quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.
Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.
The thing is, I have a few questions:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.
So can you please elaborate…
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh
The Multiregional model isn't "Eurocentric" dummy. It doesn't argue anatomical modernity was exclusive to Europe, or any one region for that matter. It doesn't play into politics like the OOA theory.
Just imagine if most scientists in the west were currently saying anatomically modern humans came from Europe, not East Africa. How many black posters here would accept this model? So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests.
Eurocentricks don't except the single region. Eurocentricks purpose a multi-regional theory. So it's a Eurocentrick ideology.
At one time there was a period, when the claim was that modern man arose from Europe and spread from there into other parts of the world. But it doesn't fly since Europe was FROZEN COLD Ice Age (first a large then a little Ice Age. The OoA is stable for many reasons, such as genetically older people in Africa; anatomically older people in Africa; older industries in Africa precursor to those outside of Africa etc… DUMMY!
And on that note I day good bye:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
If you have a problem with white people, a chip on your shoulder (moaning non-stop about "white racism") why choose to surround yourself with white people? Laughably no black poster from this forum actually lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, they are either living in UK, France, Netherlands or the US.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
If you have a problem with white people, a chip on your shoulder (moaning non-stop about "white racism") why choose to surround yourself with white people? Laughably no black poster from this forum actually lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, they are either living in UK, France, Netherlands or the US.
How do you get from your idiotic rant to me having a problem with white people? lol
I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds, unlike you and your gibberish EUGENIC theories. White supremacy has done enough harm as is.
You cry about something some posters write with extreme views, on extreme theories, because of extreme experiences with whites. But those are like childish compared to what eugenics / eurocentrism has done to the world, for centuries embarking a white supremacy ideology is not wrong to you, it is perfectly okay. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: All the OoA expats genetic base came from a north or east African people, IE; a regional or local set of genes.
At that time and since then different regions or localities in Africa with different variations in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso made different genetic patterns more common to specific peoples or in specific places.
Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?
Still left a little confused. Sorry I wanted to give myself a few times to read it over before commenting. I think I get the idea of bottlenecks and founder effects. It's just that if genetic differences within SSA are as large as global comparissons to two OOA groups, I don't see how the label of SSA as a grouping with genetic support is a well founded idea.
P.S: I'm not saying all of academia does this. It just seems that there are people with sociopolitical interest that use the term SSA and want to make their political distinctions rooted in biological fact. That or they've heard it so many times it's normal for them to think in that direction without pondering it.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ok. But none of this sub-structure existed Pleistocene?
I have no problem recognising a sub-Saharan African biological cluster throughout the Pleistocene. What happens if you look at the fossil record at that time is there are no morphotypes like "Negroid", "Bushmenoid" etc.
Definitely deep structure must have existed in the Pleistocene. Not the same structure as is now, but the ingredients of it. Physical types I couldn't tell you, maybe they have evolved recently for all I know.
Act as if this doesn't exist. …
quote: Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages of macro-haplogroup L (excluding the derived L3 branches M and N) represent the majority of the typical sub-Saharan mtDNA variability. In Europe, these mtDNAs account for <1% of the total but, when analyzed at the level of control region, they show no signals of having evolved within the European continent, an observation that is compatible with a recent arrival from the African continent. To further evaluate this issue, we analyzed 69 mitochondrial genomes belonging to various L sublineages from a wide range of European populations. Phylogeographic analyses showed that ~65% of the European L lineages most likely arrived in rather recent historical times, including the Romanization period, the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, and during the period of the Atlantic slave trade. However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.
—Cerezo M
Genome Res. 2012 May;22(5):821-6. doi: 10.1101/gr.134452.111. Epub 2012 Mar 27.
Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe.
And on that note I say good bye.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Oshun sets up the same straw man.
If "SSA's were one thing", then physical anthropologists wouldn't have distinguished 'Bushmenoids' (Coon's "Capoids")from 'Negroids' and so on for the past century or more.
I never said physical anthropologists hadn't attempted to make distinctions. Although YOU tried to insist earlier that nearly all of SSA is "negroid" and vied for a label where you could essentially achieve creating some singular hive. What I said was SSA is not a valid ecological construct. I don't think it's a valid genetic construct either. I cannot say for certain what academia tries say about SSA genetically (as a whole), but I have seen it used in discussion of genetics where I feel this may be inappropriate. Though what I notice more (and am usually directing much more of this type of conversation) is you and others of your ilk trying to frequently find scientific basis for these political labels that you defend.
Africa is home to several different ecologies. Trying to inject the political Saharan vs. SSA construct is not the same as creating several valid ecological or biological constructs. How the hell you b!tch all the time about how far the Sahel is from the Saharan coast but not the Sahel to the South African coast when whining about geographical distance is also beyond me. If you want to say the Sahara is an ecosystem, fine but define the rest of Africa's ecosystems individually when comparing regions. YOU regularly defend SSA as a label outside of politics. You ain't slick stop d!ck riding capra.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Geneticists don't actually think SSA is one thing, that's just a strawman. For instance if you look at the recent Laziridis paper on first farmers when looking for SSA affinity in Natufians they used 4 SSA references: Mota (Ethiopia), San (Namibia iirc), Mbuti (DRC), and Yoruba (Nigeria).
Oshun sets up the same straw man.
If "SSA's were one thing", then physical anthropologists wouldn't have distinguished 'Bushmenoids' (Coon's "Capoids")from 'Negroids' and so on for the past century or more.
^ Did the above never happen? Did Carleton Coon never exist? [/QB]
Now up to the next debunk.
Tell, are there intermediate ethnic groups to the two groups, you and your eugenic god Carleton Coon proposed? Here is your chance to show how awesome your knowledge is on African ethnography.
This is going to be fun …
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Oshun Its the opposite really, treating SSA as its own genetic group helps OOA's better recognize fine scale population structure for the very fact that SSA's are diverse and heterogenous. The problem is using a single SSA population as the end all representation of all SSA.
The next problem is defining SSA, for example, let's say a post bottleneck population isolated from the ancestors of contemporary Eurasian populations introgressed with a currently identified SSA group like Yorubans but not any other non ssa population. When we sequence them there's no mtdna L, no Yhap E3a, A, B and little E1a and E3b maybe an F or so, and they show some autosomal affinity to near eastern & North Africans. Would we consider this a SSAn population?
Or what if we find a population with basal mtdna L and Yhap E/CT but no-little modern SSA affinity BELOW the Sahara, will that ancient group be considered SSA?
These things are possibilities but how things are right now not much non-Africans would care. SSA being treated as a singular roll group is a quick and dirty way to measure recent genetic exchange.
--oh damn-- Didn't notice I was replying in this **** thread. No shade to Brandon.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is? Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.
Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:
~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.
Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.
The thing is, I have a few questions:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.
So can you please elaborate…
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is? Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.
Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:
~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.
It's just incredible how this eurocentrick imbecile keeps posting this eugenic piece of **** C.Coon. As if this is a supposed reliable source.
That map contradicts you once again. lol smh
quote:
"Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution"
"Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day."
—Kuper R1, Kröpelin S.
Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):803-7. Epub 2006 Jul 20. Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the Sahara: motor of Africa's evolution.
quote: Desiccation of the Sahara since the middle Holocene has eradicated all but a few natural archives recording its transition from a "green Sahara" to the present hyperarid desert. Our continuous 6000-year paleoenvironmental reconstruction from northern Chad shows progressive drying of the regional terrestrial ecosystem in response to weakening insolation forcing of the African monsoon and abrupt hydrological change in the local aquatic ecosystem controlled by site-specific thresholds. Strong reductions in tropical trees and then Sahelian grassland cover allowed large-scale dust mobilization from 4300 calendar years before the present (cal yr B.P.). Today's desert ecosystem and regional wind regime were established around 2700 cal yr B.P. This gradual rather than abrupt termination of the African Humid Period in the eastern Sahara suggests a relatively weak biogeophysical feedback on climate.
—Kröpelin S et al.
Science. 2008 May 9;320(5877):765-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1154913. Climate-driven ecosystem succession in the Sahara: the past 6000 years.
Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.
Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.
The thing is, I have a few questions:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.
So can you please elaborate…
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
That was another subject. And it was indeed a bit weird to claims things about people you have never met in your entire lifetime.
The Berber confederation is too complex for internet lurkers to comprehend. This is why you couldn't answer a simple question on this ethnography.
Anyway this question here is based on something you for forwarded, and I like for you to elaborate on this.
I mean there aren't a lot of options here in the end. I mean you're either right or wrong.
So please man up and adress what you bolstered on earlier on:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Dude you are desperate, with all this eurocentrick nonsense you are posting here. Even your map says unclassified tribes. And this is for obvious reasons.
You hardly understand who lives where on the plateau.
And Fulbe go from East to West all over the Sahel. You dumb box of eurocentrick rocks.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.
That push back comes from an agenda people won't acknowledge they have. You can see that push back in all threads with information deemed threatening to the faith-based narrative. Visit the Natufian thread and you will see people trying push back against Natufian aDNA. Visit threads about Taforalt mtDNA and you will see people trying to reclassify Taforalt haplotype motifs as mtDNA L lineages. The push back movement is real. And it's usually based on wishful thinking and incompetence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Think about opening a new thread for this where people can pitch in. Readers can weed out clueless posts easy enough.
Meanwhile an analogy ?
Say a hand is your Eurasian gene pool, all the rest of the body the African gene pool.
Say a hand gets severed from its body but both go on living, bear with me.
A thumb and a wrist are different. But not only does the body have another hand with the same difference , it also has a shin and an eye much more different than a thumb and wrist. Yet the body with that shin and eye is one entity just like the severed hand.
The whole body is Africa pre-split.
The severing is the out of Africa event(s) The severed hand is the Eurasian, a severely short set of the body.
The one handed body is the African. It still has a hand subset and it has many more subsets that the hand just doesn't have.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: All the OoA expats genetic base came from a north or east African people, IE; a regional or local set of genes.
At that time and since then different regions or localities in Africa with different variations in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso made different genetic patterns more common to specific peoples or in specific places.
Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?
Still left a little confused. Sorry I wanted to give myself a few times to read it over before commenting. I think I get the idea of bottlenecks and founder effects. It's just that if genetic differences within SSA are as large as global comparissons to two OOA groups, I don't see how the label of SSA as a grouping with genetic support is a well founded idea.
P.S: I'm not saying all of academia does this. It just seems that there are people with sociopolitical interest that use the term SSA and want to make their political distinctions rooted in biological fact. That or they've heard it so many times it's normal for them to think in that direction without pondering it.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again this isnt about manning up or me forwarding something(Please show me where I mentioned or "Forwarded" anything in those vague odd questions you're asking) Its about my past history with you in a very similar situation. Case In point if you go back to the thread I never said a damn thing about the Berber confederation I was specific to a people(The Bidane Maurs) and Place(of Mauritania) and even after asking your questions you kept up your wack-a-mole bait tactics when you could have simply stated your case like you just did here months after the conversation. Again I dont see anything productive out of conversing with you about this, esp. given the vague nature of your questions which had nothing to do with anything Ive said....
Sorry but Insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, Im not Insane so Im not going down a very similar path with you.
Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.
Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.
The thing is, I have a few questions:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.
So can you please elaborate…
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
That was another subject. And it was indeed a bit weird to claims things about people you have never met in your entire lifetime.
The Berber confederation is too complex for internet lurkers to comprehend. This is why you couldn't answer a simple question on this ethnography.
Anyway this question here is based on something you for forwarded, and I like for you to elaborate on this.
I mean there aren't a lot of options here in the end. I mean you're either right or wrong.
So please man up and adress what you bolstered on earlier on:
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is?
The entire continent of Africa is a valid geological construct. Saharan Africa is an ecosystem within that geological construct. To call someone an "African" simply means they have been adapting towards any of the various climates within it for generations. With respect to Egypt, throughout the course of it's history, and depending on what region you refer to, they were adapting to (or already had adaptions to) 2-4 ecological systems. As a whole, they were not just adapted to "the Sahara." Your claims strip the complexity of Egypt's ecological development with respect to location and time, to oversimplify things in favor of a political agenda. It's not technically wrong to say many of them were Saharan. But it's also not wrong to say many upper Egyptians lived in Sahel like conditions during early periods. Coastal Egyptians in the Delta were living in an environment that was probably different than either Sahel or Sahara. They also had tropical adaptations.
I've considered if Africa can be understood as a valid biological construct beyond the review of technical adaptation to any of it's ecosystems. I'm still not really so sure about that. In fact I'm not so sure about SSA as a genetic cluster let alone all of Africa. But this is deflection tactics at it's finest. What does this have to do with the fact you persistently justified SSA to be valid beyond a sociopolitical construct? SSA is not a valid geological construct, nor an ecological one. You can continue to show me attempts of anthropologists who've attempted to make classifications of humans within SSA. That does not support SSA as a cluster however, which I'm not sure you're understanding.
quote:Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.
Incorrect. I've told you that if you're going to discuss some people by the ecological constructs they are adapting to, you should do that for everyone living in Africa. "Sub Sahara" is not an ecosystem. Telling you not to inject fake dichotomies into science is not telling you that you cannot conclude that people living in Africa are living in different ecosystems.
quote: Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:
~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.
Trying hard to justify SSA as a valid construct for your political interests.
Politically Egypt = black has already been over for a long time, especially in the U.S. People labeled black have features they see (and are judged for) in the average ancient Egyptian. People labeled black have Eurasian ancestry. Having OOA ancestry does not mean people aren't relegated to being treated as black. Not that it matters because no one really checks for genes to decide race. Racists may try to attach races to genes and to imply certain lineages can be racialized and have "genetic racial disorders", but they don't judge based on objective genetic reality. There are genuine genetic abnormalities that can impair people physically or mentally. You can find those abnormalities reviewing genetic material (like Down Syndrome). "Black" as a racist "genetic disorder" has no genetic data to support who has whatever problems they're attaching to "blackness." Race is based on how you look and the many phobic stupidities that people have over appearances. For people being judged as black in this manner, Egypt is proof of black history, black capability and achievement. This is why every time race is injected into conversation we see so many image dumps. It's not scientific, it's stereotypes based on visuals.
The only questions that are left to explore about Egypt are for those people who are have questions that lie outside of how where these people fit within modern social constructs.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Again this isnt about manning up or me forwarding something(Please show me where I mentioned or "Forwarded" anything in those vague odd questions you're asking) Its about my past history with you in a very similar situation. Case In point if you go back to the thread I never said a damn thing about the Berber confederation I was specific to a people (The Bidane Maurs) and Place(of Mauritania) and even after asking your questions you kept up your wack-a-mole bait tactics when you could have simply stated your case like you just did here months after the conversation. Again I dont see anything productive out of conversing with you about this, esp. given the vague nature of your questions which had nothing to do with anything Ive said....
Sorry but Insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, Im not Insane so Im not going down a very similar path with you.
No, of course you did not say a damn thing about the Berber confederation, I did. That is the point.
I didn't wack-a-mole bait tactics, but question on the peculiar stories, since it is a weird approach of a culture and history with weird interpretations, which in reality has no truth. Considering the complexity of the Berber Confederation, thus I asked you these questions.
It's like me starting to talk about Japan, and a region in Japan this and that. Then being asked and tested to get to the nitty gritty on Japanese ethnic groups. Then I start complaining on how the person uses wack-a-mole bait tactics, because I lack the knowledge on that particular people.
Anyway, you wrote the following:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007
I don't see what the big deal is to talk about this subject.
1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?
2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.
That push back comes from an agenda people won't acknowledge they have. You can see that push back in all threads with information deemed threatening to the faith-based narrative. Visit the Natufian thread and you will see people trying push back against Natufian aDNA. Visit threads about Taforalt mtDNA and you will see people trying to reclassify Taforalt haplotype motifs as mtDNA L lineages. The push back movement is real. And it's usually based on wishful thinking and incompetence.
No, it has to do with people not knowing and understanding the Berber Confederation. Meaning who is who. That is were the real incompetence is at. Even some of the stuff cited by Cass by "supposed scholars", at times is simply not true.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh
The Multiregional model isn't "Eurocentric" dummy. It doesn't argue anatomical modernity was exclusive to Europe, or any one region for that matter. It doesn't play into politics like the OOA theory.
Just imagine if most scientists in the west were currently saying anatomically modern humans came from Europe, not East Africa. How many black posters here would accept this model? So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests.
Eurocentricks don't except the single region. Eurocentricks purpose a multi-regional theory. So it's a Eurocentrick ideology.
At one time there was a period, when the claim was that modern man arose from Europe and spread from there into other parts of the world. But it doesn't fly since Europe was FROZEN COLD Ice Age (first a large then a little Ice Age. The OoA is stable for many reasons, such as genetically older people in Africa; anatomically older people in Africa; older industries in Africa precursor to those outside of Africa etc… DUMMY!
And on that note I day good bye:
Eurocentric means exactly what it says: Everything in history is centered on Europe. Whatever happened before Europe or outside of Europe doesn't count. And the reason why this is important is because it reinforces the idea that in the present day and into the future the only people doing anything worthwhile are and will be Europeans. Nobody else counts except in their relationships to Europeans.
The problem is that this ideology is false.
However, given the fact that all humanity and most of human history started in Africa, that means by definition most human history is African centered. That is the fundamental meaning of Africocentrism. Learning the facts of African history and the truth that is not based on dogma and lies.
This is why Europeans must fight hard to destroy Afrocentrism and independent African scholarship, because it destroys their mythology ideology that is all based on lies. Yes, there are of course going to be some who promote nonsense within African scholarship, but that is far less than the nonsense and lies spewed historically and currently by European so-called scholarship. So if someone is really SERIOUS about challenging pseudo-science then they should be challenging all forms of it, no matter where it comes from. But the agenda is not about destroying pseudo-science, because so much of European "popular" science as seen on tv and in magazines is pseudo-science to a great degree (versus the individual studies done by various scholars which may or may not be more objective). The point here is that they must discredit independent African scholarship because it is the biggest threat to their house of cards.....
That is the original Egyptsearch I remember not some single monolithic cult like group. In the past there were strong minded folks with their own opinions and perspectives and nobody was trying to play follow the leader and be on other folks bandwagon. Either you had credible facts and evidence to back up your positions or you simply got chewed up and there have been many threads with flame wars between vets over the years. What we see today is nowhere near that and frankly hilarious as to how shallow and backwards it is while trying to pretend to be deep.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Eurocentric means exactly what it says: Everything in history is centered on Europe. Whatever happened before Europe or outside of Europe doesn't count. And the reason why this is important is because it reinforces the idea that in the present day and into the future the only people doing anything worthwhile are and will be Europeans. Nobody else counts except in their relationships to Europeans.
It likely has a deeper meaning.
quote: Eurocentrism is a particular case of the more general phenomenon of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism refers to the regard of one's own ethnic group or society as superior to others. Other groups are assessed and judged in terms of the categories and standards of evaluation of one's own group. Eurocentrism, therefore, is defined as a thought style in which the assessment and evaluation of non-European societies is couched in terms of the cultural assumptions and biases of Europeans and, by extension, the West. Eurocentrism is a modern phenomenon and cannot be dissociated from the political economic and cultural domination of Europe and, later, the United States. It may be more accurate to refer to the phenomenon under consideration as Euroamericocentrism. Eurocentrism is an important dimension of the ideology of modern capitalism ( Amin 1989 ) and is manifested in both the daily life of lay people and the professional lives and thought of sociologists and other social scientists. Furthermore, although Eurocentrism originates in Europe, as a thought style it is not confined to Europeans or those in the West. Eurocentrism in sociology is defined as the assessment and evaluation of European and other societies from a decidedly European (read also American) point of view. The European point of view is founded on concepts derived from European philosophical traditions and popular discourse ...
During most of the last two centuries,the prevailing popular view of world history held that a mainstream of facts could be identified in the flood of events taking place since the dawn of humanity. Essentially, this mainstream coincided with the history of Europe and its antecedents and successors—all the heirs and transmitters of civilization. The source of this stream of facts was located in Egypt and the Near East, and via Greece and Rome it slowly flowed westward to medieval western Europe. In the course of two colonization waves—the first starting in 1450, the second in 1870—it finally came to encompass the whole planet.
[...]
FIVE LEVELS OF EUROCENTRISM
The mainstream principle reveals a broader tendency— namely, to perceive one’s own culture as the center of everything and other cultures as its periphery. This tendency is called ethnocentrism.
[...]
--Dr. Antoon De Baets History Dept., Univ. of Groningen,
Eurocentrism
De Baets, A. H. M. 2007 Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450. Benjamin, T. (ed.). Detroit, New York, London, Munich, etc: MacMillan / Thomson Gale Publishers, p. 456 - 461 6 p.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The problem is that this ideology is false.
I agree on many levels. It has distorted a lot of native cultures and histories.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: This is why Europeans must fight hard to destroy Afrocentrism and independent African scholarship, because it destroys their mythology ideology that is all based on lies.
I understand that competition isn't the greatest thing to have in this case.
You should go into these extreme white rightwing sources, it really opens up a whole new world. Things years ahead they promote within their circles, you'll magically see come into papers.
This channel is "interesting", I suggest you snoop around a bit.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point here is that they must discredit independent African scholarship because it is the biggest threat to their house of cards.....
I agree, there has to be a contra-weight. As we know it, it is one-sided. Europeans write it, so this must be the ultimate truth.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: That is the original Egyptsearch I remember not some single monolithic cult like group. In the past there were strong minded folks with their own opinions and perspectives and nobody was trying to play follow the leader and be on other folks bandwagon.
Yeah, some times I read these old threads. And I do see the importance to have a mind of your own.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Oshun Its the opposite really, treating SSA as its own genetic group helps OOA's better recognize fine scale population structure for the very fact that SSA's are diverse and heterogenous. The problem is using a single SSA population as the end all representation of all SSA.
But that happens because SSA is creating a singular label that makes it easy to assume a single population is representational. That was the intention for political, social, and economic interests. It does not appear to translate well to science. Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Not sure why you think SSA isn't a valid ecological label/division, when humid-heat climate covers the vast majority of land below the Saharan desert, notice all the green on the map (moderate to high annual precipitation levels.) The exceptions are the Horn of Africa, small pockets of East Africa and the Kalahari desert that are dry (very low precipitation.)
Also compare the above map, Koppen climate map, and what I posted from Baker (1974), they all match each other near perfect; the "Negroid" morphotype is circumscribed by the humid-heat (wet-heat) climatic zone.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).
Rarely but at times the contrast I use is • stay at home African vs • outbound African.
The former of course still exist but technically the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone Ages as outbound Africans developed some new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR combinations leading to human varieties that never existed in Africa. No need to call these new people any kind of African. They are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've already been over this sh!t Cass First let's blow up the map he's talking about:
quote:
quote:
quote: When you evaluate Africa there are several ecological constructs, not two. Why would people from the other several ecosystems be characterized as one unit ("Sub Saharan") though their ecosystems are unique as well?
Stop with the straw man arguments. I've never said there is a single Sub-Saharan African climatic/eco-zone, but the complete opposite.
You defend the use of "Sub Saharan" which provides the illusion of a singular eco-zone outside of the Sahara.
quote:This is just the stupid straw man you made, I've covered it like 10 times... When we discuss Sub-Saharan Africa, no one is saying those different climatic/eco-zones cluster together; look at the Koppen climate map.
Later he says ...
quote:Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Koppen-climate map doesn't mean people are describing Africans by the different environments they live in. It doesn't mean the word "Sub Saharan" in language magically describes the different ecosystems on similar terms. Many people don't even know about that map but they know what SSA is. SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara. If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity.
First he was whining about there being "too many" ecosystems and now he's using the same map in a new attempt to try arguing SSA is one ecosystem.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).
Rarely but at times the contrast I use is • stay at home African vs • outbound African.
The former of course still exist but technically the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone Ages as outbound Africans developed some new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR combinations leading to human varieties that never existed in Africa. No need to call these new people any kind of African. They are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.
I think I get what you mean, but saying Africa has a lot of genetic diversity doesn't mean we have to call them SSA. It's just people living within a geological area having the most diversity. Genetically there is no SSA barrier for this to make any sense. And for people living in the diaspora, who haven't lived in "SSA" for hundreds of years but have similar genetic composition this becomes even more of a problem. It's also a problem for tribes that are closely related but live inside and outside of the Sahara.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Not sure why you think SSA isn't a valid ecological label/division, when humid-heat climate covers the vast majority of land below the Saharan desert, notice all the green on the map (moderate to high annual precipitation levels.) The exceptions are the Horn of Africa, small pockets of East Africa and the Kalahari desert that are dry (very low precipitation.)
Also compare the above map, Koppen climate map, and what I posted from Baker (1974), they all match each other near perfect; the "Negroid" morphotype is circumscribed by the humid-heat (wet-heat) climatic zone.
Take a good look at the map, above Africa. It's all green. And why it is conflicting, is because there is a lot of intermediacy going on. It is not just the-one-or-the-other.
Btw, thanks for posting that link. It proves my point on Eurocentrism and White Racialism, you self inflicting idiot.
quote: The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz
The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)
If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
So now what of the home coming Africans, ie, outbound Africans who came back only a step or two removed from the way they were before they left.
Regional isolation due to Arid Ages (Ice Ages) concentrated the local differences in the tiny far northwest in a way unlike other places that had greater variety before extreme aridity isolated the northwesterners.
Even though those not 'trapped' in the far NW could and did intermingle, phenotype and genetic concentrations don't allow for any monolithic designation outside the NW as witness • Shorties • Sans • others aren't a single sub-continental human monolith.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).
Rarely but at times the contrast I use is • stay at home African vs • outbound African.
The former of course still exist but technically the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone Ages as outbound Africans developed some new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR combinations leading to human varieties that never existed in Africa. No need to call these new people any kind of African. They are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The only one treating SSA as a single biological unit are Swenet and these geneticists.
I remember when my mtDNA, L4b2, was not counted as sub-Saharan because at that time only L1 and L2 were counted as sub-Saharan because of the Hpal 3592np mutation being present in L1 and L2
So, why happened? Why did they changed it and how was it changed.
I mean it created a direct conflict of interest.
Btw
quote: African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).
Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ergo AfroAsia rather than SW Asia.
===
Modern academic North Africa sub-Sahara/Black Africa dichotomy is an old Western tradition. Watch. They took it back from the Arab's Islamic Africa (Maghreb and Masreq) Beled es~Sudan (Blacks' Land) division.
Classical Greeks invented the Libya and Æthiopia convention modern academics inherited and flavored into the MidEastNorthAfrica fantasm.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The only one treating SSA as a single biological unit are Swenet and these geneticists.
I remember when my mtDNA, L4b2, was not counted as sub-Saharan because at that time only L1 and L2 were counted as sub-Saharan because of the Hpal 3592np mutation being present in L1 and L2
So, why happened? Why did they changed it and how was it changed.
I mean it created a direct conflict of interest.
Btw
quote: African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).
Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Nothing happened. It is the same game they have been playing all along. But now they are using genetics to push the idea of "Sub Saharan" ghettos where "true Africans" have always been isolated at. This is partly being done by mislabeling the close relationship between certain Africans and non Africans as evidence of "back migration". Sure some back migration and mixture has occurred but a lot of that relationship is due to the Africans being ancestral to all other humans. But they are purposely distorting this relationship in order to make the back migration more important and significant within the history of African genetic history and downplaying the significance of the African basis of Eurasian genes both during and After OOA. So it is pure hypocrisy and double standards the same as always but now using genetics.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
idk if Swenet is trying to say L lineages are a singular group. But it seems like there are people out there who want to racialize haplogroups or other forms of genetic data. There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier, but that doesn't really support the Egypt = "True negro haplogroup" position either. Egyptians aren't going to be any closer genetically to diaspora Africans through clustering people by ecosystems instead of where they live in the Sahara. It might on the whole provide a greater proximity for some East Africans (who wouldn't be expected to be averaged with other Africans) but I don't think much else. It's just my position that SSA isn't very valid beyond a sociopolitical concept.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait... so, how did my name and posts get involved in this notion of L lineages being a singular group? I've literally never heard anyone say this. This position doesn't exist as an actual view held by people.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They playing games. As if neither on of us ever talked about African substructure or the highly diverse phylogeny of L maternal lineages.
They really sitting up here with a straight face trying to argue that we think "Sub Saharan" is one distinct genetic Grouping.
I do remember coming down hard on Amun Ra with his 'all Africans were the same' before a specific admixture event. I also remember ES folks in his camp. They are projecting their own failure in assessing the data onto other folks. UNLESS that is, they are telling about Cass?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt for now. But it's clear she's not addressing what people are actually saying. And she's doing it repeatedly.
Case in point:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".
This is simply another false dichotomy as these two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have bi-directional migration and substructure along the aforementioned lines.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: They playing games. As if neither on of us ever talked about African substructure or the highly diverse phylogeny of L maternal lineages.
They really sitting up here with a straight face trying to argue that we think "Sub Saharan" is one distinct genetic Grouping.
I do remember coming down hard on Amun Ra with his 'all Africans were the same' before a specific admixture event. I also remember ES folks in his camp. They are projecting their own failure in assessing the data onto other folks. UNLESS that is, they are telling about Cass?
I said "IDK about Swenet" because I hadn't saw any evidence of it and was asking him to elaborate further on what he was saying. What I said wasn't stated with any intention to get into the Doug v. Swenet thing. At the same time, I didn't want to say that I've never seen people try to act like they could use genetics to try to make SSA seem like a valid genetic construct.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your word choice, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.
What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt for now. But it's clear she's not addressing what people are actually saying. And she's doing it repeatedly.
Case in point:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier
It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".
This is simply another false dichotomy as these two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have bi-directional migration and substructure along the aforementioned lines.
If you read earlier what I said not agreeing that "Sub Saharan" is a valid construct does not mean I'm trying to weasel into the conversation that I believe that majority of people living below the Sahara are closely related and that they are genetically indistinguishable for North Africans. Saying "I believe people in zone (A: Sahara) has common genetic data that is different from genetic common to ecological zones BCDEFG instead of saying BCDEFG are a singular "zone B" doesn't mean the people living in zones BCDEFG are now more closely related to A. Unless the people living in areas BCDEFG are closely related, I don't see the point in labeling them as one zone, but that doesn't mean I'm saying they're closely related to A. I said that it wouldn't reduce distance. IDG what I said wrong...
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on this the population origin is at East Africa, SSA. AKA the South.
Cruciani et al. 2007 use the term Northeastern Africa to refer to Egypt and Libya, as shown in Table 1 of the study. Prior to Cruciani et al. 2007, Semino et al. 2004 East Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78, based upon Ethiopian testing. This was because of the high frequency and diversity of E-M78 lineages in the region of Ethiopia. However, Cruciani et al. 2007 were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. 2004 study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages which make up a significant proportion of some populations in that region, were relatively young branches (see E-V32 below). They therefore concluded that "Northeast Africa" was the likely place of origin of E-M78 based on "the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity". So according to Cruciani et al. 2007 E-M35, the parent clade of E-M78, originated in East Africa, subsequently spread to Northeast Africa, and then there was a "back migration" of E-M215 chromosomes that had acquired the E-M78 mutation. Cruciani et al. 2007 therefore note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" between Northeast Africa (Egypt and Libya in their data) on the one hand and East Africa on the other. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".
—wiki
—Sarah Tishkoff et al.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: idk if Swenet is trying to say L lineages are a singular group. But it seems like there are people out there who want to racialize haplogroups or other forms of genetic data. There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier, but that doesn't really support the Egypt = "True negro haplogroup" position either. Egyptians aren't going to be any closer genetically to diaspora Africans through clustering people by ecosystems instead of where they live in the Sahara. It might on the whole provide a greater proximity for some East Africans (who wouldn't be expected to be averaged with other Africans) but I don't think much else. It's just my position that SSA isn't very valid beyond a sociopolitical concept.
The point is SSA doesn't define "African" on any level: genetically, biologically or historically. So these papers where they compare populations in other parts of Africa to "SSA" are the problem because it implies or tries to suggest that "SSA" = "True African" and the other populations are therefore "less African", ie. "more mixed".
So those championing these papers are muddying the waters as to what specifically they are saying. Because they never say anything about the contradictions in that approach but constantly try and harp on whatever "inconsistencies" they can find everywhere else.
Again, if folks REALLY cared about the historic migrations of populations and haplogroups within Africa over the last 50,000 years they would filter out the Non African genes and focus on just the African ones. Somehow folks are perfectly fine with researchers doing this in Eurasia but somehow reject the same approach in Africa and would rather rely on broad generalizations and simplistic groupings instead. Like I said before, there is no Nordic vs Mediterranean in the Laziridis, et al papers.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ do you not understand how ADMIXTURE works? There SURELY is the differentiation of Eurasian/African groups in these studies. What do you think they have been doing with all of their ancient DNA studies?
What you are saying sounds as if you stepped out some ES time machine from 2010 and don't really know what is going on. We already brought up Pagani. What are you repeating the same argument when someone mentioned Pagani?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Also...didn't he post this?
If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.
You don't know what you're posting. I'm talking about climatic adaptation (ecology), not genetic distance (biology). Example: the genetic distance between populations across Europe is small, so if you look at the geographical extremes (Fst 0.0084 Swedes ~ Greeks), southern & northern Europeans are genetically close. However, there are clearly two distinct ecotypes - the "Mediterranean" and the "Nordic". The main phenotypic differences between these is pigmentation (skin & eye* colour), not skeletal; according to 20th physical anthropologists (Coon, Hooton, Cole etc.) "Nordics" are "depigmented Mediterraneans".
*"One reason why light eyes are geographically associated with dim light has been explained by the Nobel Prize winner George Wald. He found that blue- and gray-eyed people see more sharply over long distances than brown-eyed people do." (Coon, C. S. 1982. Racial Adaptations. p. 66) [so the climatic selection argument here is light eye colouration is favoruable in northern Europe that receives the lowest annual UV/sunlight levels.]
So my point about SSA is despite the much larger genetic distances between many populations there (10x what is observed in Europe), e.g. Fst 0.0851 Mbuti Pygmy ~ San (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994), that most of it has an ecotype adapted to the humid-heat (and high UV), the so-called "Negroid" with broad nose, black skin and dark eyes. As Roberts (1976) wrote in a book review of Jean Hiernaux's People of Africa (1975), the ecotype classifications of Hiernaux closely match the old racial boundaries of Seligman: -
"Thus lack of classification does not however prevent the presentation of the material by chapters which in earlier days would have had race headings... essentially the same subdivisions as Seligman's Races of Africa." (Roberts, 1976 "African Physiques" The Journal of African History, 17(3): 445-447)
Hence, I noted how Baker's (1974) "Negrid" [Negroid] map closely matches the Koppen climate classification for SSA, and Hiernaux (1975).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Also...didn't he post this?
If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.
You don't know what you're posting. I'm talking about climatic adaptation (ecology), not genetic distance (biology). Example: the genetic distance between populations across Europe is small, so if you look at the geographical extremes (Fst 0.0084 Swedes ~ Greeks), southern & northern Europeans are genetically close. However, there are clearly two distinct ecotypes - the "Mediterranean" and the "Nordic". The main phenotypic differences between these is pigmentation (skin & eye* colour), not skeletal; according to 20th physical anthropologists (Coon, Hooton, Cole etc.) "Nordics" are "depigmented Mediterraneans".
*"One reason why light eyes are geographically associated with dim light has been explained by the Nobel Prize winner George Wald. He found that blue- and gray-eyed people see more sharply over long distances than brown-eyed people do." (Coon, C. S. 1982. Racial Adaptations. p. 66) [so the climatic selection argument here is light eye colouration is favoruable in northern Europe that receives the lowest annual UV/sunlight levels.]
So my point about SSA is despite the much larger genetic distances between many populations there (10x what is observed in Europe), e.g. Fst 0.0851 Mbuti Pygmy ~ San (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994), that most of it has an ecotype adapted to the humid-heat (and high UV), the so-called "Negroid" with broad nose, black skin and dark eyes. As Roberts (1976) wrote in a book review of Jean Hiernaux's People of Africa (1975), the ecotype classifications of Hiernaux closely match the old racial boundaries of Seligman: -
"Thus lack of classification does not however prevent the presentation of the material by chapters which in earlier days would have had race headings... essentially the same subdivisions as Seligman's Races of Africa." (Roberts, 1976 "African Physiques" The Journal of African History, 17(3): 445-447)
Hence, I noted how Baker's (1974) "Negrid" [Negroid] map closely matches the Koppen climate classification for SSA, and Hiernaux (1975).
quote:In our data, with the exception of a low frequency haplotype in Africa, rs916977 and rs1667394 are in nearly complete LD. Therefore, we treat them as another haplotype system, BEH3, blue-eye associated haplotype #3. The blue-eye associated allele of BEH3 is CA, again the derived haplotype. In the HGDP populations BEH3 will consist of rs1667394 only since rs916977 is not present in the data set.
A global view of the OCA2-HERC2 region and pigmentation
quote: Climate and ecological changes have also been causes for migration. The creation of the Sahara Desert by 2500 BC separated Sub-Saharan Africa from the rest of the world. However, there have been millennia of humid and arid periods, which have had a profound impact on migration into and out of the region. Drought has forced inhabitants to leave many locations throughout the continent. Generally, these movements have been from north to south during arid periods and from south to north when conditions are relatively humid.
quote:“Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998).
[...]
Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.”
—Nick Brooks et al. (2012)
The prehistory of Western Sahara in a regional context: the archaeology of the "free zone"
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I was specific to a people(The Bidane Maurs) and Place(of Mauritania) and even after asking your questions you kept up your wack-a-mole bait tactics when you could have simply stated your case like you just did here months after the conversation. Again I dont see anything productive out of conversing with you about this, esp. given the vague nature of your questions which had nothing to do with anything Ive said....
Printer-friendly view of this topic