with mixed race advocates is
they buy into the Euro concept of discrete biological race
they believe in pure and mixed races
they accede to supremacy of the so-called white race
they curse every bit of the so-called black race that may be in them, some deny it altogether, because one drop of so-called black blood causes their so-called white paternity figures to deny the mixed breeds entry to "Valhalla"
They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Proof? The mestizo/mulato/zambo masses of "Latin" America, even those undeniably Indio, identify with Hildago culture and Iberia to the neglect of pre-Columbia America and to the denial of Africa, not only geneaologically but even that anything of human value could even remotely possibly come from shameful Africa the darkie continent of nudity cannabalism godlessness and a whole host of other depracatory mental implants.
[*]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now.
Who says Spaniards are WHITE in the first place? Some are but many aren't. Not even the conquestadors were all WHITE. They were Europeans but not necessarily Nordics. I have show in pictures that some Native Americans are lighter than some Spaniards. lol. That's show how little you know about that topic.
quote: They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish.
First, Africans where really considerated inferior -that's true. The relation between Spaniards and frienly Indians was different.
quote: But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
There is not occupation anymore. We broke free from Spaniards fighting (nobody gave us independency for free, like it happens in other latitudeS). In second place, 99% of Latin Americans have some degree of Native Ancestry, so this is our HOME.
quote: Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
Really? Don't you realize Native women where sold like goods by many Native Americans? In many cases the Native women themselves abandoned their tribes to go to the Spanish towns. And, far from the "far west" ideology "gringos" have pushed into English Speaking education, the records of interacial marryiage exist, with names and races, since the 16th century.
quote: So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups?
Do you know who Cortes (with "s") fought against? The Aztecs. A people that controlled the native tribes of Mexico by spreading terror by massive human sacrifices. You should know most of the troops of Cortes were Native American allies. Cortes have descendents with Malinche (Native American) and they become Spanish nobles.
quote: Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule.
Spaniards were a fighting machine. The best soldiers of theirs time. They killed anyone that opposed them in Holland, North Africa or the Americas. They did not practise genocide, though. They killed people in battle.
quote: And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites.
That's true for ETHNIC INDIANS. Peoples that are outside Western Civilization, but things have being changing. Almost half Hispanic America was never conquered by the Spaniards, and in there Native Americans did not assimilate to society. Most of Natives that do assimilate reach the highest post. Many mixed and pure Native Americans have been presidents in Latin America. They are in all the possitions of life.
quote: What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
Latin America is complex. Poverty exist. Communism exist. But applying the racial ideology is just a simplification of things that distort reality.
quote: YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans.
I did not say they are uniform. I only say that North Africans is a group in between Europeans and Southern Africans. Isn't that true?
quote: Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO.
Really? Do you really believe Southern Europeans are Germans. Please NOOOOO!!!
quote: Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa.
No. I am saying the Moors came from North Africa and a distintive people.
quote: Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America.
Well, Aztecs and Maya never ruled South America. They lived in Mesoamerica, in the frontier between North and Central America. For South America think on Incas, Tiahuanaco and Moches.
quote: These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
Mayans are quite intact. They still speak Maya, and that helped the specialist to break the code of maya writing.
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa.
What's wrong with thinking they are an intermediate group. It is obvious they are in between Southern Europeans and Southern Africans.
quote: Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Some of that is true. I agree that Eurocentrism was a fact. But I am looking for reality, not dogmas.
quote:They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
It may be so. At least in Spain people has always now the Moors have some Black admixture. That's a characteristic of the Moors of any color.
quote: MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
Pushing Moors into the "Black history" is as forced as pushed them into the "white history". Why you do not accept Moors have been part of Western History since ancient times, and Southern Europeans do know who is and who is not a moor?
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times.
Those are the people that Europeans believe are related. Don't you see it?
quote: WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
Don't be silly, the influence is evident. It is even possible that Arabs and Europeans descend of Ethiopians as you may know.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Almost all of us, at least those of us in "cosmopolita," are mixed. The thing is we're not mixed up (confused).
The problem with mixed race advocates is[list=1] [*]they buy into the Euro concept of discrete biological race [*]they believe in pure and mixed races [*]they accede to supremacy of the so-called white race [*]they curse every bit of the so-called black race
Actually, the white-black game is an U.S. obsession. Do you really believe a Latin American would consider a "gringo" to be superior? lol. That's dumb.
See how idiot is Bush, the archetypical "gringo".
quote: that may be in them, some deny it altogether, because one drop of so-called black blood causes their so-called white paternity figures to deny the mixed breeds entry to "Valhalla"
Blood is red, not Black or White.
quote: They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Don't hate the white? Which white? A white gang would have a hard time finding out how much Latinos love them. LOL.
quote: Proof? The mestizo/mulato/zambo masses of "Latin" America, even those undeniably Indio, identify with Hildago culture and Iberia to the neglect of pre-Columbia America
What kind of proof is this. Latinos of all "colors" love Pre-columbian America above all. See the Mexican, Argentinean, Peruvian and Chilean flags, to start with. We are proud of our Amerindian ancestors.
quote: and to the denial of Africa, not only geneaologically but even that anything of human value could even remotely possibly come from shameful Africa the darkie continent of nudity cannabalism godlessness and a whole host of other depracatory mental implants.
Africa? Which Africa? Yes, there were cannibals in Africa, like in America and the Pacific. Now, who is proud of Africa in Latin America? Go to see those countries where there are large African descendents, starting from Cuba, DR, Haiti and Brazil, and you will see that far from being ashamed people is proud of Africa.
Besides, Spaniards are proud of Al-Andalus, and you know some of those Moors have that admixture. lol.
Ask any white Uruguayan about Candomble and you will find out they are also proud of Africa.
Ask any white Brazilian about Samba, Candombe, Capoheira or any of many African traditions, and find out. Don't you know that whites play afro-Cuban rythms and are priest of Santeria?
quote:They hate blacks because the black in them mars whites accepting them, plain and simple. They don't hate the white in them because deep down inside that's what they aspire to be.
Do you blame them? the fact is everyone wants to be associated with the winners, and unfortunatly most people in africa, asia and south america are today the losers in comparison to the people of the western world, so if you are half black and half white or half apache indian and half white, you should be allowed to be proud of your white side more than your other side if thats what you feel and want to do, and no one should blame them for that, its their given right since thats their ancestry. The one drop rule in united states should not be exported outside its borders,because its a retard system. If your half white then your half white period, not full black as in U.S. And if you feel culturaly closer and identify with your white side of family then you are even more white. No one should question that.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blacks in the USA embrace folk with as little black ancestry as one great great grandparent.
How many of your half whites River Dance down the avenue on St. Patricks day?
Guess what? It's USA blacks that's stopping them.
Ever heard a song with lyrics "the boys are back in town"? The guy that wrote it had an inner African father and an Irish mother and he was born and raised in Ireland. Cuchulain Mac Coo was his hero.
Guess what? His own dear sweet Irish mamma eulogized his soul a windward return back to Africa.
Like I said all of s of "cosmopolita" are mixed and unfortunately some are mixed up. One can't expect a society should embrave them as a member if they don't fit that society's membership norms.
Yonis if you wanna be white more power to you! Just don't hate blacks because of what ever black ancestry you may have. OK?
posted
I think cannibalism is mostly a myth. Anthropologist tracking down "cannibal cultures" always find that one group is always blaming a neighbor group, such that both point the finger at the other while denying themselves to be partakers of the cuisine.
Your choice of places reveals your adoration of whites and deprecation of non-whites. Why else do you exclude Europe from your list?
quote:Yes, there were cannibals in Africa, like in America and the Pacific.
The discrimination that is based around those descended from WHITE Spanish invaders who CONQUERED indigenous groups in South America and make up the MAJORITY of the upper classes there now.
Who says Spaniards are WHITE in the first place? Some are but many aren't. Not even the conquestadors were all WHITE. They were Europeans but not necessarily Nordics. I have show in pictures that some Native Americans are lighter than some Spaniards. lol. That's show how little you know about that topic.
Shows how little left there is to your ARGUMENT that you introduce something that was NEVER part of the discussion. As I recall, we were NOT talking about the skin complexion of the Spaniards who invaded America
quote: They ALSO established a color system that PROMOTES division by identifying people by their SKIN color and the combination of mixtures between Africans, Indians and WHITE Spanish.
First, Africans where really considerated inferior -that's true. The relation between Spaniards and frienly Indians was different.
Most of North Africa IS INLAND. The Spanish only tolerated "friendly" Indians because they didnt have the manpower to defeat the Aztecs outright. Once the Aztecs were defeated, they conquered these "friendly" Indians.
quote: Through cunning and intrigue Cortés forged an alliance with the Totonacs at the coastal city-state Cempoala, then under Aztec dominion. The Spanish army was thus beefed up with more than a thousand native warriors plus 200 porters. With a small party left to hold the fort at Vera Cruz, Cortés commenced the hazardous journey towards the Aztec capital.
quote: But of course you DENY the history of the last 500 years to glorify in the RESULT of what was Spanish COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION in the NAME of the King and Queen of Spain. There is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but DONT deny the FACTS.
There is not occupation anymore. We broke free from Spaniards fighting (nobody gave us independency for free, like it happens in other latitudeS). In second place, 99% of Latin Americans have some degree of Native Ancestry, so this is our HOME.
It may not be occupation, but the fact is that those who have the economic and political POWER in South America are STILL largely descendants of WHITE Spaniards and Portuguese.
quote: Will of WHAT people? YOU should study miscgenation and provide PROOF that natives wanted to have their LAND stolen, culture stolen and women abused by Spaniards as SEX toys.
Really? Don't you realize Native women where sold like goods by many Native Americans? In many cases the Native women themselves abandoned their tribes to go to the Spanish towns. And, far from the "far west" ideology "gringos" have pushed into English Speaking education, the records of interacial marryiage exist, with names and races, since the 16th century.
SO WHAT? There are ALWAYS traitors in EVERY race. There were French women who slept with German soldiers in WWII, does that CHANGE what the Germans were doing to France?
quote: So Cortez and the lot of Spanish conquistadors did not commit genocide against MANY indigenous groups?
Do you know who Cortes (with "s") fought against? The Aztecs. A people that controlled the native tribes of Mexico by spreading terror by massive human sacrifices. You should know most of the troops of Cortes were Native American allies. Cortes have descendents with Malinche (Native American) and they become Spanish nobles.
YOU should know that subsequent WAVES of Spanish assisted Cortes in CONQUERING these tribes as well
quote: Sure they may not have killed ALL native groups, but that is not something POSITIVE. The POINT is that they killed enough in order to force the natives to submit to Spanish rule.
Spaniards were a fighting machine. The best soldiers of theirs time. They killed anyone that opposed them in Holland, North Africa or the Americas. They did not practise genocide, though. They killed people in battle.
They also commited atrocities and had a SCORCHED EARTH policy. The fact that they DIDNT kill off ALL Indians in South America DOES NOT make their actions POSITIVE in any sense. If someone just CHOPS off your arm without KILLING you, does THAT make them NOBLE? This is IRRELEVANT to the discussion about Africa.
quote: And even though many Indian Americans are the MAJORITY of the populations in South, they still occupy the LOWEST rungs of the social ladder because of the HISTORY of domination by Spanish whites.
That's true for ETHNIC INDIANS. Peoples that are outside Western Civilization, but things have being changing. Almost half Hispanic America was never conquered by the Spaniards, and in there Native Americans did not assimilate to society. Most of Natives that do assimilate reach the highest post. Many mixed and pure Native Americans have been presidents in Latin America. They are in all the possitions of life.
That is true. But MANY Native Americans are also rebels who have been FIGHTING against MIXED and relatively pure white Spanish descended rulers for a LONG time. Once again this is NOT a discussion about South American history this is a discussion about African Moors from BEFORE the Spanish invaded America. Anything about Spanish history in America is IRRELEVANT on the point about WHO the Moors were.
quote: What is taking place in South America today is a POPULAR uprising of support for LEFTIST politicians who are MORE supportive of policies in support of the MAJORITY of the populations you mentioned. This would not BE NECESSARY if everything was as GOOD as you make it out to be.
Latin America is complex. Poverty exist. Communism exist. But applying the racial ideology is just a simplification of things that distort reality.
Once again IRRELEVANT to the discussion of MOORS.
quote: YOU are making statements that you cannot prove. North Africa is larger in size than ALL of North America. ALL North Africans do NOT look like WHITE Berbers. North Africans come in MANY colors and SOME are INDEED similar to "subsaharans". Likewise ALL subsaharans DONT LOOK THE SAME. Therefore MANY subsaharans look like North Africans because they are ALL Africans.
I did not say they are uniform. I only say that North Africans is a group in between Europeans and Southern Africans. Isn't that true?
Why are you asking me? You should have YOUR OWN scientific evidence to back up YOUR OWN position. Anything else is an opinion and INVALID.
quote: Remember, people to the SOUTH of the Sahara ALSO are descended from the original Saharan populations that were there before the Sahara dried up. Therefore, you are REINFORCING a FAKE distinction. Are Nordic Europeans REALLY that different from Southern Europeans? NO.
Really? Do you really believe Southern Europeans are Germans. Please NOOOOO!!!
I never said that they were, but UNFORTUNATELY you dont understand that. But since you cannot COMPREHEND what I am saying, NOrdics and Southern Europeans ARE WHITE. Any distinction is based history, culture and ethnicity NOT SKIN COLOR. I thought you would understand that. The area of Europe from Spain to Germany could BOTH fit in North Africa. North Africa includes Mauretania, Niger, Chad and Sudan. Berbers exist in ALL of these countries to some degree. Therefore, just like you are against comparing all Europeans to Germans, we are against saying ALL North Africans are like Kabyle or Rif berbers. MORE SPECIFICALLY, while you keep PRONOUNCING that Spanish people identify with WHITE coastal berbers, the ALMORAVIDS were NOT white coastal berbers and included MANY muslims from other parts of North AFrica who were NOT WHITE.
quote: Same for the INDIGENOUS Saharan Africans who ARE NOT mixed with Arabs and Europeans. YOU are equating MIXED Arab and European "WHITE" north Africans with ALL people from NOrth Africa.
No. I am saying the Moors came from North Africa and a distintive people.
And I am saying that Mauretania is IN North Africa and many MOORS came from there and were NOT like WHITE Berbers on the COAST and were NOT mixed with anyone. They were BLACK Africans through and through. Not to mention the Moors in Niger as well as Senegal.
The IDEA the Moors are divided into WHITE Moors and BLACK Moors with BLACK Moors being slaves or subjects of WHITE Moors is a RECENT invetion by WHITE Supremacists of both ISLAMIC AND Christian denominations. Such CONCEPT S are PURELY related to the CURRENT attempts by WHITE ARABS to dominate ALL of North AFrica by EXTIRMINATING BLACK Aficans. The ORIGINAL Moors were BLACK. What YOU and OTHERS are preaching is RACISM in identifying MOORS with WHITE COASTAL BERBERS. I already showed you earlier how ARAB Beni Hilal tribes CONQUERED the Almoravids in Mauretania AFTER the Moors were expelled from Spain. The current RACIST policies of the Mauretanian government trace back to this period. The same goes for other Arab governments in North Africa. At some point the same will happen in Sudan when WHITE Arabs start migrating there to TAKE OVER from the BLACK Africans who call themselves ARAB now. White arabs are trying to establish a FAKE historical identity ALL OVER North AFrica, from Sudan to Egypt to Morrocco. THAT is why it is important to DENOUNCE the nonsense the people like you are talking about. This RACISM in ALL REALITY crosses national, religious and political boundaries and is another part of a program of WHITE supremacy being practiced by WHITES of ALL creeds and backgrounds.
quote: Just think 1300 years ago the Aztec and Maya ruled South America and American Indians roamed the plains of North America.
Well, Aztecs and Maya never ruled South America. They lived in Mesoamerica, in the frontier between North and Central America. For South America think on Incas, Tiahuanaco and Moches.
You are right about SOMETHING finally. That does not change the fact that Spanish conquistadors moved SOUTH to South America after CONQUERING the Aztecs.
quote: These groups are NO longer present in the same way they were back then.
Mayans are quite intact. They still speak Maya, and that helped the specialist to break the code of maya writing.
But they are NOT on top of economic and political power in Mexico
quote: BLACK Africans have been in NORTH AFRICA since the beginning of time and MANY modern racists have been trying to FORCE these black Africans OUT of North Africa by inventing FAKE concepts to SEPARATE black Africans from North Africa.
What's wrong with thinking they are an intermediate group. It is obvious they are in between Southern Europeans and Southern Africans.
Where is your proof? Are Mauretanians between Europeans and AFricans? As I said many MOORS CAME from Mauretania (land of the black faces) and were BLACK Africans.
quote: Nubian, Berber and the Sahara are all FAKE barriers that have been created to DISTORT the history of BLACK Africans in North Africa. Nubian is a FAKE identity, because in ancient Egypt the Egyptians did not CALL anyone to the south NUBIAN.
Some of that is true. I agree that Eurocentrism was a fact. But I am looking for reality, not dogmas.
I am GIVING you reality, you ignore it
quote:They are not ALL mixed in the same amount. SOME are MORE mixed than others. ALL North AFricans dont look the same Berber is now PUSHED as some EXCLUSIVELY white group, IGNORING the fact that "Berber" is a linguistic term. All Berbers languages are really only LOOSELY related as being Afro Asiatic and only COASTAL Berbers are white and many are MIXED with Europeans and Arabs.
It may be so. At least in Spain people has always now the Moors have some Black admixture. That's a characteristic of the Moors of any color.
All Moors were not the same color. ALL Moors were NOT MIXED. Some were PURE BLACK AFRICANS.
quote: MODERN Souther Europeans WERENT THERE 1300 years ago, so they CANNOT speak of a people they did not see or interact with DIRECTLY. I have ALSO shown you that the names Marakkesch and Morroco derive from the word "moro" or "mara" meaning BLACK. This is from people who SAW the Moors we are talking about. What MODERN south Europeans see in MODERN North AFricans as MOORISH is irrelevant because this is over 400 years AFTER the fact. I also already said that ALL Moors were not BLACK, so there is no need for you to keep REITERATING a FALSE STRAWMAN argument. Look up the origin of the word Marrakesch and Morroco and you will SEE that it derives from a description of BLACK Africans and was NOT originated by Spanish, so what THEY define it as meaning is IRRELEVANT.
Pushing Moors into the "Black history" is as forced as pushed them into the "white history". Why you do not accept Moors have been part of Western History since ancient times, and Southern Europeans do know who is and who is not a moor?
Moors are part of African, Muslim, Spanish and Berber history. Moors are ALSO part of BLACK history because MANY Moors were BLACK. It is YOU who keep trying to FORCE Moors to be ONLY WHITE and make them part of WHITE AFRICAN history as if North Africans CANT BE BLACK.
quote: Also, phenotypically elongated Africans (aquiline noses, long faces, thinner lips) have existed in a WIDE swath of the Sahara from Morocco to Sudan and Ethiopia since ANCIENT times.
Those are the people that Europeans believe are related. Don't you see it?
Related to WHO? ALL PEOPLE ON THE PLANET DERIVE FROM BLACK AFRICANS!!!!! Europeans derive from BLACK EAST AFRICANS NOT COASTAL WHITE BERBERS!!!! MODERN coastal white Berbers derive from Europeans. You are GETTING IT BACKWARDS.
quote: WHO? Who are you talking about? ALL North Africans DO NOT LOOK LIKE Europeans! Only those who have a HISTORY of mixing with Europeans do....
Don't be silly, the influence is evident. It is even possible that Arabs and Europeans descend of Ethiopians as you may know.
The Ethiopians they descended from WERE BLACK.
Later. I got tired.
I am sure you are, because this NONSENSE is tiring.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Nope. No one ever claimed any dogma of 'purity' but your dogma of 'mixture' is just as ridiculous and just as bad though.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic