posted
The Fulani, and their cattle culture originate in the Holocene then moist Sahara.
When the sahara dried up, they primarily moved south into what is now called the sahel zone - they move across the sahel from west to east and vice versa.
The earliest evidences of Fulani culture traits comes from cave art from Neolithic Algeria.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beautiful pictures. Also I want to know if it's true that they are part Arab?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No. Based upon genetics Fulani have little to no Arab ancestry. For example one study of Nigerian Fulani produced only West African paternal lineage, and no 'Arab' lineages, whatsover.
You are more likely to find 'Arabian' lineages almost anywhere in SouthEast to Southern Africa among Bantu peoples than you are to find such lineages among Fulani.
Some Africans claim Arab ancestry because they feel it 'enhances' their credibility as muslims.
This amounts to being 'punked' by Arabs as far as i'm concerned. [discuss?]
Ironically Asia's Arab's have substantial African ancestry, and always have.
Without the mixed African/Asian origin it is impossible to fathom 'arab' in any cultural linguistic or biological context.
You never hear them bragging about it though, do you?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You have to understand that Europeans have been making up all sorts of nonsense theories about the people they encountered in Africa based on many non-scientific ideas. The Fulani and other nomadic Africans in north Africa are TRANS-Saharan populations. These are populations that SPANNED the Sahara from East to West and North to South at one time. Therefore, they are ALL related to each other, from the NiloSaharans all the way to the West Africans. Therefore, in these pictures, you see elements of Tuareg, Hausa, Fulani, Shuwa (Sudanese Africans) and other groups all in one, because they are ALL related. However, when Europeans came across these nomadic desert dwellers, they automatically associated them with Arabs, partly because of their OWN limited understanding of African cultural traits, as well as the history of Arabia, Arabian people and Africans. Therefore, a lot of the people called "Arab" in European books from the 1800s are actually black Africans, but called Arab because they either speak arabic, practice Islam, are Nomadic, wear "arabic" dress, have aquiline features or a combination of all of the above. NONE of these things make somone an arab. Camel herding, nomadic pastoralism, donkey, horse and camel travel are NOT unique to arabia and are ancient in Africa with NO connection to Arabs per se. So what you have to look at is the fact that there is a cultural connection between people from Eastern Africa to Western Africa across the Sahara and Sahel, because that is PRECISELY the historical pattern of migration between these areas. Europeans like to break things up and take them totally out of the context in which they exist, in order to divide people up for their own purposes. But in reality, these people have always been related to each other and there is a continuous connection between them, through trade, culture and migration, which goes against any sort of divisions put forward by Europeans. Only recently has genetics and mtDna sampling become more prevalent in anthropology, which is confirming the connections between these populations, however even with that, some of these old stereotypes are still around and have not been updated.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there Fulanis in Egypt? It is known in this website that there are Fulanis in Sudan.........Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One may quicker find Fulani in Berber strongholds than in Egypt based on migratory patterns or inter/intra group hostility that Falani may have preferred N or West Africa as a preferred location. Based on rasol's observation, there are far more 'Bantu' influences within Egyptian borders.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never knew that any black South Africans had Arab admixture. Which ones? Does that explain why they're light skinned? I thought it was just African diversity.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The Swahili of South*EAST* Africa have specifically Arab lineages and ancestry.
The Lemba Jews of South Africa have have so called Cohen Model Haplotype - sometimes called a semitic haplotype - it likely pre-dates "Arabs" but is realated to Halplotype J most commonly found in SouthWest Asians.
However, their appearance is not distinct in any way from other Africans.... Lemba Priest
quote:Does this explain why they're light skinned? I thought it was just African diversity.
It is. Why do you try attribute African phenotype always to Arabs or other non Africans? The whole point was that Fulani phenotype cannot be attributed to Arab ancestry. It's like you ignore this, and move the fallacy onwards to the next 'victim'. (??)
The lightest Black South Africans are the Khoisan. They are light because they've lived in the Cape Africa for many thousands of years. The African cape is not tropical, but rather sub tropical, like coastal north Africa.
South African Bantu are lighter overall than more equatorial Bantu for the same reason, but also because they are part Khoisan.
Bantu tend to have West African patrernal lineages, but as many as 1/3rd of the their maternal lineages are native South or SouthEast African.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold up. I was not attributing their phenotype to admixture with non-blacks. I always thought all South Africans who were light skinned due to African diversity until you said some of them had Arab blood. I didn't know that. I don't attribute African phenotypes to non-Africans. I get mad myself on other message boards where people keep saying certain Africans look the way they do because they're mixed with non-blacks.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is about the Fulani people anyway. You are the one who brought the whole thing up about Bantus having Arabian lineages when this thread has nothing to do with them.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This thread is about the Fulani people anyway.
So were my observations.
quote:You are the one who brought the whole thing up about Bantus having Arabian lineages
The point is that Arabian lineages are irrelevant to the Fulani.
And, pray tell, who begin and irrelevant diversion into Arabs?
--->
quote:Ebony Allen wrote: Also I want to know if it's true that they are part Arab?
We agree the answer is no, and Arabs are irrelevant so let's move on shall we?
quote:Ebony Allen wrote: I get mad myself on other message boards
quote:What message boards are you speaking of?
^ Are you going to answer the question.
No?
Then maybe you can just pretend to blame others for pursuing a subject that you actually brought up, and the question will go away? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some believe that they are from a Semitic origin. According to the tradition, the ancestors of Fulani is Jacob son of Israel, son of Issac, son of Abraham When Jacob left Canaan and went to Egypt where Joseph was established. The Israelites prospered and grew in population while living in Egypt. Fulani people descended from them. After a long time a new Pharaoh who did not
I was just reading this quote from the website posted above. What amazes me is that according to their oral traditions they come from the line of Jacob. Now if we were to believe the story of Jacob and the Yisra'elites then what about the lemba??
Genetic tells us that the Lembas of Southern Africa have a so-called semitic haplotype. Yet as Doug M stated above "one study of Nigerian Fulani produced only West African paternal lineage.
I guess I'm kind of curious to the fact that these Fulani's/Pual trace their heritage back to Egypt - being Yisra'elites. Could this in fact be one of those time that Y-DNA and mtDNA may be misleading as the modern Israeli's profess the Lemba's to of their house?
Who should we listen to? The people who has a oral tradition of the people who have decietful history?
I'm not stricking against the jews but history is what it is and they have proven to decietful.
----------------------------
Or do you think that in Africa the story of Jacob/Israel is simply the using of different names in different cultures, but the story remains the same. Is this story much older then it so-called Jewish story?
Question I propose ,... not suggestion as facts.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Who should we listen to?
Learn to think critically, otherwise you will be forever lost, and led around by the nose like a weak puppy, by myths, legends, and straight up propaganda.... all the while asking -> Who should I listen to?Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Rasol I don't beleive in myths, legends, or the propagandas so when I say "Who should I listen to" it is not that I'm actually asking who should I be listening to ... lol.
As a matter of fact let me repost what I actually wrote and the rest of that line:
"Who should we listen to? The people who has a oral tradition of the people who have decietful history?"
Note:This is what I hate about words ... "Words are the lowest form of communication."
So now let me re-phrase the comment-question.
The oral traditionalist believe that what they have as history, is according to their traditions is true. Now if we us critical thinking then these oral traditionalist could be telling us anything. Yet at the same time, if this is their history then who are we to deny their histories?
I read, study and learn of African traditions and to be honest a lot of them are based on oral traditions. I've read the jewish material and history doesn't line up to what they are saying either. So then the question was, which wasn't simple a question but a statement as well; who should I listen to? ... as in Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! who side should I take ... as in lol.
I also wrote:
quote:Now if we were to believe the story of Jacob and the Yisra'elites then what about the lemba??
This means that I don't take the Israelite story serious based on the way the Tanakh teaches it. Secondly and above all ... for me to seriously ask another human what should I believe in is like giving the kkk my children asking them to take care of them.
Rasol and any one else have to prove their points to me in order for me to listen to what is being said and it just so happens that they have made their points extremely clear and have provide irrefutable evidence. This does not make me a push over to say the least or that I'm like a weak puppy being lead by my nose ... lol.
I process information clearly ... which is what I thought would have happened with my last post but it is obvious that my post may not have been clear.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Ok. Rasol I don't beleive in myths, legends, or the propagandas so when I say "Who should I listen to" it is not that I'm actually asking who should I be listening to ... lol.
In other words, the question was rhetorical?
quote:So now let me re-phrase the comment-question.
The oral traditionalist believe that what they have as history, is according to their traditions is true. Now if we us critical thinking then these oral traditionalist could be telling us anything. Yet at the same time, if this is their history then who are we to deny their histories?
I don't understand the above paragraph.
All that matters is whether or not you know how to qualitatively interpret information.
quote:I read, study and learn of African traditions and to be honest a lot of them are based on oral traditions. I've read the jewish material and history doesn't line up to what they are saying either.
Why do you believe history needs to 'line up' with any particular oral tradition?
quote: So then the question was, which wasn't simple a question but a statement as well; who should I listen to? ... as in Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! who side should I take ... as in lol.
Why do you believe the historians job is to *take sides*?
quote: I thought would have happened with my last post but it is obvious that my post may not have been clear.
I agree with this statement.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now let me re-phrase the comment-question.
The oral traditionalist believe that what they have as history, is according to their traditions is true. Now if we us critical thinking then these oral traditionalist could be telling us anything. Yet at the same time, if this is their history then who are we to deny their histories?
Rasol wrote: >>>>>>I don't understand the above paragraph.
All that matters is whether or not you know how to qualitatively interpret information.<<<<<<
Let me simplify what I'm saying:
All information is subjective to each individual according to what they want to see as truth. I personally don't believe that there *was* a real people/person called Jacob/Israel[ites]. What I do believe on the other hand is that it was a story later created as an ostentatious religion to gain attraction & control. Rhetoric as you have phrased it may be the proper term ... then again their was a point to be made as well.
Point: Both believe they came from a man named Jacob/Israel. I don't believe Israel existed so the Fulani's had to be talking about a story that is simular to that of the modern Jews or they heard this story through their nomadic travels. Thus, they are not descendants from Yacub. The Jews made the whole thing up and their story is a lie.
Both are wrong in my eyes so: who should I believe? ... Neither!!! was the point.
I wrote:
quote:I read, study and learn of African traditions and to be honest a lot of them are based on oral traditions. I've read the jewish material and history doesn't line up to what they are saying either.
Rasol wrote: >>>>>>"Why do you believe history needs to 'line up' with any particular oral tradition?" <<<<<<<
example: If I told you that I have received an oral tradition from your town in Africa or where ever you are located and post the information on the internet, and yet out of curiosity you may be inclinded to research the information yourself because what I have written doesn't match what is a reality in your town.
Once you do the research you then figure out that I have written something that was not correct which makes it a myth i.e. lie. That is why it is important for history and oral traditions to 'line up' because a fool with a pen or computer can write anything but it is the prudent historian that remedies the lies.
In other words ... how do we know that the proposed oral tradition of the Fulani is even real in the first place or the story of Jacob/Israel is actually part of their oral tradition.
There are many African traditions that you can only learn orally because they've never written them down. Its just the way some cultures do things. Yet if it doesn't match up with history then it may not be correct. Then again, every culture in Africa was not recorded by modern europeans so ... theres the dilemma; a catch 22 ...
I wrote:
quote: So then the question was, which wasn't simple a question but a statement as well; who should I listen to? ... as in Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! who side should I take ... as in lol.
Rasol wrote: >>>>>"Why do you believe the historians job is to *take sides*?<<<<<
according to my last quote ... I don't see where I made the assumption that historians are to take sides. I thought it was the job of the historians to find *FACTS* through reliable information. Meaning: documentation, archaeology, anthropology, etc... research. I don't beleive a historian can call him/herself a historian without having a foundation in the other arts which should ultimately lead to the truth.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I personally don't believe that there *was* a real people/person called Jacob/Israel[ites].
...would depend on the timeframe(s) in question: For instance, there is archeological evidence of "Isrealites", as a reference made in a stele dedicated to Menerptah.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Another thing to question is as to whether the word Israelite was used as it is today. Meaning:
could the word have been more than one word which identified with a sect of Egyptians? Could the interpters of the Merneptah Stele have been so deparate to create a reality of Semetic Israelites that when they found the Egyptians Hieroglyphic *lettering* which would appear to be the word Y(i)s-ra-(i)ar, 3 words; they took it and ran.
According to those who interest may benefit from this read; interpets it as:
"The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!" Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head: Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace, Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued. By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat, Given life like Re every day."
Or What about those who have nothing to gain?
"The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!" Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head: Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace, Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Is-Ra-(i)ar i.e.(Place-RA-created) is wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued. By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merenptah, Content with Maat, Given life like Re every day."
Another question one would have to ask is why doesn't the name Yisrael appear more then what was revealed on the Merneptah Stele? 1 time and that is our proof of a nation that only has existed in theory for many years? Absolutely not!
Yet, as I have given the alternative reading to the same writing - it appears that our dilemma is based on a *Place* verses *People*.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol I'm not blaming anyone else. The message boards I've visited don't even matter. They were just random sites I were surfing because I wanted to learn about the Fulani tribe. And many of them said they had Arab in them, so I was curious about it.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:All information is subjective to each individual according to what they want to see as truth.
There is no objective truth?
What is the basis for that odd conclusion?
quote:I personally don't believe that there *was* a real people/person called Jacob/Israel[ites].
What I do believe on the other hand is that it was a story later created as an ostentatious religion to gain attraction & control.
Since you state that there is no objective truth, then it implies that you indeed literally *do not know* what to believe, nor do you have method for making a rational assessment of what is and what is not 'true'.
quote:Point: Both believe they came from a man named Jacob/Israel. I don't believe Israel existed so the Fulani's had to be talking about a story that is simular to that of the modern Jews or they heard this story through their nomadic travels.
Your beliefs,whether right or wrong, are without any value such as they may be assessed by others, without a qualitative basis for determining whether or not they are grounded in reality - which is to say, a truth that can be objectively analysed.
To me you just sound utterly confused.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All information is subjective to each individual according to what they want to see as truth.
There is no objective truth?
What is the basis for that odd conclusion?
quote:I personally don't believe that there *was* a real people/person called Jacob/Israel[ites].
What I do believe on the other hand is that it was a story later created as an ostentatious religion to gain attraction & control.
Since you state that there is no objective truth, then it implies that you indeed literally *do not know* what to believe, nor do you have method for making a rational assessment of what is and what is not 'true'.
quote:Point: Both believe they came from a man named Jacob/Israel. I don't believe Israel existed so the Fulani's had to be talking about a story that is simular to that of the modern Jews or they heard this story through their nomadic travels.
Your beliefs,whether right or wrong, are without any value such as they may be assessed by others, without a qualitative basis for determining whether or not they are grounded in reality - which is to say, a truth that can be objectively analysed.
To me you just sound utterly confused.
Rasol ...
Why are you making things more difficult then what they have to be? I really don't want to respond to this because that would be pointless and pigheaded.
This is going no where yet I have to clear up a word that I used and it was out of place. I was thinking faster then what I was writing.
1. I'm not confused about what I believe.
2. Most importantly, I intented to use the word 'Objective' an NOT 'Subjective'.
Which makes the your whole presentation unecessary. One word which is what I was talking about when it comes to mathematics I can process with much confidence but writing. I haven't learned how to slow my thinking down as of yet.
I think faster then what I write (big mistake)and even worse, at times I'm busy to the point where I don't look for the grammatical errors I've just posted.
I have no problem with admitting these flaws, yet I hope the points that were made were understood.
If you reread the post and exchange the word 'Subjective' for 'Objective' I think it will become more clear.
Last: I'm not one of those posters who believe in debating over things that are known which is why I've been here sense 2004 with the least amount of post. Thus agruing about the same thing over and over is pointless.
Whats even worse is arguing about my beliefs. That usually shows that an individual is running out of things to argue about. I have much respect for you as a scholar yet to argue a man about his belief and such small things as this is pointless.
I don't mean any harm nor do I mean to cause conflict but I did post to this topic because its a topic that I'm still research concerning the ancient so-called Hebrews and THEIR TRUE HISTORY IN EGYPT!!
Other than that ...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic