posted
^And the part where I or Djehuti say that "black" excludes, say, contemporary European hunter gatherers? Or are you simply trolling?
The ancestors of Europeans and much of all of West Eurasia are suspected of having had the ancestral ancestral pigmentation alleles up until very recently, yet the Stuart Smith citation is used by some dogmatists with the tacit suggestion that OOA populations wouldn't also pass the touted "street experience" test *ahum* fallacy *ahum* during most of their stay in Eurasia. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and say that's truthful.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
This. And it took me a while to come to this realization. It is something that I have somewhat known for a while but when you get down the details of biological adaptation and genetics we have to come to this realization and accept it. this is particularly important NOW seeing what we know of Skin color variation and what can change with just a few SNP's...........and how Ancient Europeans..the hunter gathering ones had "Brown Skin".
quote: Our data suggest that in Brazil, at an individual level, color, as determined by physical evaluation, is a poor predictor of genomic African ancestry, estimated by molecular markers
The same can be said when dealing with some Africans. The fact that some modern Egyptians may have darker skin as you go south do not necessarily correspond with increasing levels of African ancestry as once thought. All one needs to do is look at Y-dna and even these Mtdna affinities in different Egyptian groups: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/
There is no clear North South Gradient...........just as there is no clear north/south "SW Asian" gradient, which in Structure Analysis has a higher showing in the Horn of Africa than it does in Egypt. Thinking Skin tone corresponds with biology as far as "African" Ancestry is concerned is a simplistic as thinking the same is true for dark skin populations from Arabia to Indian to the south pacific. Holding on to these ideas is futile.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Indeed. Did you see that reconstructed Aterian girl (Boushra) or even reconstructions of the Qafzeh and Skhull individuals? You'd have to be very unlearned (to put it nicely) to think you can sell the idea that these tropically adapted people can be simplistically assigned to a particular modern day ancestry or defined in modern day terms on the account of merely having pigmentation.
posted
In fairness to Claus/Tropicals Redacted, I've decided that I don't have a problem with calling ancient Egyptians "Black African", at least in a non-academic context. The term by itself doesn't necessarily have phylogenetic connotations, for it simply references dark skin together with deeply rooted ancestry in some African location. No one here is denying ancient Egyptians, Nubians, and other East Saharans were indigenous to the region they occupied even if they had a fraternal relationship with OOA or certain physical distinctions from modal sub-Saharans. By virtue of being significantly pigmented and native to northeastern Africa, I would say ancient Egyptians would indeed qualify as "Black African" in the commonly accepted, pre-phylogenetic way.
Note that this doesn't mean we cannot apply "Black" as a chromatic descriptor to any OOA groups. If you want to call early foragers in Europe "Black Europeans", I say go ahead. In fact I'm not even sure Claus/Redacted even did mean to say only African populations can be called Black.
posted
@beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
That's why we use a multidisciplinary approach to study the population history and ethnic affiliations between Ancient Egyptians and other populations.
For example, on the genetic front the fact that Ramses III is said to be E1b1a (BMJ study), and the autosomal STR DNA of the 18th and 20th royal dynasty are more prevalent in modern Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans(DNA Tribes studies 1, DNA Tribes studies 2), this show the types of "black" we are talking about in the context of Africa and Ancient Egypt which is an African country. We're talking about the black Africans.
Same for establishing the archaeological/cultural continuity between the Green Sahara period and the Tasian, Badarian, Naqada, Ancient Egyptians culture and various modern African cultures.
"Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt(2001)
AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
BTW, to anyone pitching in henceforth, feel free to do so, but at least inform yourself of what is discussed. It's not my job to make sure you understand what the points of contentions are before you jump in and create confusion.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^What I said above reflect what Zarahan said to Truthcentric earlier: "You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley.
Even modern East Africans show a great deal of physiological diversity (which is why I posted people in East Africa of various physical features (Somali, Afar, Oromo, Karrayyu) in the ' horner too ' threads as did Tukuler) despite being more admixed with Eurasian populations since the more recent Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Arab migrations into that region.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
Are you really saying that I can't conceptualise, for example, Black Asians and Black Australians?
Look, you're being wilful. You're deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting my position. But carry on, people can see it. Even though you admit that the AEs were African and "heavily pigmented" you still play at misdirection.
And all to save face.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, the VERY populations whom you attempt to exclude from your "street experience" test because you presume they would have been white back then, would have passed it a couple of thousand years ago in the TIME of the AE, re: ancestral pigmentation alleles. Your "street experience" test is meaningless fluff as it doesn't discriminate visually between Africans and pigmented Asians on the one hand or modern day SSA and preOOA Africans on the other hand (the latter are more related to Europeans than those those you consider "black", despite both sharing heavy skin pigmentation). Kemp owned you for presenting him that fallacy, as you're being owned right now.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
..............
The autosomal sub structuring of Africans predates E1b1a and even Pn2 and L3. All that stuff is moot. There is a genetic cline of populations stretching from South Africa to Europe. IN prehistoric times the skin tone of all these populations would have been dark.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: [QUOTE]
Look, you're being wilful. You're deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting my position. But carry on, people can see it.
Did you just realized that or is it something you knew before today?
This is all Swenet and now apparently Truthcentric ever did to hide their incapacity to provide counter-argumentation based on science not fluff and misrepresentation of other's people arguments and point of view. But what else can someone who doesn't want to lose face do when he got his ass handed to him with facts and science? The alternative is admitted he was wrong and change his opinion accordingly, this is what normal people do when presented with new facts and knowledge.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
..............
The autosomal sub structuring of Africans predates E1b1a and even Pn2 and L3. All that stuff is moot. There is a genetic cline of populations stretching from South Africa to Europe. IN prehistoric times the skin tone of all these populations would have been dark.
I'm talking about structuring relevant to the OOA migrations. Between CT and non-CT haplogroups carriers and between L3 and non-L3 carriers.
The common E-P2 grandfather and L3 grandmothers (as well as other MtdNA L haplogroups) show that modern East, West Africans and indeed the majority of African populations shared a common ancestry well after the OOA migrations and before the more recent back migrations of Eurasians into Africa (from Y-DNA F and MtDNA M/N descendants haplogroups). When population share common haplogroups like the common E-P2 and L3 grandmothers cited above, this is reflected on their whole genome including autosomally. They didn't only receive the P2 mutation from their common grandfather but the whole genome. That's why for example, Ramses III's Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans regional affiliation reflect the same regions where E1b1a is more prevalent.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bottom line, the VERY populations whom you attempt to exclude from your "street experience" test because you presume they would have been white back then, would have passed it a couple of thousand years ago in the TIME of the AE, re: ancestral pigmentation alleles. Your "street experience" test is meaningless fluff as it doesn't discriminate between Africans and pigmented Asians on the one hand or modern day SSA and preOOA Africans on the other hand (the latter are more related to Europeans than those those you consider "black", despite heavy skin pigmentation). Kemp owned you for presenting him that fallacy, as you're being owned right now.
The basic question, which you're playing around with, is whether the ancient Egytians would be considered black in Western sociological terms, or street experience.
You've already acknowledged that the ancient Egyptians were black so it's really a case of all over bar the shouting.
Street experience was Kemp's term by the way.
Now suddenly, when it suits you, you're cheering him on? Is this the same Kemp you foolishly suggested in a PM had "consulted an expert to re-make those dendrograms" in Anatomy of a Civilization? Or is a different Kemp, who you thought might have "just cooked it [the dendograms] all up while basing it loosely on Rosung's data."
Utterly ludicrous.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: The basic question, which you're playing around with, is whether the ancient Egytians would be considered black in Western sociological terms, or street experience.
Nope, the basic question is whether you're omitting the fact that this doesn't mean what you want it to mean, considering the fact that 1) OOA populations would have passed that test for the majority of their duration of their stay outside of Africa, 2) AE with more ancestry from African preOOA individuals would have passed that test as well, and it would mean the exact opposite of what you're promoting it to mean.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nope, the basic question is whether you're omitting the fact that this doesn't mean what you want it to mean, considering the fact that 1) OOA populations would have passed that test for the majority of their duration of their stay outside of Africa, 2) AE with more ancestry from African preOOA individuals would have passed that test as well, and it would mean the exact opposite of what you're promoting it to mean.
Save your nonsense for the weak-minded.
Would ancient Egyptians be considered black/black Africans in a sociological context/street experience today? You've already said that they would.
When a man is in a hole he should stop digging. But this guys Swenet says, no I'm digging my way to Australia and I don't care what they say!
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you're more than welcome to post me saying that AE wouldn't be classified with other heavily pigmented individuals by an objective observer. I asked you to present such excerpts earlier. Where are they? Let's see some excerpts, shall we?
**grabs popcorn**
Also:
quote:Would ancient Egyptians be considered black/black Africans in a sociological context/street experience today? You've already said that they would.
Really? where? Let's see how you'll perform when the objective is to answer questions that take you up on your bs.
Recalling:
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.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
Putting aside that Claus has already clarified that he would in fact describe dark-skinned OOA as black...
I don't know how it works in the UK or the Netherlands, but here in the US, the reason "Black" is equated specifically with African ancestry is because the majority of dark-skinned people who have lived in our country throughout its history were descended specifically from West Africans. If South Indian, Melanesian, or Australian Aboriginal people had such a numerous and deeply entrenched presence here, we might have grouped them with the Africans in the "Black" category. That some people reserve Black for West African-derived individuals has nothing to do with phylogenetics and everything to do with what we Americans have been most intimately familiar with.
And even if you do take the one-drop rule into account, its premise has always stated that you need recent ancestry from a dark-skinned population to qualify as Black. It never claimed that this ancestral population had to be West African-affiliated and that Eastern Saharans wouldn't count. If Barack Obama's father had been Nubian instead of a Kenyan Luo, he might fit into the one-drop construction of Blackness just as well.
It's not like the term "Black African" was coined with modern phylogenetic knowledge, or even a neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, in mind.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, since Swenet's primary motivation for withholding the "Black African" label from AE appears to be a desire for monophyletic classification (at least that's what I am inferring), I must point out that non-monophyletic categories on par with "Black African" are so pervasive in common discourse that cutting them all out would be impractical.
For example, the Triceratops was more closely related to modern birds than iguanas from the standpoint of shared evolutionary ancestry. However, most people would sooner group the Triceratops and iguanas together as "reptiles" while excluding birds, in part because birds possess certain specializations (e.g. feathers and adaptations for flight) not present in either Triceratops or iguanas.
Similarly, palm trees are more closely related to daffodils than to pine trees since the former two are both angiosperms (flowering plants). That hasn't stopped everyone from calling both palms and pines "trees" without including daffodils.
The point I mean to establish is that while it makes sense to privilege monophyletic classification systems in an academic context, that same obligation does not exist outside that narrow context and if anything would cause more problems than it's worth. Everyone uses categories in day-to-day life that don't reflect shared evolutionary history.
quote: 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 afallacy on grounds not acknowledged before the edit was made.
From a FB conversation:
One of the members asked: “I don’t intentionally provoke debates on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians any more, but I have had a couple of people on DeviantArt and tumblr asking why the Egyptian characters in my art and stories are black . Should I just ignore them, or is there a way to quickly address them without getting into another long and unproductive argument?”
Swenet replied: “Ask them what they perceive the red to brown skinned murals to depict if not an Ethiopian-like population (of course, there is more to their population affinities, but since you’re talking to lay people, its reasonable to dumb it down to Ethiopian-like ). I’m actually curious about their answer to this question. I’ve heard seasoned Euronuts attempt to answer it with the True Negro approach, and by contrasting the Egyptian figures with supposed ‘real Africans’, but presumably, your artistic audience doesn’t have access to such data. Ask them and tell us what they said.”
Oh, the BS!!!!
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
^More desperate digging but as for how exactly it relates to the fact that my past use of "black" is not limited to Africans or equatorial Africans (i.e. the dominant western idea) and INCLUDES all heavily pigmented people, including European hunter gatherers 6kya, no one knows.
Lying troll, are you going to answer the pending questions or is this trolling on your part a sign of you waving a white flag?
@Truthcentric
From what I recall, the issue specifically came up during the discussion of Hawass' insinuation that the AE were black in pigmentation terms but not necessarily in the western concept of what 'black' means (IIRC Kemp also said something to that effect, but his choice of words was "African"), and he took offense at that.
Any concession on his part now in regards to the existence of heavily pigmented Africans who are not at all affiliated to the people who are designated in the West as "black people", and the high likelihood of finding such indigenous African people in AE is exactly that: a grudging concession. If that's how he feels nowadays, he should admit that he was wrong and retract the lies that he's still spouting as we speak.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the existence of heavily pigmented Africans who are not at all affiliated to the people who are designated by the West as "black people", and the high likelihood of finding such indigenous African people in AE
^^^Sounds like the hamitic race myth.
You can notice the need for Swenet to make those heavily pigmented Africans not affiliated to the modern black Africans like West Africans and even the need to make them closer to Eurasian and OOA migrants than to other black Africans. What a shame. The hamitic race myth is based of pseudo-science that has been debunked and rejected decades ago. How old are you Swenet? Still stuck in the 50s-60s?
Far from being not affiliated, genetic analysis on Ancient Egyptian mummies from the 18th and 20th dynasty demonstrate they are indeed affiliated with modern black Africans from Sub-Saharan regions like Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans. So do other lines(and here too) of archeological inquiries.
For example, on the genetic front the fact that Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study), and the autosomal STR DNA of the 18th and 20th royal dynasty are more prevalent in modern Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans regions (DNA Tribes studies 1, DNA Tribes studies 2) more than any other regions around the world, show they are indeed affiliated with modern black African populations all over Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can notice the need for Swenet to make those heavily pigmented Africans not affiliated to the modern black Africans like West Africans and even the need to make them closer to Eurasian and OOA migrants than to other black Africans.
Absolutely right. descendants of those Africans would have been there. You've got a problem with that? Teary eyes and emotional pleas aren't going to make the elephant in the room go away. No doubt in your head full of misfiring neurones, crying and protesting objective reality is an acceptable way of dealing with facts, but not in the real world.
posted
^^^You're just shaming yourself with that hamitic race myth stupidity. Debunked btw by the second part of my post above you choose to not reply to.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling the existence of Africans with preOOA ancestry "stupid" or "hamitic myth" and referring to your own propaganda isn't going to make the nightmare go away.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Calling it stupid and referring to your own propaganda isn't going to make it away.
Calling my second part of my post propaganda won't make it go away either. The genetic results on Ancient Egyptian mummies speak for themselves.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, laughable exposed clown. How on earth is this desperate. Everyone's seeing this. Look at how you contort and twist - first you say that "many" people wouldn't regard elongated Africans as black, and then when you're caught doing exactly that, you then start diversionary tactics.
quote: ^More desperate digging - but as for how exactly it relates to the fact that my past use of "black" is not limited to Africans or equatorial Africans (i.e. the dominant western idea) and INCLUDES all heavily pigmented people, including European hunter gatherers 6kya, no one knows.
Lying troll, are you going to answer the pending questions or is this trolling on your part a sign of you waving a white flag?
Utterly pathetic. White flags? What's this a war? How petty. How small-minded.
Right. I think I've made my point. I hope people bump this thread and quote from it the next time you get above yourself.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: first you say that "many" people wouldn't regard elongated Africans as black, and then when you're caught doing exactly that, you then start diversionary tactics.
I'm still waiting:
1) Where has my past use of "black" referred to anything other than heavily pigmented people all over the world?
2) Where have I criticized any pigmentation-based use of "black" in reference to preOOA or OOA populations for it to make sense to juxtapose my statements with earlier times when I use the term "black" in reference to such populations?
3) How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Get to work, lying troll. You have work ahead of you. Unless, of course, your sudden resort to trolling and making incoherent claims is is to be interpreted as that you're getting desperate and false accusations is all you have left.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Calling my second part of my post propaganda won't make it go away either. The genetic results on Ancient Egyptian mummies speak for themselves.
What speaks for itself is that several somewhat more isolated modern Egyptians have >5% E-M2, which, going by this data, makes it at least a 1/20 chance that Egyptian aDNA will report E-V38--not at al contradictory to my views to those with working neurones. As for your DNA Tribes' analysis, even entertaining the idea that your interpretation of it is sound, it would not disprove that the aforementioned individuals would be in AE.
Like I said, referring back to your own propaganda and crying foul isn't going to make this nightmare of the existence of Africans with preOOA ancestry go away. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83) Hirbo's sample was a combination of M35* M78* V32 and V22 in their entirety. Hirbo et al (Page 86). You are the expert. Once i said 100% you should have known which data I was talking about and if not asked me to source it. Forum clown.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^Adolescent backchat.
Swenet commenting on a lecture on Egypto-Nubians he linked to on his FB page:
"Still the same bs"
Then he remarked:
'"Nubians were indigenous black Africans" in the lecture concerning Egypt, as if to say the Egyptians weren't."'
And then:
"Looks like we're in for a long ride of misinterpretations."
Indeed.
Still waiting:
1) Where has my past use of "black" referred to anything other than heavily pigmented people all over the world?
2) Where have I criticized any pigmentation-based use of "black" in reference to preOOA or OOA populations for it to make sense to juxtapose my statements with earlier times when I use the term "black" in reference to such populations?
3) How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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 |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
I already know what it means: Their Y-dna profile does not translate into Autosomal African ancestry to the tune of 100%. This is to show Amun ra the clown that of all the Black populations in the entire group.........the one with the least amount of non OOA cluster at K=2 has the most PN2 in relation to all the groups. Hence the presence of E1b1a in ONE mummy does not clearly correspond to an autosomal profile. The Y-Chromosome does not carry autosomal information.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Don't know about Sadat since he's from an ethnic group that has assimilated into a larger Arab identity, but I doubt most Western laypeople would withhold the "Black" descriptor from Iman Abdulmajid or other Somalis. The "many people on the face of the earth" you reference are almost all idealogical Eurocentrists with a vested interest in exaggerating Horn Africans' post-OOA Eurasian component.
Bottom line, I believe claus/redacted is right when he says the Western sense of Black African basically means dark-skinned people from Africa in general. Just because the descendents of West and Central African people are what most Westerners are intimately familiar with doesn't mean they wouldn't also sort other dark-skinned Africans like Somalis, Beja, or AE into that category. That's why the term itself references skin color rather than facial features or phylogenetic ancestry.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Truthcentric The reports of Iman complaining about people telling her that she doesn't look black are public record. So is the fact that Egyptians protested against Anwar Sadat's role being portrayed by someone who is "black". Take it up with the world, not with me. I didn't create it. And you're free to agree with him all you want. Why feel the need to repeatedly inform me of it and rationalize your decision?
Did not want to do this, but since you're lying and show no signs of stopping with your lies, you're forcing my hand. Any consequence that results out of [X]'s emails appearing online is yours to deal with; don't start crying now, lying troll.
On May 25th you wrote Kemp the following:
quote:"Dear [X] Thanks for the reply. I understand how busy you must be. I was seeking quick clarification of the conclusions of the Amarna anthropologists; whether, given the limb length findings, we could reasonably conclude that most Ancient Egyptians were Black African in appearance; and your view on the Sphinx."
On May 27th [X] told your lying ass:
quote:"it is, in my opinion, a mistaken question. The people of Africa show the greatest variety in physical characteristics of any region in the world, a consequence of Africa being the evolutionary origin of humanity. To lump them all together to create a single type, labelled Black Africans (presumably in contrast to White Europeans and Brown Middle Easterners) is to invent a myth. With pygmies at one end of the spectrum and Masai at the other, and Berbers, Zulus and T'Kung Bushmen somewhere in between, the range of bodily variation within Africa must be greater than exists between several of the major non-African groups. The term 'Black Africans' works at the level of popular culture, but is not scientific. Regards: [X]"
I then told you this:
quote:It's just a way for him to muddy up the conversation and to delay the inevitable with irrelevant objections. They all do this. They start talking about population affinity of Nubians and use the term 'black' freely, then they start talking about Egyptians and all of a sudden the term itself is scientifically problematic. It's true, but if you're intellectually honest you won't use semantics as a strategic advantage to not have to answer what someone is asking you. He could just as easily have said: "While black is a problematic term, I don't agree with the notion that they were predominantly African in genetic make-up, either", and he'd at least have addressed the heart of the matter.
When you came to me and posted those emails to get my advice, did or didn't I tell your lying ass that "black" is scientifically problematic? LMAO. This disgruntled douchebag is so irate about having lost the argument that he starts inventing a past in which I never made a clear distinction between various indigenous African populations according the what the scientific data says about them.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Truthcentric The reports of Iman complaining about people telling her that she doesn't look black are public record. So is the fact that Egyptians protested against Anwar Sadat's role being portrayed by someone who is "black". Take it up with the world, not with me. I didn't create it. And you're free to agree with him all you want. Why feel the need to repeatedly inform me of it and rationalize your decision?
Maybe I have misunderstood something, but it sounded to me like you were objecting to calling ancient Egyptians "Black African" because you felt it had certain phylogenetic connotations associated with West/Central African ancestry. I get that you're cool with using "Black" as a simple pigmentation descriptor, but the thing is that this is exactly what Claus also meant by that word!
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Are you really saying that I can't conceptualise, for example, Black Asians and Black Australians?
Going by this same strictly pigmentation-based criterion, "Black African" as a phrase should be unobjectionable to you since that's how you've used "Black" yourself. Yet somehow, when someone else wants to apply it to ancient Egypto-Nubians using that same exact sense, you start worrying about the phylogenetic implications even when the phrase doesn't touch on it at all.
But you know what, if you really don't care what I or claus choose to call the ancient Egyptians in a non-scientific context, then fine. I won't press the matter any more.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, where do you get it that he's using it in the exact same sense, and secondly, where have I relied on black (the way I used it in the past) to designate a particular African ancestry and exclude other African ancestries, e.g. preOOA populations? If this is not what he was doing (as you say), then explain why he would object to Kemp and Hawass saying that black or African in Egypt is not the same as how people in the West think of "black"?
Since you want to act as his mouthpiece so bad, you should have no problems answering this issue, which you ignored earlier.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. But there is more to it than that. Sage, you want to help these youngsters out?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
I already know what it means: Their Y-dna profile does not translate into Autosomal African ancestry to the tune of 100%. This is to show Amun ra the clown that of all the Black populations in the entire group.........the one with the least amount of non OOA cluster at K=2 has the most PN2 in relation to all the groups. Hence the presence of E1b1a in ONE mummy does not clearly correspond to an autosomal profile. The Y-Chromosome does not carry autosomal information.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: First of all, where do you get it that he's using it in the exact same sense, and secondly, where have I relied on black (the way I used it in the past) to designate a particular African ancestry and exclude other African ancestries, e.g. preOOA populations? If this is not what he was doing (as you say), then explain why he would object to Kemp and Hawass saying that black or African in Egypt is not the same as how people in the West think of "black"?
Again, maybe I am misunderstanding a bunch of things in this mess. I honestly am confused as to what you two are even arguing about.
Given that I don't have such a good grasp on either of you guys' positions, it looks like I should stay out of this conversation.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Especially since you're the one who brought his denial of substructure up in the first place. Remind me to not ever testify to the accuracy of what you're saying when someone is in denial.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Exactly. But there is more to it than that. Sage, you want to help these youngsters out?
??? with what ??? "Gotta make way for the young folks"
nrY Chro vs the other 22 chromosomes?
Well, "whites" of "British Isles" heritage often wonder how they get E1b1a7/8 results from commercial genetic testing companies when their phenotype doesn't resemble West or Central Africans and their reliable family histories over three generations reveal no such ancestry (implying their autosomal values are geographically NW European).
===
Me, I'm just sitting back observing the FB crew fallout from disagreeing with its "founder" as his "friend" all of a sudden becomes a troll, a liar, etc., who humbly subordinates to the emotional ego driven name calling attack.
===
It's been done here in the past but it is very unprofessional to, with no permission from the researcher, divulge private email contents as if they were a peer forum member.
In reports, private correpondance is so labeled and not published without prior permission. After all, they have their reputations to protect among their colleagues.
As moderator I fear I may have to delete that which its professional author did not intend to be taken as their public professional view.
[ 29. September 2014, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Ardo ]
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Ok then that means we both screwed up. Pick any of the other AA Groups in that Hirbo thesis....or that Plaster data that contains plenty of Omotic speakers VERY high in m35 and the same thing will stand. Any Horn African population........at K=2 with have similar levels of of a OOA cluster regardless of their Y-dna and Mtdna makeup. Uni parental markers are just an afterthought. Another example.
San and Dinka are tied by Haplogroup A. Their autosomal profiles are WILDLY Different. Batwa and Western Africans have strong signatures of L1. The Sahelians L1b while Pygmies L1c...their respective autsomal profiles are wildly divergent. I dont even have to get into B2 lineages between Twa and Nilotes......the shortest and the tallest. The lightest vs the darkest central Africans. Those at the root All Africans and those a the root of Eurasians.....both united by B2 and L5/L0. I dont know what you cant wrap you mind around this. One one hand you talk about ancient substructure yet you think uniparentals that come tens of thousands of years later supersede that.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Me, I'm just sitting back observing the FB crew fallout from disagreeing with its "founder" as his "friend" all of a sudden becomes a troll, a liar, etc., who humbly subordinates to the emotional ego driven name calling attack.
This is just going to keep getting better and better, is it not? Hypocrisy incarnate here. Just a week ago he was complaining about what he perceived to be people "following" him from to other threads to instigate things. Look at him now; never jumped in as a mod to tell a proven liar to substantiate contested charges and slander, but doesn't mind jumping in at the first opportunity to deliberately misrepresent what happened and aligning with proven liars, just to hand out jabs.
You've been caught red-handed contradicting what you yourself say you stand for, numerous times. You have no consistency in behaviour, whatsoever. What you say today might be the exact opposite tomorrow. What you criticize today you engage in and promote tomorrow.
You've deleted the name of that author. Even though that email doesn't paint him in a bad light, out of considerations for him I'm going to say "fair enough". But you're not fooling anyone. The rest of your post proves you're only in this thread to get what little leverage you can take out of it, whether to hand out jabs, or edit posts under false pretences.
Which mod-action of yours hasn't been out of self-interest? First thing you did in the mod seat is to selectively clean up one of your old threads from spam. Next thing you did is issue mod warnings to people who were engaging in the same behaviours you were engaging in in that thread. Yesterday you were harassing someone in your mod account who simply wanted to attract someone's attention and send a PM. You're also using your mod account to wilfully edit and delete your own posts on several occasions. It just doesn't end with you, does it?
It's only going to be a matter of time before others who turn a blind eye now, will start seeing funny things. A wolf in sheep's clothing can only hide his true self for so long to those who are (wilfully) oblivious.
posted
Give it up already. The man is the chosen mod. And he doing alright. Trying to attract new memebers which YOU ALL want to happen. No one is perfect, move on. It is better than an absentee mod, who refused to delete those annoying large pictures.
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
but as for how
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic