posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

I dunno.

BE is African or an Arabian Plater a step or so from African.
BE or immediate ancestor used the Gate or the Sinai or both.

BE has 'SSA' level Neanderthal.
NA has higher than 'SSA' Neanderthal.
NA's not likely BE's African source.


Critically together we can ID BE
or show if contradicting leads
preclude BE's actual existance.

---

If that's what you are looking for then here it is :

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
No we don't. Natufians for instance have a ton of Basal versus WHG with none but are not any closer to SSAs.

Still could be some kind of SSA but nothing plain about it.

---

quote:

---

African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Yeah, Motas basal position is just a basal position not a population with known genetic history of mixing with ancient Eurasians. Mota simply belongs on a branch from a branch with the common ancestor of second wave OOAers and East Africans, to put things simply.

Why doesn't anyone point to the fact that Iranian Neolithic populations are closer to Africans than any other ancient Eurasians? Is it the E lineages in Natufians that have everyone obsessing over them?

---

I have pointed this out on numerous occasions. And the lioness called my crazy for it.

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

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Y hg E, previous reports of negroid morphology, theories connecting them to the spread of Afroasiatic languages, being right next door to Africa. Really quite surprising that no affinity to SSAs could be detected.

Rumour has it Maghrebi aDNA is in the works, North African samples may clear up a lot of things (or not).

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

I dunno.

BE is African or an Arabian Plater a step or so from African.
BE or immediate ancestor used the Gate or the Sinai or both.

BE has 'SSA' level Neanderthal.
NA has higher than 'SSA' Neanderthal.
NA's not likely BE's African source.


Critically together we can ID BE
or show if contradicting leads
preclude BE's actual existance.

---

If that's what you are looking for then here it is :

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....

---

I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.

---

That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.

But hey, this seems obvious to me.

---

I don't think that geneticists are suggesting Africa (especially SSA) needs Eurasia to be diverse. We also know from the Tichitt tradition that Africans in the Sahara did move south. I don't want to assume everyone in academia has a nefarious interest but I don't agree SSA/Sahara is a good genetic dichotomy or a ecological one. I do think it may be fair to at least consider the Sahara as an ecological construct with localized adaptations. But the Sahara as an ecological construct wouldn't validate everything below it to be a singular unit.

---

Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yes they figure little to no Neanderthal admixture (0-60% of main clade Eurasian levels). But it's not like anyone who moved north of the Sahara or across the Red Sea would necessarily have to interbreed with Neanderthals.

---

quote:

---

Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.

[…]

Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.

"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.

[…]

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

I dunno.

BE is African or an Arabian Plater a step or so from African.
BE or immediate ancestor used the Gate or the Sinai or both.

BE has 'SSA' level Neanderthal.
NA has higher than 'SSA' Neanderthal.
NA's not likely BE's African source.


Critically together we can ID BE
or show if contradicting leads
preclude BE's actual existance.

---

If that's what you are looking for then here it is :

---

lol Well since we're doing this here, might this explain what's been bogglin my mind for months.... Why the sandawe have the EARLIEST instance of ME admixture. That **** made no sense for the longest under the consenting models.

---

Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y421/amunratheultimate2/CushiticAACinTishkoffgeneticdistance_zps89d8fca2.png~original
Tishkoff had positioned the Hadza as the greatest outlier in relation to other Africans

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

the Hadza and Sandawe from Tanzania and the Pygmies from Cameroon, some of the most ancient lineages in the world.

---

quote:

---

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).

---

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

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

I dunno.

BE is African or an Arabian Plater a step or so from African.
BE or immediate ancestor used the Gate or the Sinai or both.

BE has 'SSA' level Neanderthal.
NA has higher than 'SSA' Neanderthal.
NA's not likely BE's African source.


Critically together we can ID BE
or show if contradicting leads
preclude BE's actual existance.

---

If that's what you are looking for then here it is :

---

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

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/07/genetic-code-tells-hunter-gatherer-tales

A group of variants unique to the Hadza spanned the DNA encoding for a cannabinoid receptor, a cell surface protein that responds to tetrahydrocannabinol—the active ingredient in marijuana—which is intriguing because Tishkoff's team observed that the Hadza smoke large amounts of marijuana. The three populations also had distinctive variants around genes that produced blood compounds involved in injury repair.

What has most intrigued some researchers, however, is that the study found genetic evidence that all three groups had intermingled sexually with an unknown, older species—possibly an African equivalent of the Neanderthal species in Europe. Not only did the Hadza, Sandawe, and Pygmy people all have significant lengths of DNA from this unknown species, but the union happened at about the same time as European humans were hobnobbing with Neanderthals—tens of thousands of years ago.

---

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

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm confused. You said "I'm not the only one with this view". Why say that right after saying something that isn't disputed anywhere? Lol. Wasn't this already apparent from what you posted earlier? Your Tishkoff tree in that post doesn't depict SSA ancestry as forming a clade relative to other humans either.



^This pattern of differentiation is no different from the Tishkoff tree. It's just more stylized and upside down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:

Human population history revealed by a supertree approach

quote:

---

The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.

---

In that respect it's similar to the traditional understanding of "reptile" which excludes birds, even though we now know birds represent a branch of the theropod dinosaurs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Paraphyletic.svg/300px-Paraphyletic.svg.png

For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have predominantly "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QfOlhMaKVUc/UA_N_qZbFxI/AAAAAAAAFGE/sb6UiX29r_c/s1600/admixture.jpg

A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.

---

---

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I wasn't addressing you in particular. But I would have thought you've picked up that a large chunk of the pan-Africanists in this community do in fact want Africans, or at least SSA, to be one big monophyletic clade. Isn't that the mindset you've been criticizing for years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm confused. You said "I'm not the only one with this view". Why say that right after saying something that isn't disputed anywhere? Lol. Wasn't this already apparent from what you posted earlier? Your Tishkoff tree in that post doesn't depict SSA ancestry as forming a clade relative to other humans either.



^This pattern of differentiation is no different from the Tishkoff tree. It's just more stylized and upside down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:

Human population history revealed by a supertree approach

quote:

---

The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.

---

In that respect it's similar to the traditional understanding of "reptile" which excludes birds, even though we now know birds represent a branch of the theropod dinosaurs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Paraphyletic.svg/300px-Paraphyletic.svg.png

For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have predominantly "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QfOlhMaKVUc/UA_N_qZbFxI/AAAAAAAAFGE/sb6UiX29r_c/s1600/admixture.jpg

A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.

---

---

---

Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I wasn't addressing you in particular. But I would have thought you've picked up that a large chunk of the pan-Africanists in this community do in fact want Africans, or at least SSA, to be one big monophyletic clade. Isn't that the mindset you've been criticizing for years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
I'm confused. You said "I'm not the only one with this view". Why say that right after saying something that isn't disputed anywhere? Lol. Wasn't this already apparent from what you posted earlier? Your Tishkoff tree in that post doesn't depict SSA ancestry as forming a clade relative to other humans either.



^This pattern of differentiation is no different from the Tishkoff tree. It's just more stylized and upside down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
To be honest, my belief is that "sub-Saharan African" itself is a paraphyletic category. It seems to mean basically any modern Homo sapiens who isn't OOA or pre-OOA. And I'm not the only one with this view:

Human population history revealed by a supertree approach

quote:

---

The resulting supertree topology includes the most basal position of S African Khoisan followed by C African Pygmies, and the paraphyletic section of all other sub-Saharan peoples.

---

In that respect it's similar to the traditional understanding of "reptile" which excludes birds, even though we now know birds represent a branch of the theropod dinosaurs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Paraphyletic.svg/300px-Paraphyletic.svg.png

For example, if you compare the genetics of southern African Khoisan peoples with those of other sub-Saharans and then OOA, you might find that most sub-Saharan populations actually appear closer to OOA than they do to these Khoisan populations. See K = 2 on this chart, wherein most SSA groups have predominantly "red" components like those of the French instead of "blue" like the Khoisan peoples.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QfOlhMaKVUc/UA_N_qZbFxI/AAAAAAAAFGE/sb6UiX29r_c/s1600/admixture.jpg

A category like "sub-Saharan African" might have utility if you need to single out those Africans who aren't descended from the pre-OOA branch, much as we conventionally use "dinosaur" as shorthand for the non-avian ones. But they still aren't a monophyletic grouping, so anyone trying to force genetics into an exclusive "pan-African" scheme is going to make a fool out of themselves in any case.

---

---

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

To see which route the ancestors of all humans outside of Africa might have taken, the researchers sequenced the genomes of 225 people from northeast Africa — 100 Egyptians and 125 Ethiopians. They then compared this data with DNA from East Asians, South Asians and Europeans — specifically, Han Chinese, Gujarati Indians and Tuscan Italians, respectively. They also compared this data with DNA from modern West Africans from south of the Sahara, which should generally reflect the ancient sub-Saharan gene pool.

The scientists noted that both modern Egyptians and Ethiopians have recently experienced migrations from outside Africa, and the interbreeding that resulted might increase their genetic similarity with those migratory people. To account for this, the researchers removed any genetic sequences that might have come from these recent migrations.

If the southern route was the main path out of Africa, Ethiopians should be more genetically similar to Eurasians. Instead, the researchers found that Egyptians were more genetically similar to Eurasians, suggesting the northern route was the predominant way out of Africa. The researchers estimated that Eurasians genetically diverged from Egyptians 55,000 years ago, Ethiopians 65,000 years ago and West Africans 75,000 years ago.

"The most exciting consequence of our results is to have unveiled an episode of the evolutionary past of all Eurasians, therefore potentially improving the knowledge of billions of people on their deep biological history,"study lead author Luca Pagani, a molecular anthropologist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the University of Cambridge in England, told Live Science.

The northern route as the preferred way from Africa is supported by the fact that all non-Africans possess DNA from Neanderthals, who were present along the northern route in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. This new finding is also in agreement with the recent discovery of modern human fossils in Israel close to the northern route that date to about 55,000 years ago.

Although there is genetic and archaeological evidence that some people did take the southern route out of Africa, perhaps those people got no farther than Arabia, or left no genetic trace in modern Eurasians. In the future, scientists could investigate whether anyone who took the southern route left any genetic traces in modern Oceanians, Pagani said.

---

Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

---

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

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
A reminder:

quote:

---

Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history

The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.

[...]

Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.

---

--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster

Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6692

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html

---

It's not so much that the early Khoisan history is unknown, most modern researchers are unfamiliar with their history. Today people believe that AMH expanded from East Africa this is false.



It is clear that the earliest cultures of AMHs began in Southern Africa, NOT East Africa. For example, after 65,000 BC, the Late Howiesons Poort culture spread from South Africa to India. By 44,000, the Aurignacian culture began in South Africa and expanded to Iberia and across Europe. Next the Khoisan took the Solutrean culture from South Africa, to Iberia and Europe, and the Americas after 25,000 BC.

Genetics research can never supersede archaeological research.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....

---

I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.

---

That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.

But hey, this seems obvious to me.

---

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

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Bottom line the game being played here is mislabeling African origins of many ancient DNA lineages as "Eurasian admixture".... And no Africas genetic diversity is not fully documented. So to have folks talking about "Afrocentric" distortion but not pointing out the obvious Eurasiacentric distortion is simply hypocritical....

---

I read a study that originally argued west African mixture, but it turned out it was an error.

---

That is the point. They are over generalizing and using flawed methods to try and estimate mixture but over emphasizing "backflow" without documenting the corresponding outflow from Africa to Eurasia. According to these studies you would think Africans just sat in their "sub saharan" ghettoes for thousands of years and didn't move anywhere and hence are only diverse because of Eurasian admixture. As if Eurasia was genetically isolated from Africa after OOA.

But hey, this seems obvious to me.

---

So true.

---

Its all Clydes' fault. And because of him we should accept Africa never did anything on its own without mixture from outside.



Or even better because of him we should accept that Africans can't be trusted to study their own history because of course they are so 'ethnocentric'.....

Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

I still prefer to see ancient Egypt as fundamentally a Black African civilization. And by that I mean an indigenous African civilization built by predominantly dark-skinned indigenous Africans. If you were to ask me about their biological affinities today, I would say they were predominantly an indigenous Eastern Saharan population with some Sudanic and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern admixture, to varying degrees depending on time and region. I imagine the majority of them had dark mahogany-brown skin that graded to even darker shades towards the south of Upper Egypt, and maybe lighter shades (i.e. caramel) in the northern Delta.

I admit that, on a purely emotionally level, I would prefer them to have had stronger "sub-Saharan" affinities, but I cannot dispute the evidence for a major pre-OOA affinity instead (as the whole concept of pre-OOA/Basal Eurasian is, frankly, a logical consequence of the OOA model of AMH origins). So I have no choice but to acknowledge that reality.

Unfortunately it seems a large chunk of this community can't even be bothered to do that. And this was probably always the case, going back to when ausar was still active (and lying about his background to win arguments about the topic). Time and time again in the last few years, I have seen posters whom I used to look up to let me down by refusing to recognize certain realities that contradicted their preferred narratives. Now I can understand having a bias to begin with, since we all have them. I myself got involved in this topic to begin with because I wanted to rebut to the white supremacist narrative that Africans are inherently incapable of civilization and that all great civilizations in Africa required "Caucasoid" back-migrants. But we should not let our emotional biases interfere with our evaluation of reality. And the fact that so many people in this community allow that to happen depresses me.

We should be better than the Eurocentric white supremacists who want to de-Africanize ancient Egypt. We should reach for the moral and intellectual higher ground compared to those racist asswipes. But so many people here haven't climbed to that higher ground at all, not even the ones I used to admire.

---

Is that it, then?! This is what you had to get off your chest?? You had me worried for a second there Tyranno. I thought you were about to pull off another Ausar and come clean about you lying about your identity. Like maybe you aren't really a white guy but a black guy from Ghana! LOL

Anyway, in regards to what you stated I can't think of anything else to say that hasn't already been posted. The ancient Egyptians were still indigenous Africans which is not synonymous with "sub-Saharans" and as far as appearance including skin color they would still be regarded as "black" by today's racial polemics and their culture is still fundamentally African and show far more affinities to Sub-Saharan cultures than to their Eurasian neighbors so I don't see what the issue is. Of course there are racist Euronuts who still attempt to white-wash or 'Caucasoidize" the Egyptians but I fail to see how the Egyptians being North African or even genetically pre-OOA somehow takes away from their African identity. Answer: it does not!

--------------------
Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan.

Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
BTW, I called the AE Black African in my OP because I wanted to use a recognizable term that conveyed not only their indigenous African heritage but also their dark skin. I understand why some posters like Swenet have chosen to abscond it entirely and respect their decision, and I additionally agree with Punos_Rey that the goalposts for blackness tend to get shifted in these arguments. On the other hand, I can tell that the objection people like Casshole have to characterizing AEs as black goes beyond mere semantic implications since they deny AE were darker-skinned to begin with. In the end, whatever language you want to use, I see AEs as (predominantly) dark-skinned native Africans.

---

Posts: 49 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ You do realize that the phrase "people of color" was invented by WHITES in America not blacks.

Also, what is meant by "racially black"? 'Black' is a description of very dark or heavily melanated skin; therefore you have black people from the Pacific (Melanesia) to India but obviously these people are not African. Meanwhile you have the Egyptians who are African and have that skin tone as well and especially Nubians.

---

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by real expert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
BTW, I called the AE Black African in my OP because I wanted to use a recognizable term that conveyed not only their indigenous African heritage but also their dark skin. I understand why some posters like Swenet have chosen to abscond it entirely and respect their decision, and I additionally agree with Punos_Rey that the goalposts for blackness tend to get shifted in these arguments. On the other hand, I can tell that the objection people like Casshole have to characterizing AEs as black goes beyond mere semantic implications since they deny AE were darker-skinned to begin with. In the end, whatever language you want to use, I see AEs as (predominantly) dark-skinned native Africans.

---

Your opinion is meaningless. The term "dark- skinned" is also useless since there are tons of dark skinned people that are not racially black to begin with. The other useless term black Americans love to crawl behind is "people of color". LOL

Besides the Libyans in the ancient Egyptian paintings who you compare to so called light-skinned Afro-Americans aka mulattoes look rather like sun- tanned Euros than like real muluattoes. Most black Americans have still West African negroid features regardless how admixed they are. Therefore all the cherry picked light-skinnend Afro-Americans on TV or movies that represent blacks get their noses fixed, narrowed to look less negroid. Even Mariah Carey, a quarter black had negroid features before she got plastic surgeries. However only for superficial people with untrained eyes she can pass for white.

Facial features, skull, hair texture and body shape, bones say more sbout race than skin color alone. Fact is ancient Egyptians were predominantly not negroid regardless what ignorant black Americans call them. Besides the majority of Afro- Americans no matter whether they are pitch black or light-skinned look nothing like ancient Egyptians but still can pass for West Africans. It's a joke that black Americans think they can label anyone that is not white as a ghost or has a sun tan, as black and as theirs. The self-hatred, hypocrisy and fake pride of black Americans are mind-boggling.

---

Ok.

How come 90% of ancient Egyptian art all over Egypt looks like the following?






All the way back to the West African Sahara-Sahel region:

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