posted
Hum Genet. 2010 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print]
Digging deeper into East African human Y chromosome lineages.
Gomes V, Sánchez-Diz P, Amorim A, Carracedo A, Gusmăo L.
The most significant and widely studied remodeling of the African genetic landscape is the Bantu expansion, which led to an almost total replacement of the previous populations from the sub-Saharan region. However, a poor knowledge exists about other population movements, namely, the Nilotic migration, which is a pastoralist dispersal that, contrary to the Bantu expansion, impacted only East African populations. Here, samples from a Ugandan Nilotic-speaking population were studied for 37 Y chromosome-specific SNPs, and the obtained data were compared with those already available for other sub-Saharan population groups. Although Uganda lies on the fringe of both Bantu and Nilotic expansions, a low admixture with Bantu populations was detected, with haplogroups carrying M13, M182 and M75 mutations prevailing in Nilotes together with a low frequency of the main Bantu haplogroups from clade E1b1a-M2. The results of a comparative analysis with data from other population groups allowed a deeper characterization of some lineages in our sample, clarifying some doubts about the origin of some particular Y-SNPs in different ethnic groups, such as M150, M112 and M75. Moreover, it was also possible to identify a new Y-SNP apparently specific to Nilotic groups, as well as the presence of particular haplogroups that characterize Nilotic populations. The detection of a new haplogroup B2a1b defined by G1, could be, therefore, important to differentiate Nilotes from other groups, helping to trace migration and admixture events that occurred in eastern Africa. ----------------------
Can't pull full PDF. Some questions:
1) Is it indeed the case that the Bantu expansion "led to an almost total replacement of the previous populations from the sub-Saharan region.." as claimed by the above authors? Ethiopia and Somalia are themselves "sub-Saharan" along with huge parts of Sudan, Chad, Mali, Niger etc. Did Bantu speakers replace all the populations of these regions?
2) Anyone have any more data on the "Nilote expansion" or "Nilotic migration"?
3) Where did these Nilotes come from, what language did they speak, and what is the time frame of their migrations?
4) If from Ethiopia, Somalia or the sub-Saharan parts of the Sudan were they "Bantu speakers"?
5) Did said Nilotic migration impact only East Africa?
6) And would said haplogroups really show differentiation between Nilotes and "other" groups?
7) Is a sampling of Ugandans really representative of the said "Nilotes"?
8) What might the admixture events be that the authors speak of?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that were so, re: "replacement myth", then there would be no pygmies, Kalahari Sans, the Khoi, the Nilo-Saharan speakers, and 'Afrisan' speakers in "sub-Saharan" Africa.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind the excerpt says "an ALMOST total replacement." I don't see what the question is.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what is being proposed massive ethnic cleansing?? or what I hope! absorption?
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hunter-gatherer groups rarely generally form extensive urbanized or heavily cohesive large communities, and so, it is no mystery that agriculturalists like spreading Bantu-speaking groups would eventually overwhelm them in numbers where said migrants sought settlement. A "replacement" suggests that these groups were essentially demised out of their existence, which is misleading, since hunter-gatherer groups and traditional communities of respective regions continue to reside in territories largely in central, eastern and southern African regions. As I said, the pygmies, the San "bushmen", the sedentary Sandawe, etc, have not been replaced. Some of these groups either formed their own isolated or semi-isolated communities, or simply integrated into the larger Bantu-speaking populations. In fact, European invaders had done more than any Africans could have, to wipe out some and/or the other of the said 'traditional' hunter-gatherer and sedentary inhabitants loosely dispersed across large swaths of territory that would eventually come under Bantu-speaking agricultural communities.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah.. you are right Explorer for how else do one explain the click..punctuating Bantu languages of Southern Africa and presumably Khoisan features of a Nelson Mandela Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a topic pupils of Africana should really try to get our hands around. Egypt this and Egypt that is old. Who said it. . .the debate is OVER.
Understanding the Bantu migration is fundamental in getting a picture of what transpired on the continent circa 1000bc -4000bc.
There are several facts to consider:
E3a(Lineage of the so called Bantus) and E3b are siblings. Some speculate originated around the same location. A logical guess is if the E3a started in the North Central Africa or the East then they (E3a) most likely carried the same autosomal features as E3b.
Then the question is were the stereotypical features adaptation to their new environment or admixture to other older African groups?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Location: The Bantu people make up about 2/3 of Africa's population, and inhabit the southern and eastern part of the continent.
Language: The Bantu are a group of people known more as a language group than as a distinct ethnic group. The Bantu people are characterized by the word "ntu" in their language and have similar social characteristics. These people are divided into three categories and each category has its own language as shown in the table below. There are many other languages.
History: The Bantu migrated from Congo or Niger Delta Basin Their migration throughout Africa is one of the largest migrations in human history. There is continued speculation about why they moved in the first place. One reason may be that overpopulation encouraged some groups to move away in order to practice agriculture. Another could be that they were in search of fertile land. Or, the move may have been due to internal conflicts within their communities or external attacks by their neighbors.
The Bantu introduced many things into the areas they migrated to. They were an agricultural people and introduced crops such as millet and sorghum. They may also have introduced iron smelting and iron tools.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Some studies indicate the Bantu was triggered by invaders into the African continent."
THE NIGER- CONGO HYPOTHESIS
The Niger-Congo hypothesis developed by Joseph Greenberg on Bantu languages state that the Bantu originated in West Africa, the Cameroon, and migrated across the the Congo basin into Southern and East Africa.
Guthrie on the other hand did not commit himself but said that the Bantu dispersal lies within an elliptical area towards the centre, in the woodland region of Katanga.
The Niger-Congo hypothesis needs to be re-examined further as one has to take into account oral traditions from groups of present day Kenyan Bantu elders who recall a southerly migration from Egypt.
The following sources of accounts of migrations of some of the Bantu speakers in Kenya are taken from:
i) Kenya an official handbook
ii) Story of Africa from earliest times, Book one, A.J Willis iii) Longman GHC, E.S Atieno Odhimbo, John N. B. N. I Were
Almost all the Bantu people living in Kenya speak of a migration from up North. The people of Marachi location are known to have come from Elgon although other clans of the same group came from Egypt. They came in canoes on the River Nile as far as Juja, Uganda and later moved eastward into lake Victoria. They changed course until Asembo and separated with the Luo who walked along the lake shore but the rest crossed into South Nyanza. They then turned northwards and reached Butere and then moved on to Luanda and to Ekhomo. The Luo people were behind them right from Egypt.
The people of Samia location came from Egypt on foot. The Abakhekhe clan too originated from Egypt on foot. The Abachoni clan originally came from Egypt on foot. The people of Bukusu originally came from Egypt in canoes.
Possible migration routes of Bantu from Central Sudan
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "Some studies indicate the Bantu was triggered by invaders into the African continent."
THE NIGER- CONGO HYPOTHESIS
The Niger-Congo hypothesis developed by Joseph Greenberg on Bantu languages state that the Bantu originated in West Africa, the Cameroon, and migrated across the the Congo basin into Southern and East Africa.
Guthrie on the other hand did not commit himself but said that the Bantu dispersal lies within an elliptical area towards the centre, in the woodland region of Katanga.
The Niger-Congo hypothesis needs to be re-examined further as one has to take into account oral traditions from groups of present day Kenyan Bantu elders who recall a southerly migration from Egypt.
The following sources of accounts of migrations of some of the Bantu speakers in Kenya are taken from:
i) Kenya an official handbook
ii) Story of Africa from earliest times, Book one, A.J Willis iii) Longman GHC, E.S Atieno Odhimbo, John N. B. N. I Were
Almost all the Bantu people living in Kenya speak of a migration from up North. The people of Marachi location are known to have come from Elgon although other clans of the same group came from Egypt. They came in canoes on the River Nile as far as Juja, Uganda and later moved eastward into lake Victoria. They changed course until Asembo and separated with the Luo who walked along the lake shore but the rest crossed into South Nyanza. They then turned northwards and reached Butere and then moved on to Luanda and to Ekhomo. The Luo people were behind them right from Egypt.
The people of Samia location came from Egypt on foot. The Abakhekhe clan too originated from Egypt on foot. The Abachoni clan originally came from Egypt on foot. The people of Bukusu originally came from Egypt in canoes.
Possible migration routes of Bantu from Central Sudan
Zulu also say that came from Up North [Egypt] and who can begin to speak of populations in the Bulge of West Africa who say they migrated from Sudan.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why the Bantu is believed to be from Nigeria/Cameroon is because of the principle of least moves and most diversity. The most concentrated area of Bantu speaker diversity is Nigeria/Cameroon border.
There is also oral tradition of the Kongo speakers coming from Kayinga (now the Sahara) because of the droughts.
I think the Bantu are a lot older than 3000 BCE. Especially when we have the basic NTU and WA-NTU and LU/ULU - NTU lexical items in Egyptian.
The founder MENES should be MWENE which is a typical Bantu name for king, leader. Remember MUNTU HOTEP. MUNTU is the singular for BANTU. His name in ciLuba is MUNTU KATAPA. Akhenaten is a common name in the Kongo. It is either KANTANGA or KATANGA.
This is truly a "mystery" but the evidence is that the Bantu languages are far older than 3000 BCE as the Bantu languages were already in Egypt at this time.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good question to ask is. . why didn't they, the bantus move North? Assuming they originated from Nigeria/Cameroon.
Was it the Sahara(dryness) that drove them South? In other words. . .why SOUTH?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Location: The Bantu people make up about 2/3 of Africa's population, and inhabit the southern and eastern part of the continent.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the point, the oral tradition in the Kongo is that they came from the north what they called then KAYINGA which is now the Sahara as a result of the desertification of the area. This is why it also makes sense as to why a lot of Bantu speakers were the Nile Valley and their lexicon and noun class prefixes are present in Egyptian: wantu, lumutu (rmt), ntu, muntu (hotep [muntu katapa], etc.].
A lot of the primary customs of the Nile Valley people are Bantu customs like the opening of the mouth ceremony and the use of the human being represented by the sun as it traverses the heavens is the Bantu dingo dingo (dikenga) process. The poses of statues are Bantu poses.
Egypt is a Bantu society.
The question is what language is used for the structure of Mdw Ntr?
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xyyman wrote: A good question to ask is. . why didn't they, the bantus move North? Assuming they originated from Nigeria/Cameroon.
They did move north, but were halted in northern kenya by cushitic speakers who the bantus were unable to overrun so their expansion ended there. They would have reached anatolia today if they only encountered docile groups, their expansion had no limits.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen no signs that the Bantu migrants had "overrun" anyone. Their general movement was in southern streams from their point of origin, and hence, not much presence north of the equator. This southern stream was two-pronged according some researchers; western and eastern streams, with the former likely being the older of the two. The eastern stream is what culminated into their ending up in places like Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The preexisting populations of those regions are still in those regions, e.g. "KhoiSan" speaking groups.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come guys. You are NOT answering the question.
What you are stating here is "where" they moved to. The question is "why" they did not move North assuming they originated in Nigeria/Cameroon area.
Yonis used the word "halted" which implies confrontation. So. . .was the migration adversarial or demic.
If they originated in the Nigeria region then they had no option to move South and East through demic movement. If they originated in the North then again they hard to move South AND East and West. Since in both scenarios the sea/ocean would be a barrier.
In other words both models explains there presence in East and West Africa and of course the South.
But the major question is WHAT was the imputes.
Were they Agricultural missionaries. LOL!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The migration is a reflection of their *point of origin*, somewhere between Niger and Cameroon. We can't get into the would-be migrants' minds, because 1) we can't use a time machine to go back to the time frame and 2) we are not telepathic. They moved first into *nearby* areas from their point of origin, where open territory may have appeared to be abundant and perhaps ideal for their agricultural subsistence economy. From thereon, movements occurred in territories westward down, and then from southern part of central Africa to the east and south. If their mission was to violently seize territory from heavy population centers, then it appears that they had not extended deep into western Africa, central or eastern Africa north of or on the equator. That however, from their dispersal pattern, doesn't seem to have been the case. There are still Nilo-Saharan and non-Bantu speaking Niger-Congo speaking groups in parts of central Africa and Cameroon [Recall the hg R-M173 carriers for example], who came some time in the early Holocene or possibly earlier. Likewise, Cushitic speaking communities still reside in northern Kenya, and had even migrated as far south as Tanzania. The Cushitic speakers in Kenya certainly have not prevented Bantu residency in that region. So again, I haven't seen any signs that they were trying to create empires for themselves in new locales, such that they would engage in genocide of preexisting groups, who continue to exist in said general regions no less.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Read Below: White people (in American English also Caucasian) is a term which usually refers to human beings characterized, at least in part, by the light pigmentation of their skin. Rather than a straightforward description of skin color, the term white also functions as a color terminology for race, often referring narrowly to people claiming ancestry exclusively from Europe.
The definition of a 'white person' differs according to geographical and historical context, and various social constructions of whiteness have had implications in terms of national identity, consanguinity, public policy, religion, population statistics, racial segregation/affirmative action, eugenics, racial marginalization and racial quotas. The concept has been applied with varying degrees of formality and internal consistency in disciplines including: sociology, politics, genetics, biology, medicine, biomedicine, language, culture, and law.
A common definition of a 'white person' is a person of primarily, or wholly, European ancestry.[1] However, the term is sometimes used more broadly, so that it becomes similar to the concept of the Caucasian race or Caucasoid people, which includes people with ancestry from the Caucasus, Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and parts of Central Asia, who share certain physiological characteristics and genetics with Europeans beyond skin colour.
History of the term The notion of "white people" or a "white race" as a large group of populations contrasting with non-white or "colored" originates in the 17th century. Pragmatic description of populations as "white" in reference to their skin color predates this notion and is found in Greco-Roman ethnography and other ancient sources.
Antiquity and Middle Ages
1820 drawing of a Book of Gates fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left) four groups of people: Libyans, Nubians, Asiatic, Egyptian.[2]In the literature of the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity, descriptions of the physical aspect of various nations in terms of color is commonplace. The Sumerians referred to themselves as ůĝ saĝ gíg-ga, meaning "the black-headed people".[3] The Ancient Egyptian (New Kingdom) funerary text known as the Book of Gates distinguishes "four races of men". These are the Egyptians, the Levantine peoples or "Asiatics", the "black races" and the "fair-skinned Libyans".[4]
Xenophon describes the Ethiopians as black, and the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops.[5] Herodotus similarly used Melanchroes "dark-skinned" for the Egyptians, and Aithiopsi "coal-faced" for the Ethiopians. Herodotus also describes the Scythian Budini as having deep blue eyes and bright red hair.[6]
These color adjectives are typically found in contrast to the "standard" set by the own group, not as a self-description. Classicist James Dee found that, "the Greeks do not describe themselves as "white people"—or as anything else because they had no regular word in their color vocabulary for themselves—and we can see that the concept of a distinct 'white race' was not present in the ancient world."[7]
Assignment of positive and negative connotations of white and black date to the classical period in a number of Indo-European languages, but these differences were not applied to skin color per se. Religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color.[7] Similarly, the Rigveda uses krsna tvac "black skin" as a metaphor for irreligiosity.[8]
The pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomica (2nd century BC) in keeping with the Aristotelian doctrine of the golden mean postulates that the ideal skin tone was to be found somewhere between very dark and very light:
"Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two."[9] Similar views were held by a number of medieval Arabic writers during the time of the medieval Arab Empire. Some Arabs at the time viewed their "swarthy" skin as the ideal skin tone, in comparison to the darker Sub-Saharan Africans and the fairer "ruddy people" (which included Persians, Turks, Caucasians and Europeans).[10]
Early Modern period (17th to 18th century) The term "white race" or "white people" entered the major European languages in the later 1600s, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade. The term white came into wide use in the British colonies in America from the 1680s.[7][11]
In 1758, Carolus Linnaeus proposed what he considered to be natural taxonomic categories of the human species. He distinguished between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens europaeus, and he later added four geographical subdivisions of humans: white Europeans, red Americans, yellow Asians and black Africans. Although Linnaeus intended them as objective classifications, he used both taxonomical and cultural data in his subdivision descriptions.[12]
In 1775, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach described the white race as "the white color holds the first place, such as it is that most Europeans. The redness of cheeks in this variety is almost peculiar to it: at all events it is but seldom seen in the rest... Color white, Cheeks rosy".[13] He categorized humans into five races, which largely corresponded with Linnaeus' classifications, except for the addition of Oceanians (whom he called Malay).[12] He characterized the racial classification scheme of Metzger as making "two principal varieties as extremes:(1) the white man native of Europe, of the northern parts of Asia, America and Africa.."[14], and the racial classification scheme of John Hunter as having, "seven varieties:... (6) brownish as the southern Europeans, Turks, Abyssinians, Samoiedes and Lapps; (7) white, as the remaining Europeans, the Mingrelians and Kabardinski"[14]. Blumenbach is known for arguing that physical characteristics like skin color, cranial profile, etc., were correlated with group character and aptitude. Craniometry and phrenology would attempt to make physical appearance correspond with racial categories. The fairness and relatively high brows of Caucasians were held to be apt physical expressions of a loftier mentality and a more generous spirit. The epicanthic folds around the eyes of Mongolians and their slightly sallow outer epidermal layer bespoke their supposedly crafty, literal-minded nature.
Later in life, Blumenbach encountered in Switzerland "eine zum Verlieben schöne Négresse" ("a Negress so beautiful to fall in love with"). Further anatomical study led him to the conclusion that 'individual Africans differ as much, or even more, from other individual Africans as Europeans differ from Europeans'. Furthermore he concluded that Africans were not inferior to the rest of mankind 'concerning healthy faculties of understanding, excellent natural talents and mental capacities'.[15] These later ideas were far less influential than his earlier assertions with regard to the perceived relative qualities of the different races, which opened the way to secular and scientific racism.[16]
In a 1775 work, Von den verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen ("Of [About] The Different Races of Humans"), German philosopher Immanuel Kant used the term weiß (white) to refer to "the white one [race] of northern Europe" (p. 267).[14]
According to Gregory Jay, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,
Before the age of exploration, group differences were largely based on language, religion, and geography. ... the European had always reacted a bit hysterically to the differences of skin color and facial structure between themselves and the populations encountered in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (see, for example, Shakespeare's dramatization of racial conflict in Othello and The Tempest). Beginning in the 1500s, Europeans began to develop what became known as "scientific racism," the attempt to construct a biological rather than cultural definition of race ... Whiteness, then, emerged as what we now call a "pan-ethnic" category, as a way of merging a variety of European ethnic populations into a single "race" ...
—Gregory Jay, "Who Invented White People?"[17]
19th to 20th century Main article: Caucasian race
Huxley's map of racial categories from On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870). [18] Huxley's Xanthochroi or "light whites" are shown in red. They gradually blend into the category of Melanochroi or "dark whites" (shown in pink) in Southern Europe and North Africa, and into the Mongoloids B category ( light brown) in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Blending of all three types mentioned is indicated for the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, Persia and Northern India.During the period of the mid 19th to mid 20th century,[19] it was common practice in anthropology to classify the world's populations in one of three great races, which, depending on the authority consulted, were further divided into various sub-races. The three great races were the Europid (Caucasian, white), Mongoloid (Asian) and Negroid (black) race.
There has never been any scholarly consensus on the delineation between the Europid race, including the populations of Europe, and the Mongoloid one, including the populations of East Asia. Thus, Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia under the Caucasian label, while Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified the same populations as Mongoloid, and Lothrop Stoddard (1920) excluded the populations of the Middle East and North Africa as well as those of Central Asia, classifying them as "brown", and counted as "white" only the European peoples.
Some authorities, following Huxley (1870), distinguished the Xanthochroi or "light whites" of Northern Europe with the Melanochroi or "dark whites" of the Mediterranean.
The study into race and ethnicity in the late 19th century developed into what would later be termed scientific racism.
21st century Alastair Bonnett has stated that, a strong "current of scientific research supports the theory that Europeans were but one expression of a wider racial group (termed sometimes Caucasian), a group that included peoples from Asia and North Africa".[1] Bonnett, does, however, note that this is not a commonplace definition: in Europe and North America the inclusion of non-Europeans is a "technicality little favoured outside certain immigration bureaucracies and traditional anthropology."[1]
Raj Bhopal and Liam Donaldson opine that white people are a heterogeneous group, and the term white should therefore be abandoned as a classification for the purposes of epidemiology and health research, and identifications based on geographic origin and migration history be used instead.[20]
Physical appearance Most Europeans identify themselves as white and occupy the same human physical characteristics. The most notable trait describing people who identify as white is light skin, thin hair, and narrow noses. People with lighter phenotypes tend to classify themselves and be classified by others in the "white" category".[21][dubious – discuss]
Light skin Main article: Human skin color
Map of indigenous skin color distribution in the world based on Von Luschan's chromatic scale.White people are archetypically distinguished by light skin. Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,000–50,000 years ago.[22] In Jablonski and Chaplin's (2000) study, The evolution of human skin coloration, Europeans have lighter skin (as measured by population average skin reflectance read by spectrophotometer at A685) than any other group that was measured. Southern Europeans (measures taken from Spaniards) show a skin pigmentation in parts of the body not exposed to the sun similar to that of Northern Europeans and, in some cases, even lighter.[23] While all mean values of skin reflectance of non-European populations are lower than Europeans for the groups represented in this study, there is significant overlap between populations.[24] This observation has been noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, which stated in a 1923 lawsuit over whiteness that the "swarthy brunette[s] ... are darker than some of the lighter hued persons of the brown or yellow races".[25]
The epidermis of light skinned people is not actually white. The underlying layers of collagen and adipose tissue are white in people of all races. In lightly pigmented people, the epidermis is an almost transparent layer of film. Consequently the epidermis allows the underlying white tissues to become visible.[26] Blood vessels interlaced between the adipose tissue produce the pale pink color associated with light skin. Pigments known as carotenes found in the fat produce a more yellow effect. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers.[27][28][29]
The skin of albinos is similar to European and East Asian people's skin in that it is depigmented relative to other populations. However, in white and East Asian people the enzymes that produce melanin are still active and produce relatively small amounts of melanin to provide some coloration to the skin. With albinos, the enzyme that produces melanin is defective, thus they produce virtually no melanin, which produces the palest skin of all humans.[30] Since melanin protects the skin from UV radiation, albinos have no natural protection and their skin is vulnerable to sunlight that can be tolerated by other light-skinned peoples. Furthermore in the presence of more intense levels of UV radiation from the sun, the skin cells of white and East Asian people are able to produce additional amounts of melanin to tan the skin to a darker complexion, providing extra protection, while albinos lack the ability to tan.[31][32] Albinism is very rare. For example, one person in 17,000 in the United States has some type of albinism.[33]
Origins of light skin Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives to humans, and since they have light skin covered by hair, it is likely that our shared common ancestor would also have lacked pigmentation and been covered by hair.[34] As human brain size increased the increase in its energy requirements would have required finer thermoregulation to avoid overheating.[23] This may be one reason why humans developed sweat glands, an evolution we share with only a small number of creatures (including swine, many species of which are also hairless). The additional loss of body hair would have increased the effectiveness of evaporation of sweat, and produced better cooling.[23] Though naked skin is advantageous for thermoregulation, it exposes the epidermis to destructive levels of UV radiation that can cause sunburn, skin cancer and birth defects resulting from the destruction of the essential vitamin B folate.[23] Consequently strong natural selection in Africa favored increased levels of melanin in the skin, and the hairless Hominina ancestors of modern humans lost their light skin.[23]
Light skin color would have been a severe disadvantage to those living under the bright African sun.[34] However, when humans left Africa for less sun-intense regions of the world, the selective pressure against lighter skin would have relaxed. This probably explains the greater variety of skin color found outside sub-Saharan Africa.[35] Lighter skin colors may have been advantageous at higher latitudes since they allow greater penetration of the sun's UV radiation, a requirement for vitamin D synthesis. This may have led to selection for lightly pigmented skin.[34] Scientists have identified at least 100 genes associated with pigment processing. Though African populations are relatively dark, according to a recent study[citation needed] they possess a greater diversity in skin complexion than all other populations. It is therefore likely that many of the alleles associated with light pigmentation were already present in an ancestral population in Africa prior to their dispersal. When humans migrated out of Africa, the lighter skin causing alleles may have accumulated in one population, either by genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection or a combination of these effects. Since their effects are additive it is possible light skin could arise over several generations without any new mutations taking place.[36][37]
According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, light skin probably arose in North Africa or both in the north and east.[38]
A 2006 study provides evidence that the light skin pigmentation observed in Europeans and East Asians arose independently. They concluded that light pigmentation in Europeans is at least partially due to the effects of positive directional and/or sexual selection.[39]
Molecular biology of light skin Skin color is a quantitative trait that varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified. However, two genes that are known to contribute to skin color are MC1R and SLC24A5.[34] The mutation resulting in the light skin version of the SLC24A5 gene has been estimated to have originated in Europe between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago, indicating that at least one of the genes responsible for pale skin colour in Europeans arose relatively recently.[40]
Mixed ancestry people of African-European descent who possess one or two copies of the European allele of the SLC24A5 gene have skin color that is significantly lighter than mixed ancestry people who possess only the African allele. It is estimated, based on this observation, that the SLC24A5 locus "explains between 25–38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index".[37][41][42][43]
Census and social definitions in different regions Further information: Whiteness studies Definitions of white have changed over the years, including the official definitions used in many countries, such as the United States and Brazil.[44] Some defied official regulations through the phenomenon of "passing", many of them becoming white people, either temporarily or permanently. Through the mid- to late 20th century, numerous countries had formal legal standards or procedures defining racial categories (see cleanliness of blood, apartheid in South Africa, hypodescent). However, as critiques of racism and scientific arguments against the existence of race arose, a trend towards self-identification of racial status arose. Below are some census definitions of white, which may differ from the social definition of white within the same country. The social definition has also been added where possible.
Argentina Main article: White Argentine Argentina, along with other areas of new settlement like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States, is considered a country of immigrants where the vast majority originated from Europe.[45] According to different estimates, white Argentines make up anywhere from 86.4%[46] to 97% of Argentina's population, or around 39 million people.[47]
Most immigrants came between the mid-19th century and World War II. Nearly half were from Italy,[48] and almost one third from Spain. Poland, France, the Ottoman Empire (chiefly Christian Lebanese, Syrians, Greeks and Armenians), Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Yugoslavia, and Portugal made up the other eight top sources of immigrants. Switzerland, Belgium, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States were the next largest. European Jews were among the Eastern European arrivals.
Argentine censuses are conducted on the basis of self-identification. According to the last census, 95% of Argentines identify as white.[49][verification needed]
Criticism of the national census state that data has historically been collected using the category of national origin rather than race in Argentina, leading to undercounting Afro-Argentines and mestizos.[50] Africa Viva (Living Africa) is a black rights group in Buenos Aires with the support of the Organization of American States, financial aid from the World Bank and Argentina's census bureau is working to add an "Afro-descendants" category to the 2010 census. The 1887 national census was the final year where blacks were included as a separate category before it was eliminated by the government.[51]
Australia Further information: European Australian From 1788, when the first British colony in Australia was founded, until the early 19th century, most immigrants to Australia were British and Irish convicts. These were augmented by small numbers of free settlers from Britain, Ireland and other European countries. However, until the mid-19th century, there were few restrictions on immigration, although members of ethnic minorities tended to be assimilated into the Anglo-Celtic populations.
People of many nationalities, including many non-white people, emigrated to Australia during the goldrushes of the 1850s. However, the vast majority was still white and the goldrushes inspired the first racist activism and policy, directed mainly at Chinese people.
From the late 19th century, the Colonial/State and later federal governments of Australia restricted all permanent immigration to the country by non-Europeans. These policies became known as the "White Australia policy", which was consolidated and enabled by the Immigration Restriction Act 1901,[52] but was never universally applied. Immigration inspectors were empowered to ask immigrants to take dictation from any European language as a test for admittance, a test used in practice to exclude people from Asia, Africa, and some European and South American countries, depending on the political climate.
Although they were not the prime targets of the policy, it was not until after World War II that large numbers of southern European and eastern European immigrants were admitted for the first time.[53] Following this, the White Australia Policy was relaxed in stages: non-European nationals who could demonstrate European descent were admitted (e.g. descendants of European colonizers and settlers from Latin American or Africa), as were autochthonous inhabitants of various nations from the Middle East, most significantly from Lebanon. In 1973, all immigration restrictions based on race and/or geographic origin were officially terminated.
Brazil Main article: White Brazilian Recent censuses in Brazil are conducted on the basis of self-identification. In the 2000 census, 53% of Brazilians (approximately 93 million people in 2000; around 100 million as of 2006) were white and 39% pardo or multiracial Brazilians. White is applied as a term to people of European descent (including European Jews), and Middle Easterners of all faiths. The census shows a trend of fewer Brazilians of African descent (blacks and pardos) identifying as white people as their social status increases.[54][55] Demographers estimate that of the Brazilians who classify themselves as White, as many as 15 percent have enough of a trace of African ancestry to be considered Black by methods used to classify groups in the United States.[56]
Canada In the results of Statistics Canada's 2001 Canadian Census, white is one category in the population groups data variable, derived from data collected in question 19 (the results of this question are also used to derive the visible minority groups variable).[57]
In the 1995 Employment Equity Act, '"members of visible minorities" means persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour'. In the 2001 Census, persons who selected Chinese, South Asian, African, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Middle Eastern, Japanese or Korean were included in the visible minority population.[58] A separate census question on "cultural or ethnic origin" (question 17) does not refer to skin color.[59]
Chile Main article: Demographics of Chile In 2009, Chile had an estimated population of 16,970,000, of which approximately 8.8 million or 52.7% are of European descent, with mestizos estimated at 44%.[60] Other studies found a white majority measured at 64% to 90% of the Chilean population.[61][62][63] However, another study that analyzed the genotype of the Chilean population showed that 30% are white, while the mestizo population with predominantly white (castizo) ancestry is estimated at 65%.[64] Chile's various waves of immigrants consisted Spanish, Italians, Irish, French, Greeks, Germans, English, Scots, Croats, and Palestinian arrivals.
The largest ethnic group in Chile arrived from Spain and the Basque regions in the south of France. Estimates of the number of Basque descendants in Chile range from 10% (1,600,000) to as high as 27% (4,500,000).[65][66] [67] [68] [69][70][71][72]
In 1848 an important and substantial German immigration took place, laying the foundation for the German-Chilean community. Sponsored by the Chilean government for the colonization of the southern region, the Germans (including German-speaking Swiss, Silesians, Alsatians and Austrians), strongly influenced the cultural and racial composition of the southern provinces of Chile. The German Embassy in Chile estimated 500,000 to 600,000 Chileans are of German origin.[73]
It is estimated that nearly 5% of the Chilean population is of Asian descent, chiefly from the Middle East (i.e. Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Armenians), totalling around 800,000.[74][75] Note that Israelis, both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of the nation of Israel may be included. Chile is home to a large population of immigrants, mostly Christian, from the Levant.[76] Roughly 500,000 Palestinian descendants are believed to reside in Chile.[77][78][79][80][81]
Another historically significant immigrant group is Croatian. The number of their descendants today is estimated to be 380,000 persons, the equivalent of 2.4% of the population.[82][83] Other authors claim, on the other hand, that close to 4.6% of the Chilean population must have some Croatian ancestry.[84] Over 700,000 Chileans may have British (English, Scottish or Welsh) origin. 4.5% of Chile's population.[85] Chileans of Greek descent are estimated 90,000 to 120,000.[86] Most of them live either in the Santiago area or in the Antofagasta area, and Chile is one of the 5 countries with the most descendants of Greeks in the world.[87] The descendants of the Swiss reach 90,000[88] and it is estimated that about 5% of the Chilean population has some French ancestry.[89] 600,000 to 800,000 are of Italian descent. Other groups of Europeans have followed, but are found in smaller numbers. Together they transformed the country culturally, economically and politically.
Costa Rica In 2009, Costa Rica had an estimated population of 4,509,290. White people make up 85%, and Mestizos 10% of the population. 3% of the remainder are Black people, 1% are Amerindians, and 1% are Chinese. White Costa Ricans are mostly of Spanish ancestry, but there are also significant numbers of Costa Ricans descended from Italian, German, English, Dutch, French, Irish, Portuguese, Lebanese and Polish families, as well a sizable Jewish community.[90]
Cuba Main article: Demographics of Cuba Contrary to most other Caribbean nations, Cuba became a Caribbean island predominantly populated by European immigrants (followed in such regard by Puerto Rico). In 1958 it was estimated that approximately 74% of Cubans were of European ancestry, mainly of Spanish origin, 10% of African ancestry, 15% of both African and European ancestry (mulattos), and a small 1% of the population was Asian, predominantly Chinese. However, after the Cuban revolution, due to a combination of factors, mainly mass exodus to Miami, United States, a drastic decrease in immigration, and interracial reproduction, Cuba's demography has changed. As a result, those of complete European ancestry and those of pure African ancestry have decreased, the mulatto population has increased, and the Asian population has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared.
The 2002 census figures supplied by the Cuban regime claims that 65% of Cubans were white.[91] However, the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami says the present Cuban population is 38% white and 62% black/mulatto.[91] The Minority Rights Group International says that "An objective assessment of the situation of Afro-Cubans remains problematic due to scant records and a paucity of systematic studies both pre- and post-revolution. Estimates of the percentage of people of African descent in the Cuban population vary enormously, ranging from 33.9 per cent to 62 per cent".[92][93]
According to the 2002 census, Cuba's population was 11,177,743.
Jamaica The White population of Jamaican is less than 1%. They are mainly descendants of British and Germans. There are today around 3000 white people living in Jamaica. Most are foreign born or do not have ancestry in Jamaica.
Norway According to the Norwegian Social Science Data Service, white is a possible answer to ethnic/people group category question. After Norwegians, Sami, Kvens and other Nordics, it is mentioned as white/European. Other categories are Asian, Black/African/Caribbean and "other".[94]
Puerto Rico Official Census [95][96][97] Year White Non-White 1830 50.1 49.9 1899 61.8 38.2 2000 80.5 19.5 2007 76.2 23.8 Racial composition (percentages) by the official Spanish and U.S census.
Main articles: Puerto Rican people and Demographics of Puerto Rico Contrary to most other Caribbean nations, Puerto Rico gradually became a Caribbean island predominantly populated by European immigrants. Puerto Ricans of European, mostly Spanish descent, are said to comprise the majority. (See: Spanish immigration to Puerto Rico). In the year 1899, one year after the U.S invaded and took control of the island, 61.8% of people self-identified as White. For the first time in fifty years, the 2000 United States Census which is conducted on the basis of self-identification. One hundred years later, the total has risen to 80.5% (3,064,862), one percent more than reported in 1950.[98]
Hundreds from Corsica, France, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, and Portugal, along with large numbers of immigrants from Spain. This was the result of granted land from Spain during the Real Cedula de Gracias de 1815 (Royal Decree of Graces of 1815), which allowed European Catholics to settle in the island with a certain amount of free land.
Between 1960 and 1990 the census questionnaire in Puerto Rico did not ask about race or color. Racial categories therefore disappeared from the dominant discourse on the Puerto Rican nation. However, the 2000 census included a racial self-identification question in Puerto Rico and, for the first time ever, allowed respondents to choose more than one racial category to indicate mixed ancestry. (Only 4.2% chose two or more races.) With few variations, the census of Puerto Rico used the same questionnaire as in the U.S. mainland. This decision was a response to intense lobbying by former governor Pedro Rossello's administration to include Puerto Rico in federal census statistics, along with the fifty states. According to census reports, most islanders responded to the new federally mandated categories on race and ethnicity by insisting on their "whiteness"; few declared themselves to be Black or some other race.[96]
South Africa
Sign reserving a beach for the "white race group" (blanke rassegroep) in South Africa under apartheid.White South Africans is a term which refers to people from South Africa who are of Afrikaner, British or other continental European descent. Statistics South Africa estimates that there are about 4.3 million white people in South Africa, while CIA estimates their numbers are closer to 5.2 million.[99]—However, it is clear that all numbers are down from an all-time high of 5.6 million in 1995.[100]
Prior to the decolonisation movements of the post-World War II era, white people were represented in every part of Africa.[101] Decolonisation during the 1960s and 1970s often resulted in the mass emigration of European-descended settlers out of Africa – especially from Algeria (1.6 million pieds-noirs in North Africa),[102] Angola (half-million whites),[103] Kenya, Congo,[104] Mozambique and Rhodesia. Nevertheless, White Africans remain an important minority in many African states. The African country with the largest White African population is South Africa.[105]
Great Britain and Ireland Historical white identities Historically in Great Britain and Ireland whiteness may have been associated with social status[citation needed]. Aristocrats may have had less exposure to the sun[citation needed], and therefore a pale complexion may have been associated with status and wealth[citation needed]. This may be the origin of "blue blood" as a description of royalty, the skin being so lightly pigmented that the blueness of the veins could be clearly seen.[106] The change in the meaning of white that occurred in the colonies (see above) to distinguish Europeans from non-Europeans did not apply to 'home' countries (England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales). Whiteness therefore retained a meaning associated with social status. During the nineteenth century, when the British Empire was at its peak, many of the bourgeoisie and aristocracy developed extremely chauvinistic attitudes to those of lower social rank. Edward Lhuyd discovered that Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish and Breton are all part of the same language family, which he called "Celtic," and were distinct from the Germanic English; this can be seen in context with nineteenth century romantic nationalism. On the other hand the discovery of Anglo-Saxon remains also led to a belief that the English were descended from a distinct Germanic lineage that was fundamentally (and racially) different from that of the Celts. Early British anthropologists such as John Beddoe and Robert Knox emphasised this distinction, and it was common to find texts that claimed that Welsh, Irish and Scottish people are the descendants of the indigenous more "primitive" inhabitants of the islands, while the English, are the descendants of a more advanced and recent "Germanic" migration. Beddoe especially postulated that the Welsh and Irish people are closer to the Cro-Magnon, whom he also considered Africanoid, and it was common to find references to the swarthyness of the skin of peoples from the west of the islands, by comparison to the more pale skinned and blond English residing in the east. For example Thomas Huxley's "On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind" (1870) described Irish, Scots and Welsh peoples as a mixture of "melanochroi" (melano – dark coloured), and "xanthochroi", while the English were "xanthochroi" (xanthro – yellow). Just as race reified whiteness in the colonies, so capitalism without social welfare reified whiteness with regards to social class in nineteenth century Britain and Ireland; this social distinction of whiteness became, over time, associated with racial difference. For example George Sims in How the poor live (1883) wrote of "...a dark continent that is within easy reach of the General Post Office... the wild races who inhabit it will, I trust, gain public sympathy as easily as [other] savage tribes"[107] and Count Gobineau in The Inequality of Human Races wrote the following:
Every social order is founded upon three social classes, each of which represents a racial variety: the nobility, a more or less accurate reflection of the conquering race; the bourgeoisie composed of mixed stock coming close to the chief race; and the common people who live in servitude or at least in a very depressed position.[108]
Modern and official use In the UK, the Office for National Statistics uses the term white as an ethnic category. The terms White British, White Irish, White Scottish and White Other are used. White British includes English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples. The term "White Scottish" is an alternative to "White British" for use of people who define themselves as white from Scotland. The category White Irish refers to white people from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. White Other includes all white people not from the British Isles.[109][110] Socially, in the UK white usually refers only to people of native British, Irish and European origin.[111] In 2001 92.2% of the British population identified themselves as white, and 2006 estimates for England only, state the English population as 88.7% white. As of 2007, 22% of primary school children in England were from ethnic minority families.[112]
United States See also: White American and Definitions of whiteness in the United States The current U.S. Census definition includes white "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa.[113] The U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation describes white people as "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa through racial categories used in the UCR Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.[114]
The cultural boundaries separating white Americans from other racial or ethnic categories are contested and always changing. According to John Tehranian, among those not considered white at some points in American history have been: the Irish, Germans, Jews, Italians, Spaniards, Hispanics, Slavs, and Greeks.[115] Studies have found that while current parameters officially encompassed Arabs as part of the White American racial category, many Arab Americans from places other than the Levant feel they are not white and are not perceived as white by American society."[116]
Professor David R. Roediger of the University of Illinois, suggests that the construction of the white race in the United States was an effort to mentally distance slave owners from slaves.[117] By the 18th century, white had become well established as a racial term. The process of officially being defined as white by law often came about in court disputes over pursuit of citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1790 offered naturalization only to "any alien, being a free white person". In at least 52 cases, people denied the status of white by immigration officials sued in court for status as white people. By 1923, courts had vindicated a "common-knowledge" standard, concluding that "scientific evidence" was incoherent. Legal scholar John Tehranian argues that in reality this was a "performance-based" standard, relating to religious practices, education, intermarriage and a community's role in the United States.[118]
In 1923, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that people of India were not "free white men" entitled to citizenship, despite anthropological evidence in "the extreme northwestern districts of India"[119] there is present the "Caucasian or Aryan race"[119] with an "intermixture of blood"[119] from the "dark skinned Dravidian".
A report from the Pew Research Center in 2008 projects that by 2050, White Americans will make up 47% of the population, down from 67% projected in 2005.[120] White Americans made up nearly 90% of the population in 1950.[121]
One drop rule Further information: One drop rule and Racial segregation The one drop rule—that a person with any amount of known of African ancestry (however small or invisible) is not white—is a classification that was used in parts of the United States.[122] It is a colloquial term for a set of laws passed by 18 states of the USA between 1910 and 1931, many of which were passed as a consequence of Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court decision that upheld the concept of racial segregation by accepting a separate but equal argument. The set of laws was finally declared unconstitutional in 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled on anti-miscegenation laws while hearing Loving v. Virginia, which also found that Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional. The one drop rule attempted to create a bifurcated system of either black or white regardless of a person's physical appearance, but sometimes failed as people with African ancestry sometimes passed as "white" as noted above. This contrasts with the more flexible social structures present in Latin America, where there were no clear-cut divisions between various ethnicities.
As a result of centuries of having children with white people, the majority of African Americans have white admixture, and many white people also have African ancestry. Robert P. Stuckert, member of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Ohio State University said that the majority of the descendants of African slaves are white.[123] Writer and editor Debra Dickerson questions the legitimacy of the one drop rule, stating that "easily one-third of black people have white DNA".[124] She argues that in ignoring their white ancestry, African Americans are denying their fully articulated multi-racial identities. The peculiarity of the one drop rule may be illustrated by the case of singer Mariah Carey,[125] who was publicly called "another white girl trying to sing black", but in an interview with Larry King, responded that—despite her physical appearance and the fact that she was raised primarily by her white mother—due to the one drop rule she did not "feel white."[126][127][128]
Uruguay Main article: Demographics of Uruguay Uruguayans and Argentines share closely related demographic ties. Different estimates state that Uruguay's population of 3.4 million is composed of 88% to 93% white Uruguayans.[129][130] Uruguay's population is heavily populated by people of European origin, mainly Spaniards, followed closely by Italians,[131] including numbers of French, Germans, Irish, British, Swiss, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Scandinavians, Lebanese, and Armenians which migrated to Uruguay in the late 19th and 20th centuries.[citation needed] According to the 2006 National Survey of Homes by the Uruguayan National Institute of Statistics: 94.6% self-identified as having a white background, 9.1% chose Afro/Black ancestry, and 4.5% chose a native American ancestry (people surveyed were allowed to choose more than one option).[132]
This is my First Post Here, I am also a recruiter for stormfront and we have been very succesful recruiting from this site. To those of you who want to aid in our cause go to: www.stormfront.org and register. We need more crusaders who will aid the cause of the Aryan World.Will You Be On the Right Side When It All comes Down To It?- The Recruiter
Stormfront Report:Infiltrate EgyptSearch
Blogs: Ancient: Egypt Recent Entries: Egyptology Best Entries: Dirk8 Best Blogs: Recovering-Afroholic Blog List:2,875 Search Blogs Stormfront Agents > Anti-Black Trolls (open to anyone who will aide in our cause) > Questions about this Report:Recovering-Afroholic www.stormfrontModerator.org
What is wrong? Niggers Are Teaching Falsehood
News and articles: Ancient Egypt Target User Name: Al-tukari, Dr.winters Mission: Eradicate any Trace Of A Black Egypt Password NiggersDie
Private Messages: Thurs. 7:00 pm We have dispacted Dirk8 & Recovering-Afroholic to disrupt the Egyptsearch forum. As of lately, they have shown great progress, and no posters are actually posting.-Derek Black
White Powder
Questions about this Mission is confidentially Moderated, so check with Derek later if your post doesn't appear right away.
Our Mission is to rid the European nations of this plague of Afrocentric views. We have mutliple Troll agents under aliases that are corrupting the order of EgyptSearh.-MightyWhite
Al-Tukari's Plea Should Fall on Deaf Ears! As all of our agents should know, as of March 21, we will have finally taken over EgyptSearch, and now can begin with the teaching of the Master White Race. They are no longer posting African History and we have got these idiots so weary that they think every thread is Troll bait. I have more agents signing up and registering to Egyptsearch everyday to help and aide in our missions, but they will never know for the Nigger is easy.-Hail Whitey Wikka
Online Meetings: Daily 12am ET - Dirk8 & Recovering-Afroholic Give their views on how to get rid of Anti-white propaganda using charts and outdated sources. 1.The Art of Denial 2.The Art Of Illusion 3.The Art of Deception These are some of the tactics that are demonstrated. Anti-Nigger Rally In Your Area! Check listings Truck Roy SF Radio Archives> SF Radio Daily Scheduled: After The Niggers are Gone
Derek Black on WPBR 1340 AM Tuesday and Thursday 9-11 AM Eastern white King Tut w/ guest Horus South Africa with Kommandant "From Egypt" Stormfront Radio Drama
Derek Black on WPBR 1340 AM news/talk radio, covering The Eradication of EgyptSearch: Tue. & Thur. 9:00 - 11:00am ET Archive: Today's show (with Dirk8) | 04/01 (with Dr.Dick Mazigh & Mike111)
posted
Well what would attract them to move northwards?..when to the south you don't have to deal with a desert..plus large populations..as a matter of facts it seems like folks from futher north wanted to expand south themselves.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A no-brainer for "moderators" of this forum; the idiotic ramblings of "StormFrontRecruiter" should be expunged from this, what is supposed to be an adult forum on Egyptology; and obviously, some members here can not resist responding to this form of asinine intrusions...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally I don't see anyone responding to StormfrontRecuiter everyone just posted around him/her... Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the advantage the Bantu speakers had was their new technolgies, that they developed about 3000BC. It allowed them to occupy lands that the hunter/gatherers "let sit idle".
But what of Yonis statement that they were "halted" by cushitic speakers. Is Yonis being his Somalia-id self. East vs West Were the cusitic speakers not appreciative of these new "missionaries".
====
Quote:
The Bantu expansion was a millennia-long series of migrations of speakers of the original proto-Bantu language group[citation needed]. This group is hypothesized[who?] to have originated from modern day Cameroon{{Citation needed| . A diffusion of language and knowledge spread among neighbouring populations, and a creation of new societal groups involving inter-marriage spread to new areas and communities[citation needed] . The expansion is taken to have begun after the introduction of agriculture, which would indicate a date of ca . 3000–2500 BC for the early expansion within West Africa, followed by first eastwards and southwards migrations beyond West Africa from about 1500 to 1000 BC.[2]
Bantu-speakers developed novel methods of agriculture and metalworking which allowed people to colonize new areas with widely varying ecologies in greater densities than hunting and foraging permittedPosts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This may help my buddy out. No time machine needed.
This is being taught in schools.
May answer the questions "and whence the Nilotes"
Not sure it is BS or not but . . . .
source (Zambia!!!!) www.ischool.zm ====== Quote: LESSON PLAN GRADE 11 HISTORY. TOPIC: BANTU MIGRATIONS INTO CENTRAL AFRICA BEFORE 1800. OBJECTIVES: Pupils should be able to: �� Define the term “ Bantu” �� Define the term “ Migration” �� Explain the origin of the Bantu. �� Explain the causes of the migration and settlement of the Bantu �� Describe the ways of life of the Bantu. ORIGIN Bantu is a common term used to refer to the over 400 different ethnic groups of Africa stretching from south of the Sahara desert to South Africa that have similar languages and to some extent customs. Their movements are called migrations their large scale movements over long distances. It is important however to understand that these movement did not occur at once. They took place in phases. The Bantu speaking people were part of the Iron Age people from the Middle East. They settled along the banks of the River Nile. Later, they moved to North Africa and occupied some areas in the Sahara grasslands. From here, they moved to the area around Lake Chad, Nigeria and the Cameroon highlands area called the Benue-Cross region. However, some settled in the great lakes region in east Africa. These people were given the name ‘Bantu’ because of the similarities that were noticed in their languages. For example, the prefix ‘ba-’ and the suffix ‘-ntu’ was common among the languages they spoke. To illustrate this, look at the table below which shows translations of the word ‘person’ and ‘people’ into some Zambian Bantu languages:
CAUSES �� The drying up of the Sahara grasslands. This led the groups that practiced agriculture to migrate in search of new fertile land and water for farming. �� There was population increase. This created pressure on the causing others to migrate in search for new land. �� Occupation, agriculture, hunting, blacksmith etc. �� Succession disputes in some cases led to the migration of some groups. This normally happened when a king died and members of the royal family quarreled about who should succeed. �� Convicted people or criminals migrated in order to run away from being punished or killed. �� Tribal wars caused migrations as defeated tribes ran away from powerful ones for safety. �� Slave trade contributed to the migrations in that in order to avoid being attacked and sold as slaves, some groups were forced to migrate to new areas. �� Some groups or individuals migrated merely for adventure. They did this so that they could explore and see what other lands were like. �� Ambition �� Another reason that led to the Bantu migrations was that of expansion. Some rulers wanted to expand their kingdoms and therefore migrated in search of new areas. ****YONIS and HALTED*****.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
We hypothesize all the time about movement of peoples during ancient times. . .without being telepathic or having a time machine. LOL!
Did you finish school? Because if you didn't you came a long way brother. You seem to have a problem connect the dots.
You have an inane ability to repeat what this or that scholar say but. . . .
Get get me wrong brother I have learnt a lot from you but you haven't been progressing. You got to take it to the next level.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: . . . 1) we can't use a time machine to go back to the time frame and 2) we are not telepathic.
You are a total moron who is uneducable. My post was directed to people who have brain cells, not your kind.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bantu Expansion Koen Bostoen Quote: Archaeological Evidence for the Bantu Expansion The gradual southward spread of initially Neolithic and subsequently Early Iron Age (EIA) assemblages, clearly distinct from pre-existing Stone Age industries, has since long been seen as the archaeological signature of Bantu speakers migrating through Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa. Due to its strong association with food production, for which early evidence is missing in West-Central Africa, certain scholars have considered the term “Neolithic” inappropriate and have proposed alternative terms, such as “Stone to Metal Age.” Others have redefined “Neolithic” to make it fit with the Central African data and have continued to use it, as we do here.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got the paper and still processing. Will post later.
But What they are saying here is West Africa never went through a "Neolithic" period. It went from Stone Age to Metal age in a flash. Added to that there is no archaeological evidence supporting it in West Africa. The pattern is consistent with a new people arriving in West Africa who already had metal technology.
I covered the genetics already so I decided to do a deep dive into the archaeology and I am finding out there is also no archaeological proof of a Bantu migration from Nigeria/Cameroon to the rest of SSA.
So who made up the story of a "Bantu Expansion"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what is the paper telling us? The author believes in the Bantu Expansion but provide FACTUAL evidence that the Bantu Expansion did NOT occur. That is what is so perplexing about some humans. They are exposed to and provided FACTS but come to a diametrically different conclusion
1. He stated there is no genetic proof of the Bantu Expansion 2. He stated there is no archeological proof of the Bantu Expansion 3. He stated there is no agricultural proof of the Bantu Expansion 4. He stated the direction of migration is counter intuitive to all animal species including humans 5. Even the linguistics evidence of the Bantu Expansion is sketchy
Yet he concludes the Bantu Expansion DID occur based entirely on conjecture. I just don’t get it!!!
------------------------ QUOTE The vastness and the rapidness of the Bantu Expansion is even more remarkable if one takes into account that its north-south orientation is more than 1.5 times as large as it west-east orientation. This observation is noteworthy, since it has been argued that continental axes of orientation have a decisive impact on the migration of human populations (and other species) and the accompanying diffusion of modes of subsistence, cultural traits, and technological innovations. In different parts of the world, spread along latitudinal lines has turned out to be easier—that is, faster—than along longitudinal lines, because east-west/west-east migration involves less differences in climate, rainfall, day length, and diseases of crops and livestock and thus requires less adaptation to new habitats. With its predominantly longitudinal axis, the Bantu Expansion **runs counter to** a universal tendency. Moreover, early Bantu speech communities had to traverse the Central African rainforest block, which stretches out between the Sudanian savannahs of Western Africa with the Bantu homeland in their southern margin and the Zambezian
Such early dates for a domesticated plant of Southeast Asian origin has caused a great deal of controversy and call for corroborating evidence from other Central and Eastern African sites. Hence, as things stand now, the only secure evidence for plant cultivation and domestication in Central Africa is much more recent than the assumed start of the Bantu Expansion and was [u]found far from the Bantu homeland[/u]. It is therefore unwarranted to consider the Bantu Expansion, and certainly so its earliest phases, as a textbook case of a farming/ language dispersal as often is advocated without presenting any FACTUAL EVIDENCE for agriculture.
Although migrating Bantu speakers definitely spread their languages from their ancestral homeland all the way down to Southern Africa, the present-day geographic distribution of Bantu languages does not necessarily reflect the original migration of Bantu speech communities. Recent analyses of genetic data suggest the occurrence of successive expansion phases. Y-chromosome variation is not only low, but it also remains relatively stable throughout the Bantu domain, although one would expect it to shrink with distance from the putative homeland as the result of a founder event, i.e., a severe reduction in genetic diversity due to a small number of newcomers producing much offspring. It has been proposed that the signal of the initial migration was attenuated by later migrations and contact among Bantu-speaking populations, as also suggested in earlier genetic studies
That is why, as discussed above, phylogenetic trees of present-day Bantu languages probably do not mirror initialmigrations.
------------------------
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what your basically saying is that the ancestors of Niger Congo people recently brought metal working to West Africa? And that the population prior(Pygmies most likely) did not have metal working?
Edit:
Do you need a new avi?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Just got the paper and still processing. Will post later.
But What they are saying here is West Africa never went through a "Neolithic" period. It went from Stone Age to Metal age in a flash. Added to that there is no archaeological evidence supporting it in West Africa. The pattern is consistent with a new people arriving in West Africa who already had metal technology.
I covered the genetics already so I decided to do a deep dive into the archaeology and I am finding out there is also no archaeological proof of a Bantu migration from Nigeria/Cameroon to the rest of SSA.
posted
new avi? Not really. It shows up fine of desktop/laptop PCs but some of my mobile devices I don't see my avi. Not sure why.
--
anyways.
The author
stated 1. He stated there is no genetic proof of the Bantu Expansion 2. He stated there is no archeological proof of the Bantu Expansion 3. He stated there is no agricultural proof of the Bantu Expansion 4. He stated the direction of migration is counter intuitive to all animal species including humans 5. Even the linguistics evidence of the Bantu Expansion is sketchy
Yet he concludes the Bantu Expansion DID occur based entirely on conjecture. I just don’t get it!!!
--
The author is stating that West Africa went directly from the stone age to the metal age. There is no evidence of insitu Agricultural development in West Africa. So his hypothesis is when this migration started from Cameroon these Africans already had metal technology. He did not specify if these older HG were pygmies. My guess they were Iwo Eleru when the modern day West Africans arrived IN West Africa FROM the East. These Africans arriving from the East already went through the Neolithic period and were more advanced with metal technology. They travelled “latitudinally” as what is typical of animals and humans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I see happening is Africans need to start writing their own history. These Europeans books are filled with conjecture and lies based upon their prejudices and false beliefs and these hypotheses are being thought to young Africans/and Diasporans students who will become scholars. The entire African education system has to be revamped. I don’t know much about linguistic but I am sure there are many errors and lies there also.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What I see happening is Africans need to start writing their own history. These Europeans books are filled with conjecture and lies based upon their prejudices and false beliefs and these hypotheses are being thought to young Africans/and Diasporans students who will become scholars. The entire African education system has to be revamped. I don’t know much about linguistic but I am sure there are many errors and lies there also.
Yes, this is why I said in your Botswana thread that it would be good if we see more Africans in the field if genetics, anthropology or archaeologically. Many African linguistics already to some extent have a different viewpoint of the Bantu migration.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my mobile device I don't either but from a Desktop/PC I do. Not sure why
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: ^I don't see anything in your avi.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Europeans!!!! It is good practice to cite sources. SMH. eg
[QUE]Originally posted by xyyman: [Q] The Bantu Expansion Koen Bostoen Quote: Archaeological Evidence for the Bantu Expansion The gradual southward spread of initially Neolithic and subsequently Early Iron Age (EIA) assemblages, clearly distinct from pre-existing Stone Age industries, has since long been seen as the archaeological signature of Bantu speakers migrating through Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa. Due to its strong association with food production, for which early evidence is missing in West-Central Africa, certain scholars have considered the term “Neolithic” inappropriate and have proposed alternative terms, such as “Stone to Metal Age.” Others have redefined “Neolithic” to make it fit with the Central African data and have continued to use it, as we do here. [/Q][/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by capra: FFS West Africans developed agriculture before they developed metallurgy.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The question of the initial Bantu expansions (and the role of agriculture) is very difficult because of the limitations of the archaeological record: there's been very little fieldwork due to insecurity, inaccessibility, and lack of funds, especially in the most relevant areas like the DRC and CAR; the acidic tropical soil basically dissolves everything but rocks and charcoal; and the most likely crops (such as yams) don't leave convenient traces (charred seeds, chaff temper impressions in pottery).
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
The question of the initial Bantu expansions (and the role of agriculture) is very difficult because of the limitations of the archaeological record: there's been very little fieldwork due to insecurity, inaccessibility, and lack of funds, especially in the most relevant areas like the DRC and CAR; the acidic tropical soil basically dissolves everything but rocks and charcoal; and the most likely crops (such as yams) don't leave convenient traces (charred seeds, chaff temper impressions in pottery).
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe if you pretend to be too dumb to understand plain English people won't notice that you're completely wrong about the facts! Smooth ploy there.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Just got the paper and still processing. Will post later.
But What they are saying here is West Africa never went through a "Neolithic" period. It went from Stone Age to Metal age in a flash. Added to that there is no archaeological evidence supporting it in West Africa. The pattern is consistent with a new people arriving in West Africa who already had metal technology.
Europeans've been dumbstruck for decades over Africans going directly to iron because Eurasians had to progress through a chalcolithic to get started in metallurgy.
Nonetheless a 1940's UN pamphlet on diversity credited Negro Africa first with ferrous metallurgy.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So who made up the story of a "Bantu Expansion"
And add why to that question?
UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins:
[24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6
Then on the iron theme
quote:Originally posted January, 2011 by alTakruri: Mubuga in Burundi and Kataruka in TaNzania had iron metallurgy a few centuries before BaNtu expansion there.
Comparative sites and dates for iron in Africa before 500 BCE (after L. M. Diop-Maes)
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
SIDEBAR: whatever became of this?
However the excavation of a Senegalese tumulus 25 km from Kaolack (Ndalane) has revealed facts that were judged as abberations by their discoverer G. Thilmans, IFAN, Dakar (cf. C. A. Diop, "Datations par la méthode du radiocarbone, série III", Bulletin de l’IFAN, t. XXXIV, série B, n° 4, 1972, pp. 678-701. Voir p. 690 DaK-110 et DaK-111.]
The dating that was come across by Daka and Gif-sur-Yvette, in the conditions chosen by the researcher, of charcoal collected from the location, 330 cm deep, gave the following results:
results that are even more significant if one takes into consideration that Mrs. Delibrias, at Gif, did not know about the measurements I had obtained.
However, it is important to emphasize that an iron and copper tool was extracted from that tumulus that is associated to the end of the Neolithic, that was of Capsian tradition. The difficulty came at first from the fact that it would be unseemly to date this material to such a distant time in the past.
Even though dating via thermoluminescence techniques is still semi-imperical [28], it would be interesting to use it to test the tailpipes of Nok and the pottery from the Ndalane tumulus; this would permit to rapidly answer the question.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: new avi? Not really. It shows up fine of desktop/laptop PCs but some of my mobile devices I don't see my avi. Not sure why.
--
anyways.
The author
stated 1. He stated there is no genetic proof of the Bantu Expansion 2. He stated there is no archeological proof of the Bantu Expansion 3. He stated there is no agricultural proof of the Bantu Expansion 4. He stated the direction of migration is counter intuitive to all animal species including humans 5. Even the linguistics evidence of the Bantu Expansion is sketchy
Yet he concludes the Bantu Expansion DID occur based entirely on conjecture. I just don’t get it!!!
--
The author is stating that West Africa went directly from the stone age to the metal age. There is no evidence of insitu Agricultural development in West Africa. So his hypothesis is when this migration started from Cameroon these Africans already had metal technology. He did not specify if these older HG were pygmies. My guess they were Iwo Eleru when the modern day West Africans arrived IN West Africa FROM the East. These Africans arriving from the East already went through the Neolithic period and were more advanced with metal technology. They travelled “latitudinally” as what is typical of animals and humans.
Maybe you should write him.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So who made up the story of a "Bantu Expansion"
And add why to that question?
UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins:
[24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6
Then on the iron theme
quote:Originally posted January, 2011 by alTakruri: Mubuga in Burundi and Kataruka in TaNzania had iron metallurgy a few centuries before BaNtu expansion there.
Comparative sites and dates for iron in Africa before 500 BCE (after L. M. Diop-Maes)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The problem is these Euros are self-proclaimed experts about what they really know not. How many of them dream in a baNtu language when asleep at night? Yet they know more about it than a born baNtu speaking African who may speak 2 or 3 baNtu languages as a matter of course.
And I mean that for all of them linguists with not a single African in their extensive bibliographies.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic