posted
The Hema and Bahima are NOT the same people,, turd. Hema people are from the Congo and are NOT Elongated Africans. The Bahima are from Uganda and are related to the Tutsi people, moron.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not sure why you're criticizing me for changing my views in response to new evidence/data; the Afrocentrists in contrast just come up with excuses to dismiss the ancient DNA because it doesn't fit their theory. [/QB]
White nationalists like you represent everything I despise. And you and your patronizing pseudo-objectivity while presuming to tell *us* where our "proper" attention should be("you blacks should stick to Bantu people/West African history") while you stick your nose into any and every culture you wish make me want to vomit. Also your goalpost shifting, painting every one who disagrees with you(excepting swenet and beyoku) as afrocentrists and ignoring any counter study as misinformed/idiotic/afrolunacy (even classicists, anthropologists, africanists (which btw is not a synonym for afrocentrist) that have more expertise on Africa and her people than you EVER will) is hysterical! Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stupid is not knowing the difference between the Hema of Congo and the Bahima of Uganda. Fool. Explain how Hema in Uganda have North African ancestry but lack elongated morphology?
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by sudaniya: I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
You can always find someone, some place, closely associating AEs with distant populations like West African populations for example, but extreme associations do not appear much among long-term ES posters. I don't recall such regulars over the years saying AEs are identical to or mostly like West Africans for example. Oh to be sure, troll accounts pop up to make extreme "bait" statements, but I see no such with regulars. Such charges when you hear them, are a sure sign of strawman creation. This is standard practice for Eurocentrics wanting to avoid the evidence of AE as an African civilization- to talk about the "crazy negroes" and alleged "Afrocentrics" who say AEs are "West Africans," and so on.
What you say is the general consensus on ES- that populations close to AE, particularly Nubia and that nearby region are the closest relations, and studies have been citied ad infinitum for years on this (Yurco, Godde, Keita etc). It is also the consensus that AE was never any "pure" all-black place, but migrations and gene flow at different levels and at different times did occur. This is the scholarly consensus, and again, no regular with any sense "denies" this. Since I have been banned from Fbio myself for years I cannot say who (if any) are making any "pure black" claims. But knowing Eurocentrics I have no doubt a number of bogus "black militant" accounts are in place to develop fake "Afrocentric" claims- set up for "refutation."
But aside from the strawmen, something else to keep in mind is that AEs have long been compared to West Africans by white scholars- it is not "Afrocentrics" who started the process. One of the reasons they made such comparisons is the resemblance of SOME skeletal material in AE to skeletal samples from West Africa. As regards crania, also cited around here for years is Keita's observation that some European scientists in earlier years discarded "negroid" samples in Egypt or reclassified them as something else- such as "Mediterranean." Other scholars came up with all sorts of "explanations" to explain certain traits- everything from "Australoids" to 5-6-10-12 different "races." "Afrocentrics" did not start "race obsessions" in the Nile Valley- white people did with decades of distortion and misrepresentation- sone of which continues today in DNA studies using the stereotypical "true negro" dodge.
Another reason scientists compare AEs to West Africans is that both sometimes show certain tropical adaptations- the much cited limb proportions data. Said scientists have a perfectly valid reason for using readily available West African samples or West Af proxies like Black Americans- for both sampling sets represent tropical people, and by analyzing easily available sample sets from modern West Africans descendants like Black Americans, you can estimate the height and other things of ancient AE people. There are sometimes thus very valid SCIENTIFIC reasons for comparing AEs to West Africans like Black Americans. And again, "Afrocentrism" had nothing to do with this.
Finally claims about "obsession" with AE are the rankest white hypocrisy. White people are perhaps the most obsessed group with AE, and have massively plundered and/or appropriated AE culture and treasures for millennia. As far back as Greek times white people were appropriating AE, and "obsessed" with it. The Romans themselves plundered numerous AE artifacts for their own collections. Claims of "obsession" are the most cynical white hypocrisy, even as they spend dollars with Egyptian symbols on it to publish books talking bout "Afrocentrism."
Likewise pious white lectures that Black Americans should "stick with West Africa" which is their own "proper" heritage. One wonders why white people have not "stuck with Europe" for several millenia when dealing with Egypt, or why today they spend tens of millions annually on Egyptian tourism, rather than "stick with" their own "true" northern or other European heritage. Given such hypocrisy, as well as the massive distortion, denial and misrepresentation of African culture in the Nile Valley, many on ES make no apologies for highlighting the African character or features of Egyptian culture and civilization, fully recognizing that AE was not a static place, and changed over time. I agree with that and offer no apology either.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
That's it. I'm done with you. You're another one of the many ES "vets" who have let me down over the past few years. I used to look up to you as a knowledgeable source on African history and anthropology, but now I see how phony your expertise and objectivity are. You're basically another armchair anthropologist looking for validation for whatever agenda it is that you already have. What an utter disappointment you've shown yourself to be.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: @ Charlie Bass
That's it. I'm done with you. You're another one of the many ES "vets" who have let me down over the past few years. I used to look up to you as a knowledgeable source on African history and anthropology, but now I see how phony your expertise and objectivity are. You're basically another armchair anthropologist looking for validation for whatever agenda it is that you already have. What an utter disappointment you've shown yourself to be.
Man WTF EVER. I actually backed up what I said and stand by it. I have said NOTHING phony. If I said anything wrong point it out instead of calling names. This place used to be good but now its a division between Negroes who hide behind the studies of geneticists and have become like Dienekes and those of us vets who do multi-disciplinary approaches. The former have started using these genetic studies to validate Hamite-like people in Africa.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sudaniya, are you on facebook? If so pm me as I'd like to show you a gallery I assembled over the past two years and see if you can still claim AE and the Nile Valley had *zero* to do with African populations outside of Central Sudan.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Save your sleight of hand for someone else. You want me to explain things in your bogus terminology when I don't even subscribe to your terminology. You think all Tutsi and Bahima fit your description of "elongated Africans". They obviously don't from all the accounts of Tutsis and Hutus being unable to visually identify members of their own group. So there is no need for me to explain why all Hema don't fit the figments of your imagination. Don't project your pseudo-science to me, misguided turd. I want no parts of it.
What I did say is that Hema have North African and heightened East African. To the extent that they have this ancestry, they will be differentiated from their neighbours in terms of what your dumbass thinks is "climate adapted elongated African". I don't think it's "climate adapted elongated African" and I also don't think all Tutsis have whatever you think that morphology is.
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
--Pagani et al 2015
To which you replied:
quote: Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Save your sleight of hand for someone else. You want me to explain things in your bogus terminology when I don't even subscribe to your terminology. You think all Tutsi and Bahima fit your description of "elongated Africans". They obviously don't from all the accounts of Tutsis and Hutus being unable to visually identify members of their own group. So there is no need for me to explain why all Hema don't fit the figments of your imagination. Don't project your pseudo-science to me, misguided turd. I want no parts of it.
What I did say is that Hema have North African and heightened East African. To the extent that they have this ancestry, they will be differentiated from their neighbours in terms of what your dumbass thinks is "climate adapted elongated African".
THE HEMA you speak of are NOT ELONGATED Africans stupid, they are regular Bantu people.
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
--Pagani et al 2015
To which you replied:
quote: Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
This has NOTHING to do with the Elongated African characteristics. West Africans are not representatives of the original unmixed pre-OOA population, so I don't get why you guys are making it a point mention that quote in relation to Elongated African features. Elongated Africans are found in Niger-Congo speaking, Nilo-Saharan speaking, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples in the Saharan, Northeast African, East Africa, West Africa and East-central all in area where the climate suites their body type and facial type......... Nobody ever argued against OOA populations being a derivative of North East Africans, what I am against is the tendency of treating West Africans like the "True Negro/African" population.
Your quote from the study is talking about genes, NOT Elongated African morphology.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: they are regular Bantu people.
"Bantu" includes at a minimum 300-600 different ethnic groups of people. Please tell me what a "regular Bantu" looks like. What is the key "Bantu" characteristics that apparently all "Bantus" share.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next thing the turd is going to say is that this is a "regular Bantu" as opposed to an Ethiopian, because he doesn't have the "elongated morphology".
posted
I love this. lol. All the posters fighting against each other. Did I ultimately cause all this? Reminds me of the film Needful Things, where the demon (Max von Sydow) turns people against each other. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
--Pagani et al 2015
To which you replied:
quote: Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
This has NOTHING to do with the Elongated African characteristics. West Africans are not representatives of the original unmixed pre-OOA population, so I don't get why you guys are making it a point mention that quote in relation to Elongated African features. Elongated Africans are found in Niger-Congo speaking, Nilo-Saharan speaking, Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples in the Saharan, Northeast African, East Africa, West Africa and East-central all in area where the climate suites their body type and facial type......... Nobody ever argued against OOA populations being a derivative of North East Africans, what I am against is the tendency of treating West Africans like the "True Negro/African" population.
Your quote from the study is talking about genes, NOT Elongated African morphology.
I agree that not all indigenous Africans have to look like broad-featured West/Central Africans. And it probably is true that some of the facial features which Northeast Africans have evolved that differentiate them from West Africans have to do with climate adaptation over many thousands of years. However, I'm not interested in morphology at the moment, but overall biological affinity. And as you've just claimed to have acknowledged, Northeast Africans are going to have a strong OOA affinity than are West/Central Africans. So why do you act like there's a problem with people like me or Swenet stating that fact?
Posts: 7088 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I love this. lol. All the posters fighting against each other. Did I ultimately cause all this? Reminds me of the film Needful Things, where the demon (Max von Sydow) turns people against each other.
F*** you Cass, you may be sitting over there all smug but best believe you'll get your turn. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
--Pagani et al 2015
To which you replied:
quote: Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Your analysis is rather obvious from the quote Swenet posted. I just don't see how it relates to whatever point Swenet is making about Sub-Saharan Africans vs North Africans. The Pagani quote is saying that North East Africa including Sub_Saharan East Africa(Ethiopia) is more related to OOA populations than West Africans. A fact which more true of Egypt than Ethiopia. So now only West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans or am I missing something here?
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Try your sleight of hand elsewhere. These are also Bahima and Tutsi. So why should I have to explain why Hema have those phenotypes?
Just who do you think you're kidding?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This turd is not even responding to what I said. Try again. This time, try to avoid the lie that all Tutsi look like that and that all Hema look like that. Or are you too much of a duplicitous turd to stop lying?
Dummy there are Bahima who are related to Tutsis and Hema who speak a Nilo-Saharan language. Tutsis show enough of a distinction from Hutus based on measurements done by Hiernaux et al. They are distinctive enough from Hutu despite the mixing.
Try your sleight of hand elsewhere. These are also Bahima and Tutsi. So why should I have to explain why Hema have those phenotypes?
Just who do you think you're kidding?
Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
quote:West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
--Pagani et al 2015
To which you replied:
quote: Are you saying that Elongated tropically adapted bodies come from non-African mixture? So everyone from Fulani, Somali, Tutsi, Maasai, Bahima, comes from mixture? Why aren't the non-Africans this supposedly came from "Elongated" with the same body build? Show me the Eurasian ancestors who have this elongated body plan
You can't seriously believe the Pagani quote is saying Northeast Africans' distinctive features are entirely the product of Eurasian admixture. Instead it shows exactly what I was trying to hammer into your skull earlier, namely that Northeast Africans have a stronger affinity to OOA populations than do West Africans precisely because OOA represent a derivative of Northeast Africans. The principle is simple to grasp, so why don't you wrap your head around it and admit you were wrong?
Your analysis is rather obvious from the quote Swenet posted. I just don't see how it relates to whatever point Swenet is making about Sub-Saharan Africans vs North Africans. The Pagani quote is saying that North East Africa including Sub_Saharan East Africa(Ethiopia) is more related to OOA populations than West Africans. A fact which more true of Egypt than Ethiopia. So now only West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans or am I missing something here?
I'm using West/Central African to mean the same thing as Swenet's "sub-Saharan" term. I will admit to having a personal dislike of "sub-Saharan" as a term since it's often associated with the fallacy that dark-skinned Africans are exclusively found south of the Sahara and that North Africans have always been biological and cultural transplants from the Middle East or Mediterranean region. But I'm not going to police other people's use of the term, and I know what individuals like Swenet and beyoku mean when they invoke the term.
Posts: 7088 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If Hutu are distinct from Tutsi why were they checking IDs before chopping heads?
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: lmao this is a mess,
Group 1 we have folks who don't really know what to think or want to express what they TRULY believe, so they just throw insults and try to demoralize others they veiw as "more wrong"
Group 2 we have the spineless, the people who suck up to group 1 and don't even realize their getting shitted on as well.
Group 3 are the slow rollers, too busy arguing with group 1 about thoughts and explanations of the past like it really fvcking matters. they fail to see that simply saying "W/E yeah I believed that in the past, but now I'm readjusting, etc." (even if it isn't necessarily true), will kill the debate and force Group 1 to actually say something of new found substance as opposed to hiding behind insults.
Group 4 we have Cass
Group 5 are the people that chose to chase Group 4 around the roundabout. When the fool is actually more useful than useless at this point in time tbh. Which is absolutely not intentional.
check it out, what I learned on ES in the past 2 days... SSA's are not monolithic. SSA's have recently developed morphology. Contemporary SSA's weren't wide spread below the Sahara. Some SSA's have admixture from Saharans(north Africans?) Egyptians are North Africans/Saharans but not related to those who mixed with west Africans. the SSA's with similar Morphology with A.Egyptians are all mixed But there's no true Negro/SSA model. ...Makes sense.
^lol It's funny because West/central Africans have been receiving North/OOA-like admixture for 9K years+ , East Africans have been exposed recently 4.5KYA max, where is this distinct OOA-like or North African Admixture in East Africa during the Holocene. I ran Henns African data set including Saharan and north African population, a lot of what I read here don't hold up to scrutiny, I can say that now.
Actually this is not valid at all.
The actual summary is more like one group lumps OOA populations who first left Africa with later descended Eurasian populations as EEF and Basal Eurasian. They are using Basal Eurasians and EEF as proxies for saying that the genetic contributions from the initial OOA events make these populations of Eurasians "closer" to certain populations in North Africa, like Egypt. While in theory it makes perfect sense that certain populations outside of Africa would show close affinities to Africnas, it does not make sense to use EEF or Basal Eurasians as proxies for such a population. The reason being that the whole concept of Basal Eurasian and EEF proposes a model of Eurasian ancestry DEVOID of any genetic input from Africa. Hence, according to their own papers and studies, OOA populations became part of a branch called "Non African" soon after leaving because of substantial mixture with Neanderthal populations. Yet at the same time they propose this branching of humanity, splitting OOA populations from African DNA ancestry, you got the issue of "Basal Eurasians" not having as much Neanderthal ancestry as they had anticipated. All of which shows that their models and computations are flawed at bast and outright pure distortions at worst. And on top of this flimsy foundation, you got a group of folks who have decided to plant their flag of 'superior objectivity" and science over "Afrocentrist loons". They are using Basal Eurasians and EEF as basically "basal North Africans", implying that mixture with these "African related" Eurasians is the best way to model the split between North Africa and other Africans. But all the while refusing to admit that these papers and studies do not endorse their proposed model of EEF and Basal Eurasians being related to North Africans and hence the idea that those groups can be used for Proxies for how ancient North Africa was populated along with Egypt. Not only that, they refuse to accept that the whole intent of "EEF" and "Basal Eurasian" is to explicitly distort the overwhelming evidence of the African basis for Eurasian ancestry. Not only that, the purpose is to downplay the fact that African migrations never stopped happening after the initial OOA event. But in order to push this agenda they first need to try and discredit those who they see as the "old guard" of the forum.
Case in point, that chewing person in the gif looks like a white skinned North East African phenotype.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
And Xing et al labeling it "Eurasian" nullifies my point that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa that all these groups share? Are are you simply too dense to realize they always call North African ancestry Eurasian?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Tutsi are OVERALL distinctive
Lol. This just proves my point that these so-called "vets" are way overrated. They have no idea what they're talking about. This so-called "vet" still mistakes samples for populations. So when he googles Tutsis or Hema and goes to the image section, he thinks his search results represent the real diversity of these populations.
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Listen dummytard for the last damn time, the hema YOU used are NOT the Bahima who are elongated Africans. They are a different people rendering your point moot. Bahima do not speak Nilo-Saharan language, the HEMA do
And that nullifies that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa, that all these groups share.. how?
No idiot, that Xing et al study called it "Eurasian" ancestry, smh, for some odd reason, which was more than your 25 SNP BS
And Xing et al labeling it "Eurasian" nullifies my point that there is North African ancestry in Central Africa that all these groups share? Are are you simply too dense to realize they always call North African ancestry Eurasian?
If its bonafide North African ancestry explain the lack of North African uniparentals.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing "Afrocentric" about arguing ancient Egyptians were indigenous North Africans. However, this isn't what posters (with very few exceptions) on this forum were saying for years.
If posters here had just said ancient Egyptians = North Africans [Saharans], this forum wouldn't have a bad reputation as "Afrocentric" and/or "Negrocentric" across the internet.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
All one really have to do is ask "if the body plans equates to Admixture with north africans, then where is this North-African like admixture in east Africa >5kya? does it exist?
Mind you Yoruba... the go to Subsaharan african w/o admixture, were actually N.African admixed and were mixed with North Africans before any east African population... doesn't really translate well to the modern discussion, but w/e.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
"Regular Bantu", or Lemba Jews with Middle Eastern ancestry? According to Charlie they have to prove it by applying a caliper to their nose and lips and post their admixture-mediated "elongated features". If not then they're lying and should resign themselves to the fact that they're "regular Bantus".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If posters here had just said ancient Egyptians = North Africans [Saharans], this forum wouldn't have a bad reputation as "Afrocentric" and/or "Negrocentric" across the internet.
Yet calling Nubians "definitely black" and the Egyptians (their closest cousins) "definitely not black" is somehow objective and rational???? Saying all sub-saharans are black and then sticking your hand in the ground when confronted with lighter skinned sub-saharans and crying foul is objective and rational?? Saying Northern Sudanese are not sub-saharan and thus not black then switching the goal posts to say all Sudanese are black because they live in the tropics is objective and rational??? Ignoring that southern Upper Egypt is tropical (and earlier claiming that none of Egypt is in the tropics) and calling afrolunacy when this ignorance is pointed out is objective and rational??? Saying Nubians were color distinguished from the Nubians and ignoring artwork where Nubians and Aegyptians overlap in skin tone is objective and rational???
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There's nothing "Afrocentric" about arguing ancient Egyptians were indigenous North Africans. However, this isn't what posters (with very few exceptions) on this forum were saying for years.
Interesting, considering North Africa is well, ...in Africa, why would saying such a thing be non-Afrocentric? ...How Afrocentric it is to consider Egypt a northern extension of East Africa?
W'Wait a minute...? What is an Indigenous North African? Or an Indigenous Saharan anywayz?
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: If its bonafide North African ancestry explain the lack of North African uniparentals.
More stupidity. Lol. How many times in a row do you intend to put your foot in your mouth?
Lemba were never said to be Elongated Africans so your earlier point was moot. Second, Hema have no North African uniparentals. What you see as "North African" ancestry could be residual OOA ancestry in the Hema. There is no evidence of North Africans migrating into central Africa.
Lastly using Lemba was dumb. They have some Middle Eastern Y chromosomes, but no Middle Eastern maternal DNA and Middle Easterners don't have elongated morphology.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^wait, aren't you paying attention, Non-SSA admixture is the smoking gun, not just Actual North African admixture. I mean we do know that Different Cultural groups received mixture from multiple different sources right? ....right?
I mean the Inciting moment was the release of the unreleased study saying Modern Egyptians are more SSA, than before right.
It doesn't get more indigenous North African than OOA lol
I'm just playing, but no not really
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There's nothing "Afrocentric" about arguing ancient Egyptians were indigenous North Africans. However, this isn't what posters (with very few exceptions) on this forum were saying for years.
Interesting, considering North Africa is well, ...in Africa, why would saying such a thing be non-Afrocentric? ...How Afrocentric it is to consider Egypt a northern extension of East Africa?
W'Wait a minute...? What is an Indigenous North African? Or an Indigenous Saharan anywayz?
Because of his @ssbackwards claim that AE had a faint light brown (type III) skin when even Modern Egyptians are mostly type IV-V basically the Saharan line(which expands further south every year) for him is the barrier sanitizing North Africa of the blacks he hates so much. (Yet he cant seem to make up his mind on whether Northern Sudanese are black or not. In one breath they're above the Sahara so not black and most closely related to the AE. In the other breath they're black due to being in tropical Africa and distinct from the AE )
F*** this nazi prick
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I've entertained your nonsense long enough.
You don't even know what an index is. You can't even read an abstract and you don't know the difference between 26k SNPs and 26 SNPs. What makes you think you're in a position to argue any of this?
The bottom line is, all your so called "climate adapted elongated Africans" have North African ancestry, while those that don't have it (their neighbors), are conveniently not "climate adapted elongated Africans".
Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidence? Am I supposed to believe climate and diet also created this ancestry? Independantly perhaps? One time Ethio-Somali arose in the Sahel and one time along the Red Sea coast? One correlating with diet change associated with root crop domesticates and one with pastoralism? I mean, you Egyptturds.com posters think everything is plastic, right? So why stop at dentition and bones when you can claim this North African ancestry was Niger Congo before it "mutated" in response to the North African climate?
As I've said, you're simply being duplicitous when you try to pass off groups with this ancestry, which is CLEARLY non-SSA, as "representative stand ins for SSA". You know very well what you doing and what you want to get out of it. It's all calculated. You're not fooling anyone.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think I've entertained your nonsense long enough.
You don't even know what an index is. You can't even read an abstract and you don't know the difference between 26k SNPs and 26 SNPs. What makes you think you're in a position to argue any of this?
The bottom line is, all your so called "climate adapted elongated Africans" have North African ancestry, while those that don't have it (their neighbors), are conveniently not "climate adapted elongated Africans".
Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidence? Am I supposed to believe climate and diet also created this ancestry? Independantly perhaps? One time Ethio-Somali arose in the Sahel and one time along the Red Sea coast? One correlating with diet change associated with root crop domesticates and one with pastoralism? I mean, you Egyptturds.com posters think everything is plastic, right?
As I've said, you're simply being duplicitous when you try to pass off groups with this ancestry, which is CLEARLY non-SSA, as "representative stand ins for SSA". You know very well what you doing and what you want to get out of it. It's all calculated. You're not fooling anyone.
Hema don't have North African ancestry, I saw the samples you used and in another study it popped up as "Eurasian" . Those specific Hema again are not the ones in question who are regarded as Elongated Africans. There is no evidence of North Africans migrating into the homelands of the Hema. That's the stupidity that comes with plugging samples into these genetic calculators that generate results that don't reflect history and archaeology.
The Masai don't have North African ancestry, neither do the Tutsi. North African Maghrebis are NOT elongated Africans, so it is adaptation.
Posts: 2596 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If posters here had just said ancient Egyptians = North Africans [Saharans], this forum wouldn't have a bad reputation as "Afrocentric" and/or "Negrocentric" across the internet.
Yet calling Nubians "definitely black" and the Egyptians (their closest cousins) "definitely not black" is somehow objective and rational???? Saying all sub-saharans are black and then sticking your hand in the ground when confronted with lighter skinned sub-saharans and crying foul is objective and rational?? Saying Northern Sudanese are not sub-saharan and thus not black then switching the goal posts to say all Sudanese are black because they live in the tropics is objective and rational??? Ignoring that southern Upper Egypt is tropical (and earlier claiming that none of Egypt is in the tropics) and calling afrolunacy when this ignorance is pointed out is objective and rational??? Saying Nubians were color distinguished from the Nubians and ignoring artwork where Nubians and Aegyptians overlap in skin tone is objective and rational???
F*** You Cass.
A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wrong on all counts. Ethio-Somali is roughly Tishkoff's purple. So yes, it IS in Rwanda, it IS in the Masai. it IS in the Sahel and YES it is in the Hema. You're beyond incompetent. You're dismissed.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair? [/QB]
So I like how you completely ignore all other mentions of your goalpost shucking and jiving shenanigans.
The boundaries of Dynastic Egypt itself extended and waned overtime. Sudan(especially Wawet/Lower Nubia) was often considered part of Egypt despite Dynastic Egypt proper starting at Aswan. It also doesn't wash away predynastic predecessors of the Egyptians such as the Nabta Playans residing in this tropical zone. Badarians, who have sites throughout Egypt also had sites at this tropical zone. So yeah mention Aswan as much as you want. You can keep deluding yourself that the AE came from the Levant and lived in a iron bubble from those wretched blacks to the south. Its fantasy, nothing more.
As far as your question let me ask you, since you work in averages, wouldn't it be fair to say most of Africa (including most of SSA) isn't black since most Africans don't match tiles 35-36 on Luschan Scale nor the extremely dark (near literal black) end of Type VI skin on Fitzpatrick's scale? I mean since we're being objective and all.
Edit: to cut even more of the bull out. You state you don't deny black Egyptian individuals yet you've hooted and hollered anytime those individuals were brought up and repeatedly said the AE were not black, when in fact there were black AE, making your absolute statement falsifiable just by showing ONE black Aegyptian (let alone the legions of them that lived during Dynastic Egypt). Maybe you should stop with absolute statements you know aren't true.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
check it out, what I learned on ES in the past 2 days...
Some of what you seem to have learned appears shaky, as detailed below.
SSA's have recently developed morphology.
On what basis have you learned this? And exactly what do you call "recent"? And what exactly is "true" SSA morphology. Further down your list of learnings you say: "there's no true Negro/SSA model. ...Makes sense."
OK but then how do you come up with the sweeping category of "SSA morphology"? Are broad noses something recent? Are narrow noses? SS Africans have both. What exactly is the "true" SSA morphology as you have learned it?
Contemporary SSA's weren't wide spread below the Sahara.
On what basis do you say this? WHat are your parameters? If they are SSA, then by definition of "SSfA" they ARE "below" the Sahara. And if they were not below the Sahara then where were they before? Did contemporary Africans all come from North Africa? Please clarify your reasoning.
Egyptians are North Africans/Saharans but not related to those who mixed with west Africans.
Who exactly makes up this West African mix? Give a concrete example.
the SSA's with similar Morphology with A.Egyptians are all mixed
LOL what is this mystical "mix" you keep talking about? There are sub-Saharan Africans who have very little admixture, with similar limb proportions to the ancient Egyptians. If mystical race "mixes" are so important, how can this be so? Studies cite Early Naqada for example clustering with Negro morphology as far as limb proportions (Keita 1993.) Robins and Shute examined predynastic and dynastic limb ratios and found them to be very tropically adapted or "super negroid" Is this because of a "race mix" with incoming "Eurasians"? Likewise Pygmy populations with "negro" morphology in some studies cluster with Egyptians. Where is the alleged "race mix", and IF there was a "race mix" why is this the primary factor that links them with Egyptian morphology?
^lol It's funny because West/central Africans have been receiving North/OOA-like admixture for 9K years+
Explain why "race mixes" are the primary factor that relate West/central Africans to Egyptians?
I ain't beating up on you dude but you make some sweeping claims. If you have learned these things from the 'Afrocentric" folk at ES, it would be interesting to hear who you learned them from..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: A small portion of Egypt falls inside the tropics in modern times, but the ancient boundary didn't. The southern boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan, today it is at Abu Simbel. So the boundary of Egypt in modern times has extended more than 200 km south. So no, I've never contradicted myself; the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. Also, I do not deny black Egyptian individuals, however they're a small minority by frequency. I work by means/averages. By your foolishness are Swedes black haired since less than 1% have black hair?
So I like how you completely ignore all other mentions of your goalpost shucking and jiving shenanigans.
The boundaries of Dynastic Egypt itself extended and waned overtime. Sudan(especially Wawet/Lower Nubia) was often considered part of Egypt despite Dynastic Egypt proper starting at Aswan. It also doesn't wash away predynastic predecessors of the Egyptians such as the Nabta Playans residing in this tropical zone. Badarians, who have sites throughout Egypt also had sites at this teopical zone. So yeah mention Aswan as much as you want. You can keep deluding yourself that the AE came from the Levant and lived in a iron bubble from those wretched blacks to the south. Its fantasy, nothing more.
As far as your question let me ask you, since you work in averages, wouldn't it be fair to say most of Africa (including most of SSA) isn't black since most Africans don't match tiles 35-36 on Luschan Scale nor the extremely dark (near literal black) end of Type VI skin on Fitzpatrick's scale? I mean since we're being objective and all.
Edit: to cut even more of the bull out. You state you don't deny black Egyptian individuals yet you've hooted and hollered anytime those individuals were brought up and repeatedly said the AE were not black, when in fact there were black AE, making your absolute statement falsifiable just by showing ONE black Aegyptian (let alone the legions of them that lived during Dynastic Egypt). Maybe you should stop with absolute statements you know aren't true. [/QB]
It's hilarious because there are indigenous black populations on the North African coast like the Nafusa, the Masmuda and others, so the notion that black populations are restricted to his zones is laughable. The black population of Egypt is concentrated precisely where the civilization sprang from. The majority of ancient Egypt's population was concentrated in the South until at least just after the new period and so most ancient Egyptians were black.
The South is everything. The fool basically inverted the demographic reality of sncient Egypt with his ridiculous example.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic