posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
We are beating a dead horse. SMH. I will sit on the sidelines until something gets my interest. I thought Sage had new information. Salom!.

---

^Running back then, and still running now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet in 2014:
Ramses III's TribeScores relative to DNA Tribes'
Old World top 6 regional constructs:

Horn region - 0.93
Great Lakes region - 0.84
Tropical West African - 0.76
Levantine - 0.76
North African - 0.75
Southern African - 0.74

---

^Stop running Xyyman. You've been running for almost two years now on the TribeScore data. Address the issue.

Even as hybridized as DNA Tribes' pooled North Africa region is, Ramses III's genetics—as captured by his STR profile—fits equally well in the Levantine, North African, South African and West African regions.

The only region that towers above this with a wide margin is DNA Tribes Horn of Africa region (which includes more than just Ethiopia; I'm not talking about Ethiopians). If DNA Tribes North Africa region wasn't so mixed, you and I both know that the North Africa region would dwarf these the other regions as well, in terms of both MLI scores and TribeScores.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Q: What are MLI scores?

A: Each DNA Tribes Native and Global Population Match and World Region Match is listed with a Match Likelihood
Index (MLI) score that indicates your odds of belonging to that population relative to your odds of belonging to a
generic human population. For instance, a Native Population Match with Macedonia scored 45.2 indicates your
genetic ancestry is 45.2 times as likely in Macedonia as in the world.

Population and world region match results are provided in a ranked listing, from most likely to least likely. Top
ranked scores indicate your best population or regional matches in the DNA Tribes database. All matches can be
compared against each other as odds ratios. For instance, if you obtain a score of 25.0 for Bavarian and 5.0 for
Macedonian, this means your genetic profile is 25.0/5.0 = 5.0 times as likely to be Bavarian as Macedonian.


Q: What are typical scores for my ethnic group? Are my scores very high or low?

A: Individuals within each population exhibit a characteristic range of world region scores. This range varies by
world region and ethnicity. For this reason, each MLI score in your population and world region rankings is
assigned a percentile-based TribeScore that expresses how your MLI score fits among members of that population
or region.


Q: What are TribeScores?

TribeScores are a unique scoring method developed by DNA Tribes that compares a person's match scores for a
population to the scores of actual members within that ethnic group or region. Each DNA Tribes match includes a
TribeScore in parentheses, listing your MLI score’s percentile in that population. TribeScores compares your MLI
scores to members of each ethnic group and world region. For instance, results listing “Switzerland (0.73)”
indicate that your MLI score is higher than 73% of scores from this Swiss reference population, and lower than 27%
of these Swiss individuals. TribeScores of (0.05) and above are within the expected range for a population, and
TribeScores between the (0.25) and above are ordinary or typical for members of that population. TribeScores
indicate how high or low your score is in the specific context of each population, providing the necessary point
of reference to explain each MLI score

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Swenet, you lost the argument. Black has always been a reference to the skin color of Africans and other tropically adapted people around the planet, including by racists and other scholars over the last 400 years.

---

Doug, go peddle your BS elsewhere. You have no credibility when you say that you believe that 'black' refers to skin color only. Just a post ago you said this:

---

quote:

---

And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.
--Doug M

Why are 'black skin' and "Europid race" mutually exclusive if 'black' only refers to skin color and "Europid" only to ancestry? One can't be 'black' in terms of skin pigmentation and "Europid" in ancestry in theory?

---

quote:

---

You admit so here yourself, so why are you flip flopping?

---

quote:

---

Black is a perfectly legitimate word to refer to skin color for populations who have tropically adapted skin color. And this has absolutely nothing to do with race because there are no human races
--Doug M

You're a flip flopper and you can't read. Even your own dictionary sites have entries that acknowledge that 'black' is ALSO applied racially.

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And again, that one passage did not change the fact that Mr Baker later on said the AE were "Europids". You can't have it both ways.

---

Doug, stop flip flopping.

According to you there are:

'Black' skinned Pinoy (Filipino folk)
'Black' skinned Indonesians
'Black' skinned aboriginals from the Philippines and elsewhere in the Pacific
'Black' skinned Africans
'Black' skinned South Asians
'Black' skinned Native Americans

But somehow 'black' skinned "Europids" is an inherent contradiction? If you think it's a contradiction and you bar "Europids" from having 'black' skin, it's because you're racializing 'black' and because you have all sorts of sneaky rules, exceptions and racial politics considerations when it comes to discerning who has 'black' skin.

Flip flopper.

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Doug should just admit that he uses 'black' in a racial sense instead of insisting that his definition is strictly contingent on the colour itself. I don't think that it's wrong to use 'black' in a racial sense.

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
No it means skin color is the basis of race,

---

quote:

---

Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.

---

quote:

---

of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/black

^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
My interpretation is that DNA Tribes' observation that dynastic Egypt-related genetic material is found more in South Africa and Great Lakes obviously doesn't mean automatically that the ancestry component that is NATIVE to these regions has anything directly to do with Dynastic Egyptians. Let alone in a way that TRUMPS regions like ancient Lower Nubia and the Central Sahara.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Khoisan today may have substantial non-Khoisan genetic material (including from Afroasiatic speakers). Therefore, Khoisan groups may rank higher than expected in lists of MLI scores for Ethiopians for this reason. Obviously such rankings are suspect and don't automatically mean that the ancestry component that is native to Khoisan drives this high MLI score ranking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
What some here do is conveniently take the MLI scores of Sub-Saharan Africans with known Egyptian-like or at least Eastern Sahara genetic influences and who were mostly out of reach of recent Eurasian admixture and compare their MLI scores to the MLI scores of groups in North Africa and other regions that are hybridized today. SMH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
http://www.turkanabasin.org/2015/03/recentpast/

quote:

---

The culture during this time appeared to focus on lake based on numerous barbed bone harpoon points and aquatic bone remains (tortoise, crocodile, but predominantly fish). In addition, wavy-line pottery shards and Later Stone Age microliths have been uncovered. Furthermore, harpoon points and wavy-line pottery are quite similar to artifacts found in the Sahara and Sudan and indicate migration to and from the Turkana Basin.

---

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Yeah I am seeing the in consistence. I thought his meaning of "black" was strictly USA based, but it seems to be all over the place.

Doug M is your view of black strictly "color" or phenotype based? I'm not trying to insult you.

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
See what I mean Sudaniya? This guy is not addressing any of your points. He's addressing his own figments and then projecting them onto you.

Doug, you're spinning out of control with your strawman attacks. Your posts have dwindled down to a messy heap of unintelligible crap. I would ask you to prove I said any of that, but I know from my past attempts to get you to prove your accusations that you will simply cop out.

Your attempts to describe people's views always come out botched and a funky mix of fact and fiction—usually more of the latter. You can't read, dude.

Look at how you're reaching trying to apply telepathy to what Sudaniya is saying. Lol.

Doug debates you with 5% of actual reading and 95% attempts at ESP. Here is an example of Doug applying ESP. He thinks he can bend reality to make it conform to his flip flops. That's why, when you call out his flip flops, he still thinks he's right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is Mr Baker called them Europids not Aethiopids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And he point blank says Aethiopids are a subrace of Europids....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What he actually says is that the AE were a branch of the Aethiopid RACE with Europid RACE mixture.

---

More of Doug's epic flip flops:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Race historically has always been based on skull measurements not skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
No it means skin color is the basis of race,

---

Doug debunked by his own dictionary pages as both of them say that 'black' has also been used to describe a perceived racial group, i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants in the diaspora:

quote:

---

Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts.

---

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/black

quote:

---

of or relating to the African-American people or their culture <black literature> <a black college> <black pride> <black studies> (3) : typical or representative of the most readily perceived characteristics of black culture <trying to sound black> <tried to play blacker jazz>

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/black

^Doug's own sources don't even agree with his fabrication that 'black' only refers to dark skin pigmentation. Since the two dictionary entries he selectively posted out of these dictionary pages are the only 'sources' he has to peddle his BS claims, it's game over for him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet
Stop flip flopping. That lie went out the window when you refused to acknowledge Baker's statement that they had reddish brown SKIN, simply because he aligned them with the European RACE. Mind you, this followed after your complaints about how race has nothing to do with 'black' skin. As if that embarrassing flip flop didn't take the cake, you also suggested that clustering cranio-facially with Maghrebis is mutually exclusive with having a 'black' skin:

---

Here is the problem. He doesn't say that. That is the point. You keep saying he does but he does not and I showed you he does not but you still keep insisting he says he does.

You are the one who has spent the last 15 pages trying to defend white racists claiming they "know the AE were black" yet I keep posting how you are putting words into their mouths and simply lying outright in many cases.

Thats fine. YOU are defending racists saying what they don't say.

Call it whatever you want but racists like Baker are not calling the AE black in any kind of way.

Here is what Mr Baker actually says:

quote:

---

The descendants of Ham were the Hamites, but here again we are in difficulty, because it is uncertain who the Hamites were. Since Canaan was one of the sons of Ham, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Canaanites were Hamites. Usually, however, the Hamites of the Bible are assumed to have been the early Egyptians, who are thought to have been Protomediterranids hybridized with Orientalids; but Chapter x of Genesis makes it clear that the Sumerians and Assyrians, among others, were also descendants of Ham. Certain authorities have supposed that the Hamites were Negrids. It has, indeed, been claimed that the latter were descendants of Phut, one of Ham"s sons; but it is doubtful whether much was known of Negrids by the writers of Genesis, x, and Phut"s descendants do not appear to have made any clear mark on the available historical records. The Japhetic peoples are usually supposed to have been of "Indo-European" or "Indo-Germanic" stock; but these expressions, based on linguistic studies, are not translatable into ethnic terms. Evidence has been brought forward for the view that the Japhetic peoples were in fact Armenids and Alpinids.

It is impossible to draw any definite conclusions from the account in Genesis of the origin of the various peoples to whom reference is made, beyond the fact that they were all supposed to have sprung from a common ancestor; but it seems very probable that they were all Europids. Whatever the correct interpretation may be, there is no doubt that hybridization among subraces occurred in Palestine and Mesopotamia in biblical times, and that the Hebrews were strongly urged by some of their spiritual leaders to avoid it. Although the ethnic taxa in question were only subraces of the same (Europid) race as themselves, there was no question of "equality" in the minds of the leaders. It was legitimate to despise people of another taxon that was regarded as more primitive.

....

Those in modern times who overstress the significance of 'colour' would receive a wholesome corrective on reading the excellent essay on physical anthropology written by an anonymous traveller and published in the Journal des Sgavans in 1684. In this very remarkable work on the geographical distribution of human "Especes ou Races", the author clearly recognizes that the people of North Africa, Arabia, and India belong to the same race as those of Europe. He writes on the subject of colour as follows. For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the common people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards. It is true that most Indians have something rather different from us in the expression of the face and in the colour, which often tends towards yellow; but that does not seem sufficient to make a particular species; for otherwise it would be necessary to make one also for the Spaniards, another for the Germans, and similarly for several other peoples of Europe. The author sharply distinguishes certain other "coloured" races from the Indians, by morphological criteria. He considered the women of Lahore the most beautiful of India. These would have been Nordindids (Indo-Afghans). Some of the important facts first clearly established by the anonymous traveller were well exhibited in the atlas published by de Vaugondy nearly a century later. The area of "iLes Europeens", identified by the appearance of the face (visage), includes not only Europe itself (apart from the extreme north of Scandinavia and the region north of the Black Sea), but also Africa north of the Sahara, Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India as far south as the River Ganges.

It was already recognized in the seventeenth century that the skin-colour of certain races of man was not solely due to the action of the sun's rays during the life of the individual. One Leutholf or Ludolfus, writing in 1691, put the matter very clearly in a commentary published separately from his book on Africa. "But still", he says, "within the range of the tropical sun there are nations if not actually white, at any rate not actually black; many are far distant from the equator, beyond one tropic or the other, such as the inhabitants of Persia or Syria, or the Cape of Good Hope, for example, and nevertheless they are very black." Ludolfus refers to the blackness of the native inhabitants of Ceylon and other countries and remarks, "If you attribute the natural cause fof their skin-colour to the heavens and the sun, why do not white men who grow old in these regions become black?" There is here clear recognition of the reality of genetic differences between ethnic taxa.

...

Rousseau was by no means the only celebrated author of the eighteenth century who contributed to the discussion of the ethnic problem. Some of the greatest philosophical and political thinkers of the period-Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, and Voltaire among them made comments, though mostly short ones. Some of these were merely satirical, and therefore not helpful in the search for truth. Thus Montesquieu wrote of the Negro in De Vesprit des lois: "Those concerned are black from the feet to the head; and they have the nose squashed so flat that it is almost impossible to pity them. One cannot take it into one’s mind that God, who is a wise being, has placed a soul, especially a good soul, in a wholly black body." The irony is so heavy-handed in the passage from which this extract is taken, that it cannot be regarded as effective even by the standards according to which this kind of rhetoric is commonly judged. The Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume was one of those opponents of conventional religious thought who did not hesitate to express their belief in the inferiority of certain ethnic taxa. In his Essays, moral and political he writes, "And indeed, there is some Reason to think, that all the Nations, which live beyond the polar Circles or betwixt the Tropics, are inferior to the rest of the Species, and are utterly incapable of all the higher Attainments of the human Mind." He remarked, however, that there was no relation between intelligence and latitude within the limits of the temperate zone. Hume was particularly impressed by the ease with which Negroes could be bribed by the gift of alcoholic drinks. He noted that the character of the Chinese was remarkably uniform over a huge area, in which the climatic conditions varied widely from place to place, and he concluded that the differences in "Temper" of the various nations could not be due solely to the physical environment. He thought, however, that fortuitous circumstances might have produced some of the differences. In developing nations, a few persons gain control and eventually influence the mass of the people. Since the governing body is small, there must be a large element of chance in its composition.
....
Gobineau considered that most scientific observers showed a marked tendency to present an unduly low estimate of primitive human types. "In the most repugnant cannibals", he claimed, "there remains a spark of divine fire, and the faculty of understanding can kindle itself at least to a certain degree." Gobineau’s principal criterion for judging the superiority of a race was its capacity to originate a great civilization. In his opinion there had been ten such civilizations in the course of history, seven in the Old World and three in America. The seven were those of the Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Chinese, Romans, and finally the races germaniques. The American civilizations were those of the Meghaniens, Mexicans, and Peruvians. It should be pointed out that at the time when Gobineau wrote, it was scarcely possible to realize that the culture of the Assyrians was derived from that of the Sumerians. His Alleghanian civilization was presumably a branch of the ancient "Mound-building" culture, subsequently recognized as widespread in the United States. It is clear that by the name "races germaniques" Gobineau meant the Nordid subrace. He attributed the civilization of modern Europe to people of this stock, who had intermarried to some extent with Slavs and others without degrading too quickly their natural instinct of initiative. The Germanics were, for Gobineau, a branch of the ‘Aryan race’, to which he ascribed, in part at least, no fewer than six of the great civilizations of the Old World all, that is to say, except the Assyrian; for he considered that culture had been brought to China by Aryans of India. The Aryans, in his sense, appear to have been the various peoples who spoke Indogermanic languages, for he did not define them in terms of physical anthropology. He regarded them as the great initiators of civilization. Gobineau’s long book ends on a pessimistic note. Hybridization was destroying the great civilizations of modern times as it had destroyed those of the past. "Thus mixture, mixture everywhere, always mixture: that is the clearest, most certain, the most durable work of great societies and powerful civilizations." He recognizes two periods in the existence of man on earth. "The one, which has passed, will have witnessed and possessed the youth, the vigour, the intellectual grandeur of the species; the other, which has begun, will know the faltering procession towards decrepitude."
....
The Nilotids remained for a long time almost free from external influence. The ancient camel-routes across the Sahara passed well to the west of them, and the Nile itself was far from providing a convenient approach. Direct passage up the river from Egypt was made difficult not only by the cataracts in the lower part of its course, but even more so further upstream by the periodical accumulation of enormous masses of entangled aquatic vegetation. For long ages this sudd constituted a formidable barrier between the Egyptians and the Negrid tribes to the south.

Although the inhabitants of Egypt throughout the dynastic period were similar to one another in many respects, they were differentiated at first into two local forms, one of them occupying the Fayum and parts of the country in the vicinity of the lower Nile, and the other living far upstream, in the region called the Thebaid. In anthropological studies the former region is referred to as "Lower Egypt", though it does not correspond exactly with the modern province of that name; the other is called "Upper Egypt". The Upper Egyptians had narrower skulls, and consequently somewhat lower cranial indices (commonly about 73 -5, in comparison with 75 0 or rather more among the Lower Egyptians) and one may condense a very large body of statistical data into a few words by saying that in all the six criteria by which Egyptian skulls can be distinguished from Negrid ones, the Upper Egyptian skulls approximated at first a little more closely towards the Negrid condition than did those from Lower Egypt. This differentiation did not persist, however. Extremely gradually, as one dynasty succeeded another, over an immense period, the skulls of the Upper Egyptians changed, until at last they were scarcely distinguishable from those of the Lower Egyptians, even by the most refined statistical techniques. Morant considers two possible causes of the change: either miscegenation in Upper Egypt on a very large scale, with eventual predominance of the Lower Egyptian element, or an independent evolutionary change in the Upper Egyptian population. He does not decide the question, but the former possibility seems much the more probable of the two. Eickstedt maintained a third opinion, that the Upper Egyptians were pushed out of the country towards the south by their relatives from downstream. Whichever hypothesis is correct, the population of the whole country became almost homogeneous, with attenuation of the Negrid element. The Fellahin and Copts of modern Egypt are regarded as scarcely modified descendants of the Egyptians of late dynastic times

---

Now you are sitting here saying that he is saying they are black some kind of way but in reality he is doing what racists have always been doing, trying to make Ancient Egypt part of the white European "race".

Suffice to say, he is not calling them black because in his own words, they are a sub population of "Europids" and not "darker than Spaniards". Which means interchangeable with White Europeans.

But this is the point. These racist scholars make up racial categories so that they can include white Europeans into other populations that have no European ancestry. It is pseudo science and hardly based on anything we would consider logical science. So the problem is you are introducing these racists into the discussion knowing full well that their whole jargon is full of contradictions and inherent fallacies but you are defending them saying they 'really' mean something that they "really" don't. They simply make up any old scientific sounding reason to claim that the AE were some kind of "white European" population. That is why they created these racial categories in the first place and obviously they don't reflect anything but the racist mentality of the European. And according to that to claim that they viewed the AE as "black" like other Africans is preposterous. They don't and they are simply using pseudo science to make up distinctions in order to justify claiming these folks as part of the white "race", which is a made up concept allowing them to take non white people and turn them into white Europeans. Meaning they use words and language to mislead and misdirect versus clarify on purpose in order to support your agenda. Yet here you are posting up these people as examples of clarity in the use of language on the subject of skin color. That is simply an example of why your whole argument doesn't even make sense.

---

Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Black people are people with black skin. Just as white people are people with white skin.

---

Not trying to be a pissant but I think you could've put a lot more thought into this one.



Not black by your rules:



Not black by your rules:



Not black by your rules:



STILL not black by your rules:


*almost* black by your rules:

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

The Berg Damaras have not risen to the adoption of an own national name. Everything to this effect in the literature on the subject is based on mishearing or incorrect interpretation of what has been heard. They called themselves Nu Khoin, i.e., black people, apparently to distinguish themselves from the Hottentots, whose favourite appellation for themselves was Awa Khoin, i.e., red people. It is a fact that the Berg Damaras are amongst the darkest-skinned tribes of Africa.

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

"He disengaged himself from other life experiences and went back to a particular spot in his memory to capture the racial distinctions he was able to make. He saw no distinction in skin color between the red men in Igboland and the white men he met on the slave ship."

---

--Jacob Korieh. 2009. Olaudah Equiano and the Igbo world: history, society and Atlantic. 2009






But obviously these Igbos would be considered "black" in the USA.

But anyways this is exactly why I created this thread, this is exactly why I never just use skin tone to "define" a "race". Too many holes you can fall into.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
...

Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea.
In Africa people are recognized by their actual
tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.


Ethiopia has a three colour terminology
tequr:black
teyem:brown
qey:red


Sudan
azraq:blue
akhdar:green
asmar:brown
ahmar:red
asfar:yellow

Fon
me-wi:black people
nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion
nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion

Yoruba
dudu:black
light-skinned Africans are referred to as
pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and
funfun:White (albinos).

Ibo
ojii:black
ocha:white

Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their
various designations for themselves, coastal
Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or
internal assignments by class noble, vassal,
and enslaved, red green black.


You black guys who have no other identity
than Black just don't get it or don't want
to get it. USA will never dominate our own
precise choice terms for our skin colours.
]

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Pamonthes, aged about forty-five, of middle size, dark complexion, and handsome figure, bald, round faced and straight nosed; Snachomneus, aged about twenty, of middle size, sallow complexion, round faced and straight nosed; Semmuthis Persinei, aged about twenty-two, of middle size, sallow complexion, round faced, flat nosed, and of quiet demeanour; and Tathlyt Persinei, aged about thirty, of middle size, sallow complexion, round face and straight nose,—the four being children of Petepsais, of the leather cutters of the Memnonia; and Nechutes the less, the son of Asos, aged about forty, of middle size, sallow complexion, cheerful countenance, long face and straight nose, with a scar upon the middle of his forehead.

---

Fayum mask from the same Greco-Roman era with "sallow" complexion:



http://snag.gy/s4Pb7.jpg

These people would probably call people with Ice Cube's complexion 'sallow skinned', not 'black skinned'.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Xyyman

Just plugged this African American's STR profile into popaffiliator:

http://www.dnatribes.com/sample_africanamerican.php

This is the individual's STR profile (this STR set is fully compatible with popaffiliator's 34 input slots):




These are this individual's popaffiliator results:

(5 population predictions)
North Africa:
59.6%
Sub-Saharan Africa:
37.4%
Eurasia:
1.7%
Asia:
1%
Near East:
0.4%

(3 population predictions)
Sub-Saharan Africa:
91.8%
Eurasia:
4.1%
Asia:
4.1%

These are his regional MLI score results:



Again, the above individual is an African American who took DNA Tribes' STR test.

A literal interpretation of this individual's world region match MLI scores would lead to the conclusion that (s)he is most likely to be a West African with no outside influence. A literal interpretation of this individual's global population match scores would suggest that (s)he is more likely to be a mainland African than an African American.

Popaffiliator suggests that (s)he's not completely Sub-Saharan African in this 17 STR profile

This individual's TribeScores suggests that (s)he doesn't rank particularly high among individuals within the Tropical West African region where most African Americans come from. His/her best TribeScore is with the Sudan + Horn composite region (which is interesting because African American genomes do tend to cluster close to Maasai and other East African groups in PCA). In the global population match rankings you can clearly see that, while the MLI scores get it completely wrong, this African American has the best TribeScore with low MLI scoring Afro-Carribeans from the UK (0.77) and from the Bahamas (0.62).

From this individual's heritage (African American) we KNOW that (s)he's not as Sub-Saharan in this 17 STR profile as most West Africans.

Which result is closer to the mark? The world region and global population match MLI scores or the popaffiliator and TribeScore results?

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
...

Also the USA idea of black is not Africa's idea.
In Africa people are recognized by their actual
tone or the tone of the majority of their ethny.


Ethiopia has a three colour terminology
tequr:black
teyem:brown
qey:red


Sudan
azraq:blue
akhdar:green
asmar:brown
ahmar:red
asfar:yellow

Fon
me-wi:black people
nya/na-wi:male/female black (very dark or pitch black complexion
nya/na-vo:male/female red (lighter than average skin complexion

Yoruba
dudu:black
light-skinned Africans are referred to as
pupa:red-yellow (think 'palm oil') and
funfun:White (albinos).

Ibo
ojii:black
ocha:white

Then there are the Kel taGelmust with their
various designations for themselves, coastal
Berbers, and Gnawas, yellow, white, grey; or
internal assignments by class noble, vassal,
and enslaved, red green black.


You black guys who have no other identity
than Black just don't get it or don't want
to get it. USA will never dominate our own
precise choice terms for our skin colours.
]

---

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:


NO ONE is trying to FORCE USA version of black on any Africans. Especially not me, I'm just furthering Swenets point he made.

---

quote:

---

Btw if you mind me asking are you a "Sahelian" African? Because you seem to know your stuff about that region of Africa.

---

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I'm an Americanized Mauritanian Toucouleur Fulani with very recent Libyan bani Yisra'el paternal ancestry.

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Toucouleur are the root. Originally Fulani
just designated cattle herders and "bush"
folk. Toucouleur are the haughty primeval
original Hal Pulaaren of Tekrur. We are
'Town Fulani' scholars and aristocrats
and nobody in Senegal/Mauritania doubts
that.

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Agreed. The MLI score and Tribe Score can contrast. But let me read the DNATribes writeup.

---

Who gives a **** about DNAtribes which
is business proprietary not SCIENCE.

I didn't wanna post till more analysis
but here's the preliminaries of that
AfrAm sample profile posted earlier
without paragraphs of my further
analysis which may or may not
be forthcoming


--------------------------------------

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Agreed. The MLI score and Tribe Score can contrast. But let me read the DNATribes writeup.

---

Who gives a **** about DNAtribes which
is business proprietary not SCIENCE.

I didn't wanna post till more analysis
but here's the preliminaries of that
AfrAm sample profile posted earlier
without paragraphs of my further
analysis which may or may not
be forthcoming

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
--------
Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common.
Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:

• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population.
However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations

---------------

So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.

So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.

In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components.
Hope you get it now!

So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions. [/qb]

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Quote:
--------
Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common.
Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:

• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population.
However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations

---------------

So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.

So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.

---

quote:

---

In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components.

---

quote:

---

So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:



I don’t get it when you guys diss DNATribes. Like it is not “peer reviewed” or “it is proprietary”. Shows that you don’t UNDERSTAND what is going on and how this thing works. It is a level of ignorance. DNATribes does not need to be “peer reviewed”. Lol! What they do, YOU and ANYONE can do also. The]

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
--------
Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common.
Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:

• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population.
However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations

---------------

So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.

So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.

In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components.
Hope you get it now!

So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.

---

You picked it up precisely as DNAtribes themselves
put it down without any self serving spin. Congrats! [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Sage. You need to calm down. You want to discuss MLI or you don’t? Stop being a tizzy. Point is, there is nothing more to add to the discussion. Swenet is just spinning. You should know that.

How long have Swenet /Kalonji have been posting here. You know he is a spinmaster.

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

Agreed Lioness – but potato – potato. Doesn’t matter. Amarnas, West Africans, Grate Lakes and Southern Africans shared the closest genetic material.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
--------
Summary Comments:DNA Tribes results for this person provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of their African-American ancestry including their closest genetic relatives amongst ethnic groups in both Africa and the modern African Diaspora populations as well as detailed information about other world populations where their genetic material is common.
Comments for this sample individual: The Top 20 Native population matches for this individual include several indigenous African nations and tribes in our database. The listed individual MLI scores do not indicate the percentage of individual’s genetic material attributable to individual populations. Instead, these MLI scores assess the RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD of this person’s genetic make-up occurring in a particular population:

• The STRONGEST match is with a Tanzanian population where this individual’s DNA profile is 17,822,172 times more likely to occur than in the world as a whole. The TribeScore of (0.50) indicates this MLI score is higher than 50% of MLIs for sampled Tanzanian individuals; thus, this individual’s genetic make-up is quite common in this Tanzanian population.
However, similar DNA profiles can be found in other native African populations: the MLI score of 13,549,274 for Angola indicates that this example DNA profile is 17,822,172 / 13,549,274 = 1.3 times more likely in Tanzania than in Angola. For both populations, the TribeScores are within the expected range of (0.25) or above which indicates this person's DNA fits well within the genetic range for members of both populations

---------------

So the issue is Tribe Score vs MLI.

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

In mathematical terms the Tribe score is a ***FUNCTION*** of the MLI score.

So in other words, the “OVERALL” Amarnas genetic material is most likely found in Southern Africans.

In the African-American Example above: 17,822,172 genetic components are found in the Tanzanian population. The most than any other population. However ONLY! ONLY! 13,549,274 genetic components from the Afram is found in the Angolan population compared to 17,822,172. Now, “WITHIN” the 13,549,274 components, >36%(Tribescore) of the Angolan population have these 13,549,274 components.
Hope you get it now!

So the first thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the MLI. The Tribes Score is secondary to the MLI. Hit me up if you have any more questions.

---

You picked it up precisely as DNAtribes themselves
put it down without any self serving spin. Congrats!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

The above translates to – so the Amarnas DNA material is most like to be found “IN” the Great Lakes/Southern African population. Of course the West Africans are 3rd in line.

---

That is a mistranslation

They are not saying people of the Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans have Amarna DNA

The DNA that they have is in common with the Amarna, that is common ancestry between these groups but it is certainly not "Amarna DNA" that is specific to the Amarna.
That is an important point.
The DNA they are referring to far predates the Amarna.
The Amarna, Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are some of the people who carry some of this DNA.

To miss-call it "Amarna DNA" is to suggest Great Lakes/Southern African/ West Africans are descendants of the Amarna. That could be possible in some cases but that is not what these MLI scores are determining [/QB]

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Toucouleur are the root. Originally Fulani
just designated cattle herders and "bush"
folk. Toucouleur are the haughty primeval
original Hal Pulaaren of Tekrur. We are
'Town Fulani' scholars and aristocrats
and nobody in Senegal/Mauritania doubts
that.

---

I see. I admit that the recent revelation of ausar's stunts have made me more suspicious of certain people's professed ethnicities, but thanks for the clarification there.

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged |