The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations2010
Jacques Chiaroni,1,* Roy J King,2 Natalie M Myres,3 Brenna M Henn,4
A recent Bayesian analysis of Semitic languages supports an origin in the Levant 5750 years ago and subsequent arrival in the Horn of Africa from Arabia 2800 years ago (11)
Moreover, the network analysis of J1e haplotypes (Figure 2b) shows that some of the populations with low diversity, such as Bedouins from Israel, Qatar, Sudan and UAE, are tightly clustered near high-frequency haplotypes suggesting founder effects with star burst expansion in the Arabian Desert.
______________________
ref. 11 Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ.
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proc Biol Sci. 2009;276:2703–2710.
quote: The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years
quote: Although humidity levels fluctuated during the Holocene, the present climatic regime in Arabia was established ~5000 years ago.16
The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations2010
Jacques Chiaroni,1,* Roy J King,2 Natalie M Myres,3 Brenna M Henn,4
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley
quote:The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
I can't wrap my mind around why this paper is so undercited, aside from Cuckoo Mathilda and her confused puppets. Notice I'm not saying that this paper has been ignored by ES members, as its potential to be misconstrued has been nipped in the bud several times. But why isn't it pro-actively quoted as much as, say, DNA Tribes' Amarna analysis?
First of all, judging by the abstract, the authors aren't even saying that these Nubians had 61% non-African mtDNAs, and secondly, their title and abstract are suggesting that they were testing the contributions of Niger Congo speaking Africans in the ancient Nile Valley genepool (which doesn't make sense due to the fact that these lineages predate anything Niger-Congo, but oh well..):
Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39%
^They clearly aren't counting Northeast African specific mtDNA Ls (which we now know, are prominent).
Thirdly, it is NORMAL for Sudanese to only have ~30% hpa I np 3592 associated uniparentals (L1 and L2):
quote:For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively.
--Hassan, 2009
For the record, certain aspects of this post are inaccurate. The Hpal 3592 marker left the mtDNA tree immediately upstream of L4'3, meaning, only L3, L4, M and N lineages lack the Hpal 3592 marker. There are exceptions but these exceptions don't have common ancestry with the Hpal 3592 marker upstream of L4'3.
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not surprising to find common DNA between African (sub-Saharan) people (Yoruba, Somali, Dinka, Wolof, etc) and Kushite/Ancient Egyptian people since they all share a common origin in North-Eastern Africa (after the OOA migrations of course). For example, the Niger-Congo languages as well as Nilo-Saharan languages have their common origin in Northeastern Africa around Sudan/Ethiopia (I don't have to repeat it but this common linguistic origin is also after the OOA migrations of course).
As another example we can note most Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers share the same Y-DNA haplogroup E-P2. The haplogroup E-P2 is the haplogroup of over 80% of African people (Sub-Saharan Africans/black Africans).
Obenga, basing his work on Anta Diop and Lilias Homburger before him, has determined the probable language of the common E-P2 ancestor which he calls African-Egyptian/Negro-Egyptian . This is not a mainstream linguistic view (such as Ehret posted below) but it comes to the reason that the common E-P2 ancestor, grandfather of most African people, spoke a language and this language was the common language of all his descendant people (current E-P2 carriers like E1b1a/E1b1b carriers which I recall form about over 80% of modern African people)
Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes data are other evidence of this as well as many line of inquiry from linguistic to genetics passing by Biological Anthropology. Which I will expose below.
Modern African people, like all people in the world, as well as Kushite and Ancient Egyptians are the products of demographic changes in the last 6000-8000 years (genetic drift, change in lifestyles, change in physiology, demographic expansion, admixtures, post-dynastic migrations, admixtures and conquests, within-Africa migrations and admixtures, etc).
1) Genetically: The current ancient DNA analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummy specimen have identified the haplogroup E1b1a for Ramses III and the screaming mummy. The most common haplogroup among Sub-Saharan Africans and African-Americans. Autosomal STR have them clustering with Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans. Not Eurasians. This is all from the JAMA , BMJ and DNA Tribes studies mentioned in this thread and forum. Ancient DNA in general has the best discriminative power to identify related and non-related populations.
2) Cultural Archaeology: Same here, Ancient Egyptian share many cultural characteristic with Ancient Egyptians. It has been demonstrated that Ancient Egypt was mostly the product of an indigenous African development. From their common origin in Eastern Africa, to the Green Sahara culture (Wavy-line pottery), to Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
3) Biological Anthropology: Same here, Ancient Egyptians cluster with modern African populations not modern Eurasian populations. The change in physiology between them and their North-East African ancestors/predecessor is related to the change in lifestyles and diet and genetic drift. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture lifestyles. Ancient Egyptians have been demonstrated to be continuous with their North-East African ancestors/predecessors in modern studies.
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Clearly, we can see Niger-Congo speakers (Tanzania, Dahomey, Congo), Nubians, Somali, Naqada clustering on the same branch. Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Same for post-cranial analysis:
We can see African populations (including East, West Africans and African-Americans) clustering at the top and non-African populations clustering at the bottom.
This study has the same analysis: From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations).
This affinity between Ancient and modern Northeastern African populations and Niger-Congo speakers (which form the majority of African people) can also be seen genetically and linguistically. As modern East and West African people (and Ancient Egyptians of course) have a common origin in Eastern Africa after the Out of Africa migrations of Eurasian people ancestors .
Genetically: Y-DNA:
And here for MtDNA (other L haplogroups were obviously not part of the OOA migrations so I didn't include them in the graph):
African populations are genetically close to each others in a similar way Eurasian populations are close to each others, mitigated by the amount of Eurasian back migration they possess. Bi-directional migrations must also be taken into account.
Before the OOA migrations the E and even E-P2 haplogroups didn't even exist as East and West Africans (the greater part of their ancestry) were still part of the same population in North-East Africa. Where they eventually developed the E and E-P2 haplogroups. Eventually spreading E-P2 across Africa along with its MtDNA haplogroups counterparts (like L2a, L3f, L3d, L3eijx, etc).
We can see something similar for autosomal DNA, we also see African populations clustering close to each others (like Europeans, Native Americans and East Asians too respectively) in term of genetic distance mitigated by the level of "recent" (post OOA) Eurasian back migrations into those populations.
For example, on this genetic distance tree from Tishkoff we can clearly see African population clustering on one side and non-African populations clustering on the other side. We can measure the genetic distance too since the genetic distance tree is on scale.
We can notice among other populations Maasai, Yoruba, Fulani, African-Americans clustering close to each others compared to with Eurasian populations. That is despite, for example, Fulani having some substantial level of Eurasian admixture. Of course population like Mozabite and Beja which are more "recently" admixed with back migrating Eurasians post OOA are kind of in-between (their genetic closeness with other African populations are mitigated by the amount of Eurasian admixtures in their populations).
Linguistically: All modern African languages family, including Niger-Congo have their ancient origin in North-Eastern Africa: From:Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
Ultimately, most African people, including Somali, Yoruba, and Ancient Egyptians, share a common origin in Northeastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
posted
You better take your spam elsewhere before I'll call for your posts to be deleted. I have no time for you, go take your revisionist fairy tales elsewhere.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the undiluted facts that some can't stand:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Hpal 3592 levels in Africa:
Like I said:
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers. --Swenet
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Obvious splittism approach based on the dynastic/hamitic race myth employed by Swenet above. What a shame.
Like all African populations Ancient Egyptians and Kushites were their own people but they also share a common origin with other African populations whether you like it or not.
You can try to twist and turn the BMJ (Ramses III=E1b1a), JAMA and DNA Tribes aDNA results or any genetic/archaeological results as much as you want. It won't change that fact.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not moved by your teary eyes, boy. Go bitch, moan and make emotional pleas elsewhere.
How CL Fox' Nubian aDNA sample compares to the above frequencies of Hpal 3592:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sue me. Go cry elsewhere instead of polluting my thread with your pseudo-science and denialism.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Goes for anyone by the way. If you approach my post in a nagging manner that conveys that you're offended by scientific observations and your way of trying to deal with said emotional discomfort is by posting spammy walls of opinions that you wrote yourself wherein academic sources only appear as non-sequiturs to what you're saying (if they appear at all), and you repeatedly accuse me of being a racist/proponent of the Hamitic myth, EXPECT a dismissive reply.
I carry myself within the bounds of rules laid out earlier for this forum by Ausar. Throughout my 5 year stay here, I never pretended to be some sort of Dalai Lama of decorum, contrary to some others. You don't have to like it, but at least with me you get consistency.
His earlier long winded opinion filled post was copy-paste spam from some other thread where he was repeatedly spamming it out of outrage with the scientific data others were posting. That's why he was meted out the response he got.
And if you catch me wilfully antagonizing established facts and polluting the threads of people who subscribe to those facts, merely because I resent such facts, feel free to uphold me to the same standards. In such a case I'd deserve to be blown off.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Swenet, I totally concur with everything you say. Despite some here, you do display a reserve attitude in regards to FACTS and the presentation thereof. Of course at least one or more of those emotion-laden fools will now accuse me of being your lapdog/b|tch-boy whatever just for writing this but I really don't care anymore about others 'think' or rather feel but about FACTS same as you.
Of course Ahmanutcase the Ultimate is just one of the idiots I am addressing. Note how in another thread, his emotional instability goes into the very depths of insanity where he literally misreads everything I write as the opposite!
As such it no longer matter that he distorts YOUR posts as somehow supporting debunked Euronut theories of 'Hamitic race' or suggesting that Nile Valley Africans have no relation to other Africans at all when that is NOT what you stated.
Forget being a people-pleaser because most people are just too stupid or too crazy to please.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I'm glad you're noticing the systematic misplaced indignation with scientific data that goes on here. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I see what these propagandists get away with here. One of the reasons why Egyptsearch has become a laughing stock in the Anthro-blogosphere.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I've said it before, but I think I can understand why people like Amun-Ra and other posters here on ES get rather squeamish about data implying that ancient Egypto-Nubians didn't perfectly resemble the platonic "sub-Saharan African" ideal in phenotype.
Let's face the facts, the vast majority of people who give more than one **** about the race of the ancient Egyptians do have a vested interest in racial politics. One of the reasons I myself got embroiled in this mess was that I saw white supremacists on the Internet claiming that Black Africans were inherently incapable of civilization and that the Egyptians could only have been "Mediterranean Caucasoid" people. This was never a debate of purely academic interest for any of the parties involved.
As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I know I've said it before, but I think I can understand why people like Amun-Ra and other posters here on ES get rather squeamish about data implying that ancient Egypto-Nubians didn't perfectly resemble the platonic "sub-Saharan African" ideal in phenotype.
That's a stupid strawman argument again. If you want to talk about my point of view at least have the decency of directly quoting me.
I rarely mentions phenotype, as modern African people AND Ancient Egyptian and Kushites sport various phenotype we can see all over Africa. I'm more interested into historic, cultural, archeological, linguistic and genetic linkage.
Here is where I talk about phenotype (physiology) in my previous post above:
3) Biological Anthropology: Same here, Ancient Egyptians cluster with modern African populations not modern Eurasian populations. The change in physiology between them and their North-East African ancestors/predecessor is related to the change in lifestyles and diet and genetic drift. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture lifestyles. Ancient Egyptians have been demonstrated to be continuous with their North-East African ancestors/predecessors in modern studies.
Basically, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans. Their physiology and phenotype like any people around the world (including African populations) changed with time due to genetic drift, new lifestyles, etc. But it was still the same indigenous black African people who shared a common origin with other African populations (after the OOA migrations of course).
posted
The study posted in the link above mentions:
Strong evidence for population continuity along the Nile from the late Palaeolithic through the Egyptian Empire.
and those are not my words but a direct quote from the study (Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
This is even more stupid and on the verge of racism. You only use my name in vain to reflect your racist opinion and prejudice against African people. I certainly never expressed anything even close to it. You're a stupid asshole.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
How CL Fox' Nubian aDNA sample compares to the above frequencies of Hpal 3592:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --CL Fox
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @truthcentric
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman. Rather, that claim is a widespread meme promoted by an infectious legacy of global white supremacy, and black people with those features are in the right to challenge it. That still doesn't mean these features were universal across Africa, which you acknowledge yourself but is still lost on posters like Amun-Ra and Akachi.
As for the "doing black people a favor" charge, what is challenging racism and Eurocentrism if not beneficial to the people harmed by it? Why is that a problem? I understand that white people involved in anti-racism can be perceived as having a paternalistic savior mentality, but that's only if they assume black people can't contribute to their own struggle which I never believed. If anything, it was the work of BLACK researchers like Keita who played a pivotal role in changing my views on the Egyptian issue.
And newsflash: heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will. There are millions of male artists out there who draw mostly white ladies without getting any flack for it (besides maybe a generalized and racially neutral "objectification of women" complaint). Why is my stuff any worse?
(Actually I think I do know why you're attacking my character all of a sudden, but suffice to say it wasn't for anything which happened here on ES.)
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
Dubious. Who says so-called most "Afrocentric" activists in relation to Egypt, have much interest in whether "true negro" features are considered ugly or "subhuman"? Concern with "negro lookism" or such has more to do with general critiques of racism, not so much ancient Egypt.
And who says would be "activists" of any significant number are "projecting" so-called "true negro" features on Egypt because they are concerned about how negro features look to Europeans? Can you cite any of these generally recognized "Afrocentric activists" who, according to you, are "projecting" on Egypt due to the lookism issue? If this is the case with "most" Afrocentric activists, you should have no problem finding them.
You also seem to forget that there is no need to make any "projections." "True negro" features are part and parcel of the NATIVE Ancient Egyptian makeup, over millennia. They were always part of the mix, alongside others, and were never "foreign," and do not need to be "projected." Who are these "most" activists, and why do "negro" features need to be "projected"?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Dubious. Who says so-called most "Afrocentric" activists in relation to Egypt, have much interest in whether "true negro" features are considered ugly or "subhuman"? Concern with "negro lookism" or such has more to do with general critiques of racism, not so much ancient Egypt.
And who says would be "activists" of any significant number are "projecting" so-called "true negro" features on Egypt because they are concerned about how negro features look to Europeans? Can you cite any of these generally recognized "Afrocentric activists" who, according to you, are "projecting" on Egypt due to the lookism issue? If this is the case with "most" Afrocentric activists, you should have no problem finding them.
You also seem to forget that there is no need to make any "projections." "True negro" features are part and parcel of the NATIVE Ancient Egyptian makeup, over millennia. They were always part of the mix, alongside others, and were never "foreign," and do not need to be "projected." Who are these "most" activists, and why do "negro" features need to be "projected"?
I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now people attacking the socalled True negro Type? The only thing ugly and subhuman, is the views people have for these features.
To think that people want to project their own prejudiced jealous views on an Part of the African population and people should think "Hey, if a white person says it, it must be right". This lie is toatally off base and should be shredded in the dumpster.
FACT:Majority of women want Thick lips.
FACT: Majority of women Tan their skin to look more as they call it exotic.
The Truth! Is that the reason that people attack the socalled true negro features, is because they Deep down, dream of having them. I don't have to defend whats clear to see...That African women are thee most beautiful of Gods created Woman being.
This targeting is done to make The Children brainwashed into believing that there not up to the standard of Beauty so they might as well whore themselves to every Tom dick and harry. I pray for the children that they are shown just how valuable they are and know that God made them an blessing on this Earth and that From Generation, Blacks have taught all races Love, Shalom etc and built many civilizations around the world and WORKED WITH...the people they came across on their journey. From the Indians teaching Buddhism to Chinese etc, to the Egyptians teaching the Greeks...It's no wonder that Blacks are the Parents, and the rest are the Children. You teach these black youth this and just how important they are in Jesus family..The sky will be the limit.
The system is trying to make Black youth think of themselves as less then and Its working because many In my view do. Look at hip Hop music, sex drugs, violence and claiming respect from doing wrong instead of from doing right. These poisonous seeds are sown in the minds of the children and they inturn say to themselves."Why fight it" and they target their own in negative ways.
The thing though is that the system knows, an liberated Black, is an being of immense strength who teaches other nations how to be free and unites the people around the cause of freedom, tolerance and Love for all.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Excuse me, but I was pretty much using "True Negro" in the sense most people in our circle use it, namely as a catch-all for African people with the broad noses, full lips, and kinky hair that are conventionally called "Negroid" characteristics. Even if the original term was even narrower in application by bygone anthropologists, surely the sense I was using it is the sense you recognize in everyday discourse.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Still somewhat dubious. I never was "riled up" or "denied" that there was population substructure in the Nile Valley, or Africa itself. Of course there would be population sub-structure in various parts of Africa, and in fact I have sometimes referenced Relethford, along with others, who demonstrate that "sub-Saharan" Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity. Whatever Amun-Ra is "denying" that's his baby. And since Relethford in fact shows such diversity, along with Keita, Hiernaux et al, broad "true negro" features are no stranger to the Nile Valley at all. They never were foreign to Egypt, or to Nubia. In fact you use the term Egypto-Nubian.
And there is no need to "conflate" ancient Egypto-Nubian with so-called "sub-Saharan" norms, because as stated before, so called "true negro" or broad features have always been present in Egypt. Your insinuation is that they are foreign, which is false. You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley. It is ironic that you use the term 'Egypto-Nubian" for as shown by Godde, Keita, Bainchi et al, Egyptians and Nubians are closely related, biologically, and culturally. In fact at times, the two are virtually indistinguishable in the archaelogical record. Broad or "true negro" features are not foreign to Nubia either. Your reasoning seems to confirm the charges of Amun-Ra that you want to downplay or deny the diversity of African peoples. If that is the recent conflict you speak of, well you seem to confirm what Amun-Ra charges.
You use of the term "sub-Saharan norms" also seems to confirm Amun-Ra's charges. What exactly is the "norm" for sub-Saharan Africa, the most phenotypically and most genetically diverse region on earth? Is it the sometimes light skinned "Red Igbo" of West Africa? or the light skinned San of South Africa? Both are "sub-Saharan." Is the norm narrow nosed Africans found in desert regions or high altitude locations? These too are all "sub-Saharan." And what is the "norm" for Africans who migrate across the "Sub-Saharan" barrier at will? Do the Nubians you include in your Egypto- Nubian category meet "sub-Saharan" norms or are they excluded? What are these "norms"?
You mention Charlie Bass and tropicals as "not wrapping their heads around it," but it appears it is you that has not yet wrapped your head around the fact of the indigenous diversity of yes, "sub-Saharan" Africans.
And Bass to my knowledge never denied any population diversity or substructure in Africa. In fact when he used to hang out on the white racist sites, I recall he referenced studies on population substructure and isolation by distance to debunk assorted racists who used the true negro thing to advance various "Caucasoid civilizer", "race mix" or racial "multi-regionalism" claims as explanations of African accomplishment or diversity. Maybe you can clarify your understanding of African diversity that Amun-Ra has challenged, and set the record straight on where you stand.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @truthcentric
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman.
Yet you are the only one bringing all this up on this forum... There's something very wrong with you.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Still somewhat dubious. I never was "riled up" or "denied" that there was population substructure in the Nile Valley, or Africa itself. Of course there would be population sub-structure in various parts of Africa, and in fact I have sometimes referenced Relethford, along with others, who demonstrate that "sub-Saharan" Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity. Whatever Amun-Ra is "denying" that's his baby. And since Relethford in fact shows such diversity, along with Keita, Hiernaux et al, broad "true negro" features are no stranger to the Nile Valley at all. They never were foreign to Egypt, or to Nubia. Your insinuation is that they are foreign, which is false. You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley.
Good post as a whole Zarahan. For the record, Truthcentric is lying about my position.
People must understand what is going in here in this thread. Since I kicked Truthcentric's ass with science and argumentation in the other threads, he comes back here lying about my positions using straw-men while at the same time apparently becoming a spokesman for racist people.
He is referring to those threads linked below but I still waiting for him to post counter argumentation (with science not fluff and hogwash)...
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008966;p=7#000302 A long post to basically say the substucture relevant to the OOA migrations in Africa was between the CT haplogroup carriers and non-CT haplogroup carriers for Y-DNA. And between L3 and non-L3 carrier for mtDNA. Most Africans including Somali and Yoruba are descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups (as well as other haplogroups). Some Africans are not descendant of CT and L3 like Aka-Mbuti and Khoisan populations. So it's not only modern East Africans which descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups at a high proportion. It's both modern East and West Africans.
In more simple terms, East and West Africans like Cushitic (Somali), Chadic and Niger-Congo (Yoruba) language speakers all share the haplogroup E-P2, as well as various common mtDNA L haplogroups (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eijx, L0a, etc..) . E-P2 (also called PN2) appeared after the OOA migrations and then spread all over Africa through migrations.
Basically Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Congo speakers were still one people (the people in which their common E-P2 grandfather was born) at a time period after the OOA migration. Afterward of course, they eventually migrated away in different directions and became their own people while spreading E-P2 all over Africa. Over 80% of Yoruba, African-Americans and Somali populations, for examples, are E-P2 carrier.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Excuse me, but I was pretty much using "True Negro" in the sense most people in our circle use it, namely as a catch-all for African people with the broad noses, full lips, and kinky hair that are conventionally called "Negroid" characteristics. Even if the original term was even narrower in application by bygone anthropologists, surely the sense I was using it is the sense you recognize in everyday discourse.
Yes, you specifically referenced "features" in aspects of your post, but then you also referenced Akachi and what they and his fellow propagandists project onto AE. Their whole point is that the AE belonged to the "True Negro" type and they make direct links to regions beyond the Nile Valley where "True Negro" is presumed to be ubiquitous, to explain the variations in the Nile Valley.
If you're not referencing how Akachi et al and Amun Ra are projecting this fairy tale onto the Nile Valley, I don't know what this is about. After all, "negroid" is a relative term almost any African population can be said to fall under; it doesn't exclude most elongated Africans either. I don't recall there being any beef in this respect (although I see some in this thread are trying real hard to shift the goal post to this new "safe" position).
The use of the "True" qualifier when describing individual traits or a set of "negroid" features is new to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman. Rather, that claim is a widespread meme promoted by an infectious legacy of global white supremacy, and black people with those features are in the right to challenge it.
I’m pointing out your repeated association of stereotypically black features with ugliness, regardless of whether it’s one that you would personally assert. You say it’s a not view you endorse, so I’m curious as to why you trot it out as an explanatory factor in your internet musings. (Correct me if I misremember this, but did you use the term “bestial” on FB the other time?) It feels like you're raking over something. Not only is it pat, but in this instance speculative and baseless. I 'm trying to be cautious here, but my instinct tells me that you're projecting.
quote:As for the "doing black people a favor" charge, what is challenging racism and Eurocentrism if not beneficial to the people harmed by it? Why is that a problem?
Do you really see fetishization of black women as sexualised exotica in your cartoon drawings as beneficial to black people?
quote:And newsflash: heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will. There are millions of male artists out there who draw mostly white ladies without getting any flack for it (besides maybe a generalized and racially neutral "objectification of women" complaint). Why is my stuff any worse?
Self-exculpatory and also disingenuous. You’ve alluded to the answer here yourself with your reference to “racially neutral”. Objectification of women is bad enough, but in your case it’s aggravated by the racial context.
And newsflash: [some] heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will.
There, fixed it for you.
quote: (Actually I think I do know why you're attacking my character all of a sudden, but suffice to say it wasn't for anything which happened here on ES.)
Explain.
quote: most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another.
When I look at the mummy of Maiherpri and the facial reconstructions of ancient Egyptians that are in keeping with what the evidence says of their origins, there's no need whatsoever to conflate ancient Egypto-Nubians with a "sub-Saharan norm".
quote: And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted , both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
You’ll need to clarify your reference to me here since in your last post to me in this thread you wrote:
quote:“That still doesn't mean these features were universal across Africa, which you acknowledge yourself ”
Quite puzzling. So one minute I get it, the next I don't? Although the use of “acknowledge yourself” suggests when I did get it, I'd come round to it begrudgingly. However, I’ve NEVER said that the stereotypical, supposed broad West African phenotype, or “sub-Saharan norm” were modal in ancient Egypt. Never. You might remember that I quoted Keita’s “Somali-like” reference during that particularly embittered, protracted thread a few weeks back? Moreover, you’ll also know that I didn’t like the image you posted on the FB site, one of the reasons being that it didn’t fit my understanding of what they generally looked like. (But now you say I don't get it?)
My view has been that, in British and American sociological terms, most ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black/black Africans. I’ve said this all along. Even Cass, at least when posting under one of his recognisable names, eventually went with this. Twice.
If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, then say so.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
As a person, I actually like you. None of us are infallible, but I really hope you think about this. I'm not puritanical, but there are times when your comments and artwork make me feel uneasy.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think you know very well in what sense TC says you have trouble accepting substructure and the difference between when he says you're in denial vs when you're acknowledging certain facts. Citing Cass here makes little difference; when you brought it up he (too) made it clear to you that "sociological" views are based on premises that are not rooted in objective reality. Which is interesting given that he arrived at that conclusion independently (I certainly didn't talk to him about this issue) using simple reasoning, as have others, including lioness.
Sure, it's an academic generalization about a hypothetical observation, but neither have biological or genetic significance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think you know very well that I've always approached this from a sociological angle, supported by references to geographic origin. So citing Cass's take on the sociological context is entirely relevant.
I recently put up the Stuart Tyson Smith quote, which articulates the view that races are culturally defined. I've always known this.
I leave it to you and others to argue about whether or not it has any biological or genetic significance.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, it's a sociological angle; one that would get your underlying premise in trouble the 2nd you're asked how your "sociological" observation gels with the recent discovery that very recent European hunter gatherers and other decidedly non-African individuals inconvenient to your non-pigmentation based use of "black", would easily pass your "street experience" test as well. AE and Africans aren't unique in this regard, which runs counter to your premise.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^??? Not quite sure where you're taking this, but it's already tiresome.
Also, wanted to note your edit:
You wrote something like "Sure, it's an observation that can be made but doesn't have any biological or genetic significance"
and then changed it to something which appears watered down:
"Sure, it's an academic generalization about a hypothetical observation, but neither have biological or genetic significance."
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
More watered down? It's even more detrimental to your case. It stresses that your "street experience" fallacy is a generalizion, re: many people would disagree with grouping certain elongated Africans under "black". Meaning, your anecdote is also a fallacy on grounds not acknowledged before the edit was made.
Any more perceived damning citations from me that you'd like to "expose" in a bid to obfuscate the shortcomings of your claims, noted even by lioness and Cass? Or maybe you want to bring in a certain person on ES whose use of "black" you took out of context and ask him right here and now if he agrees with you that "black" can be continentally circumscribed in any meaningful way?
However you want to do it Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: More watered down? It's even more detrimental to your case.
That was my point, you're rowing back.
Oh, the drama and the pettiness. Cass agreed. Which part of that do you not understand?
Look man, you're making a fool of yourself. You've also used the term black when referencing the ancient Egyptians. Tiresome.
quote: Or maybe you want to bring in a certain person on ES whose use of "black" you took out of context and ask him right here and now if he agrees with you that "black" can be continentally circumscribed in any meaningful way?
You mean the Djehuti quote? Where he articulates my point?
"That's the thing about Keita is that he uses scientific terminology to describe as accurately as he can about who the Egyptians were and what they looked like which is nothing more than beating around the bush when it comes to laymen terms. He just needs to come right out and say that 'race' is a purely sociological and cultural concept, but judging by Western and many other social and cultural standards the Egyptians would be called 'black'. That's all he's gotta say."
posted
I dont keep track of names. "tropicals redacted" What was your previous name here and the ES group if you dont mind me asking?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one disagrees that pigmented individuals would be recognized as pigmented individuals by people who make classifications based on pigmentation. This has nothing to do with your premise that such a pigmentation based classification is Africa- specific (as implied by your self-admitted western use of "black", as opposed to one that is based on pigmentation) or meaningful in terms of ancestry, the part where, as TC notes, you have a severe case of denial, both as it pertains to who supposedly agrees with you and whether your tactical use of that Tyson Smith(?) citation in certain situations is justified.
No need to get emotional, especially right after you accuse someone of doing something sneaky and it backfires; just post the facts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
People are going to be reading this. It does your credibility and perceptions of your honesty no good.
It's embarrassing because actually your analysis is generally very good. You assimilate things quickly and you're a critical and independent thinker. It's impressive. I've told you this. That's why I hung out with you in private conversation on FB for best part of a year, two, three times a day, late evening into the early hours.
But really. There are times when you just need to let go of this need to always be right. I'm being serious now. It's not an attractive personality trait, especially when it involves you pulling a 180 on a previously held position.
What's the use?!
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought so, no facts. Just emotional pleas and silly references to public perception.
Mere pigmentation in the Palaeolithic Nile Valley, North Africa or anywhere in Africa for that matter, per se has nothing to do with the people and connotations you attempt to confound them with, with your western derived use of 'black' and it's connotations. You knew very well what TC was saying, and the people you repeatedly reference as supportive of your interpretation aren't at all supportive of it. Those are my only points. If bringing this to light gets your panties up in a bunch, there is treatment for that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair Swenet, I really do the gist of what Truthcentric and Ahmanut are saying. Basically it is the fact that Euronuts through the decades up to the present day have been limiting and narrowing the definitions of 'negro', 'black African', or what have you while expanding their definition of 'white' or 'Caucasian' so as to claim not only Egypt but all cultures of North AND East Africa as well!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm glad you're noticing the systematic misplaced indignation with scientific data that goes on here. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I see what these propagandists get away with here. One of the reasons why Egyptsearch has become a laughing stock in the Anthro-blogosphere.
I fail to see how Egyptsearch is the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere when you have blogs like Dienekes' 'Racial Reality' or Mathilda's Anthroplogy Blogspot. Hell even more 'mainstream' sites like Anthroscape and Biodiversity are overrun with erroneous info by racial propagandist who disseminate and perpetuate the lie of Caucasoid domains in Africa! In the latter sites I read things about Pleistocene Caucasoids of Sudan and Kenya to even Eurasian [read Caucasoid] origin of Khoisan which is espoused here by the fake black woman lyinass!
So while Egyptsearch may not be the perfect place to get accurate and scientific data on anthropology, I hardly see it as the horrible back-water 'ghetto' that many especially the Euronuts make it out to be.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You weren't around when Akachi projected the "True Negro" stereotype onto the Nile Valley, so it may be hard to contextualize my post. As for the state of ES, I suggest you follow what's going on in the Anthro-blogosphere for a couple of weeks, then come back here and see the contrast and judge for yourself. I never forget how I spoke to an academic once and after I linked to an ES thread he made a leftfield remark about how he would never register there and I never even asked him to. That was the last time I ever referenced ES in a private conversation with someone I discuss African history with.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^Disappointing.
You know what, I'm actually genuinely saddened.
To repeat, you've used the term "black" yourself to refer to the ancient Egyptians.
^Well, that's your problem right there; you're too emotionally vested in your own beliefs. If you really respected my analysis so much, maybe you should have listened when I told you that the term "black" is problematic weeks before you all of a sudden had a problem with me saying it and went on a desperate search to find posts of mine where I use the term, and tell me I'm doing a 180.
Maybe you should do the same thing with DJ's posts, i.e. actually reading what he subscribes to and the disparate African and OOA people whom he includes under "black", and that this has nothing to do with how you used the term when you used it in contradiction to Kemp when he argued for substructure in Africa. Maybe you should do that, instead of being such a smart ass and tell me you know more about my posts than me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is going on with the FB group? I queezy about hanging out with a guy until early morning..... especially via the computer. Is there a video cam involved. Maybe it is a generation thing. In the 90's that was unheard of. I don't get you young people.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: []
quote:
.
I've told you this. That's why I hung out with you in private for best part of a year, two, three times a day, late evening into the early hours.
let go of this need to always be right. I'm being serious now. It's not an attractive personality trait, [/]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As for the undiluted facts that some can't stand:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Hpal 3592 levels in Africa:
Like I said:
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers. --Swenet
Yes, and I believe the skeletal evidence comes to the same conclusion. I recall one study (I forgot the author) that uses nonmetric data from both cranial and post-crania remains to show close genetic relations between the populations of Egypt and the northern Sudan especially in the Red Sea coast both from ancient times up to the present.
Also, I'm sure you know about the theory that there has been a loss of human diversity seen in the late Pleistocene by Holocene times. This was brought up several times in this forum and discussed in more detail concerning early populations of the African Horn, but what do you make of the early populations of the Nile Valley?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you really respected my analysis so much, maybe you should have listened when I told you that the term "black" is problematic weeks before you all of a sudden had a problem with me saying it and went on a desperate search to find posts of mine where I use the term, and tell me I'm doing a 180.
Even then, just prior to my leaving the group, you repeated that you had used the term, and were not saying it should never be used...so when I then quoted the examples where you used "black" back at you, you humphed about already having said that there was indeed a place for its use...and it wasn't a desperate hunt for where you'd used black, it was easy - the examples were readily accessible.
Bottom line is, you've used the term and your attempts to save face aren't convincing.
I don't have anymore time for this. It's really boring and petty.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well, should your desperation to contradict my posts ever come back to you, you're more than welcome to point out that I used it in the substructure dismissing way you're using it, where "black" is necessarily specific to the western idea of who is black, and exclusive of, say, European hunter gatherers who were contemporary with predynastic Egyptians and who have the ancestral alleles for skin pigmentation.
@Djehuti, are you aware of the archaeological industries in the Nile Valley and Libya in the UP and MP? I think the people in the Nile Valley at that time had common ancestry with OOA populations. I think the makers of UP tools in the Levant were in the same biological clade as the people who inhabited Egypt and Libya at that time. I think the UP tool makers of the Levant either represent a migration from Egypt or that their MP predecessors migrated to the Levant and blade-based industries were then made in the Levant.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you hear me laughing from across the North Sea?
quote: ^Well, should your desperation to contradict my posts ever come back to you, you're more than welcome to point out that I used it in the substructure dismissing way you're using it, where "black" is necessarily specific to the western idea of who is black [I used it in the[/, and exclusive of,say, European hunter gatherers who were contemporary with predynastic Egyptians and who have the ancestral alleles for skin pigmentation.
Hope I'm not breaking board 'etiquette' when I quote Djehuti from another thread he posted on today:
quote: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African .
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic