quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Latin American populations serve as an excellent example of admxiture. There are are many so-called 'white' Hispanics who are called so because of their white appearance but still have African or Amerindian ancestry.
Take Puerto-Ricans for example.
https://www.livescience.com/37624-mapping-puerto-rican-heritage.html One of these earlier studies, published in PLOS ONE in 2011, found that on average Puerto Ricans' ancestry is 15 percent American Indian (known as Taino), 21 percent African and nearly 64 percent European. But this ratio varies across the island, with more European background on the west side of the island and more African on the east side.
This explains certain attributes of Puerto Ricans
^^LOL no doubt. The NA "Caucasian classification" is somewhat like the "honorary white" classification given to the Japanese under SA's old apartheid regime. What better way to demonstrate goodwill than removing one of the biggest humiliations and handicaps that diplomats, tourists or migrants might face- removal of the "taint" of blackness. The Arab types love it- why, the US is such a true friend.. fellaheem, it considers us white!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, non "white" diplomats and tourists from non "honorary" countries, got to learn plenty about "free world" segregation and Jim Crow. It got so bad that US President John Kennedy had to publicly appeal to Maryland realtors and other whites in the 1960s to ease up on the discrimination because it was creating all sorts of ugly diplomatic incidents with "Third World" diplomats. Various bandaid fixes were made so that the State Dept could hide and finesse the gnarly realities on the ground. No such special arrangements however were made for native American blacks. It took messy civil rights demonstrations that embarrassed the Kennedy regime internationally during the Cold War (i.e. Freedom Riders etc etc) before movement was made on certain things.
Eisenhower Admin had similar embarrassment. It had to call in the ambassador from newly created Ghana for a White House apology after the black diplomat was dissed multiple times at US restaurants and other facilities. Most honorary "white" Egyptians and Arabs however sailed right on through.
No such smooth sailing greeted a black diplomat from Haiti in the 1950s, who was going to a UN Conference where the Americans would ask for his vote on a human rights measure- a nice show or indicator of international cooperation and solidarity with the West against those pesky Soviets always accusing America of hypocrisy.
All looked good on the flight in, but no sooner had the Negro landed on US soil however, when he was shunted by white handlers into a noisy airplane hangar with a folding stool. Generously, the Negro was offered a cold sandwich in waxed paper. Meanwhile the white people on the plane got to stroll into a nice comfortable restaurant for a nice meal.
Sec of State Dean Rusk noted the incident, and the irony of the US asking this man for a vote in favor of the US on a human rights issue. Rusk believed that incidents like this were "a severe barrier to cordial relations with many foreign states." --Mark Dudziak 2000. Cold War Civil RIghts
Too bad for the black man - maybe he might have had better luck if classified as "North African"..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what I always assumed, I know that many Berbers consider Heritin to be a free people, and native to North Africa. But the Heratin of Mauritania are different...its confusing tbh
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Hartini at core are intra-Saharan peoples.
Oasis Algerian Imazighens certainly know them.
There's no reason Mediterraneans would know of them.
My take is the core Hartini descend from those who stayed put as Sahara went from lush to sand.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: While I do not know the MTDNA present in North Africa, I do know along with E there is J, R, I, T and G. Which shows external male presence. (this is assuming R is actually from outside of Africa).
The YDNA haplogroup considered to be indigenous to North Africa is E-M81 (common sub clade is M183)
and indigenous NA mtDNA haplogroup, U6 and M1
thank you. I knew of E. Didn’t know the mtdna info. Do your know where U6 and M1 is said to be from?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: While I do not know the MTDNA present in North Africa, I do know along with E there is J, R, I, T and G. Which shows external male presence. (this is assuming R is actually from outside of Africa).
The YDNA haplogroup considered to be indigenous to North Africa is E-M81 (common sub clade is M183)
and indigenous NA mtDNA haplogroup, U6 and M1
thank you. I knew of E. Didn’t know the mtdna info. Do your know where U6 and M1 is said to be from?
just start with wikipedia type "haplogroup U6 " in google
and then
"haplogroup M1" in google
usually the wiki will come up or just read a few source that comes up
then if you want something genetics journal level just not the references in the wiki article and then see where they are at the bottom
Some African haplogroups have African ancestors others have Eurasian ancestors but developed a unique variations of it when people returned to Africa and resettled for a while
The origin of many are uncertain and the detail complicated generally the origin is strongly suggested by
1) diversity of sub-clades of given haplogroup 2) frequency percentage in populations 3) location of oldest remains found
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: "debunked" wtf did you debunk ?? posting old and debunked sources won't help you it's not a coincidence if all their sources are from the XXth century or before 2005...
I debunked your claims, idiot! Htf are the sources I posted "debunked", when you didn't even bother addressing them?! LOL Just because a source is old does not mean it is outdated or "debunked" as you say. Apparently you don't know how science works. It doesn't matter how old a source is as long as the findings are still valid. That is why research is replicated to either validate or refute the older sources yet you fail to post anything that refuted my old sources.
Here is an example of what I'm saying. The craniometric graph below comes from Keita's 1988 study.
^ Note how close late predynastic Naqada clusters close to Nubian Kerma followed by Abydos while the late dynastic E series clusters close to the Maghreb which in turn is closest to the Levantine Lachish.
Here is another craniometric graph this time by Brothwell in a 2016 study.
^ Again note how close the Naqada sample is to Kerma and other Nubian samples. Which again confirms the Egyptians close affinities to Nubians first and foremost.
Here are more studies this time showing non-metric traits as much better indicators of genetic relationships and they all show Egyptians grouping with Nubians.
So tell me again how any of the old sources including the melanin study from Germany is debunked?
quote:Meanwhile they couldn't refute all the dna results I posted , they couldn't refute the ancient depictions I posted , they couldn't refute the genetic and anthropological data I posted ...
You posted genetic studies but failed to properly convey what they mean. You even deny the fact that E1b1b originated in Sub-Saharan Africa as that is where it has its highest diversity and concentration NOT Eurasia, and all the ancient depictions you posted are cherry-picked portraits either unpainted or have completely lost their paint with the narrowest noses and thinnest lips in an attempt to white-wash while all the portraits we post show otherwise. You're anthropological data is also laughable as all you post is craniometric data showing Egyptians had narrow noses similar to Europeans who have narrow noses.
Meanwhile what about anthropological data about skeletal limb proportions like these?
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."--Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation (2005)
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans... The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans...--P. K. Manansala 2006 on James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980)
quote:Just a bunch of new world blacks with a heavy inferiority complex who try to claim every non-black civilizations they can ....pathetic They only see the world through their american dichotomical view.
Ad-hominem nonsense. Not all of us here are even blacks or from America. How about addressing the facts.
quote:No sorry you bantus are not related to horners let alone north africans.
So first, we're American blacks but now we are Bantus! Okay.
Meanwhile you never bothered explaining how West Africans are as close to Horners as North Africans, Middle-Easterners, and Europeans and how all are closer to Bantu speaking Biaka and Mbuti Pygmies than Southern African Khoisan.
quote:Egypt was not a black or white civilization. It was a northafrican/middle eastern civilization that had no link with west,central,east and south Africa. The modern descendents of AEs are modern egyptians. Period. You have not a single evidence that they are genetically non-indigenous so your rhetorical arguments won't work with me.
First of all 'black' and 'white' are color labels while North Africa and the Middle East are geographic labels. Apparently you don't know that there are black people in both regions just as there are white people! And of course modern Egyptians are the descendants of ancient Egyptians nobody said otherwise. We've shown you tons of pictures of modern day [black] Baladi (non-Arab indigenous) Egyptians. But being descended does not necessarily mean same according to the genetic findings of the Schuenemann et. al 2017 study published in Nature.
^ Assuming the late period mummies they sampled were truly indigenous (which I doubt they were) they don't have Sub-Saharan alleles whereas modern Egyptians do. Yet interestingly, modern Algerians and Tunisians possess even higher Sub-Saharan alleles than modern Egyptians do so where does that leave your claims??! LOL
quote:I only talk here because of quarantine lol you're just clowns to me none of you debunked me and none of you convinced me.
Says the clown who has been debunked over a dozen times. They say when people are shut in the crazies show themselves and you are a perfect example.
quote:Admin: ENOUGH!
Indeed enough of your insanity.
LOL. Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, but looks like this Nassbeam fellow merely gargled..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: While I do not know the MTDNA present in North Africa, I do know along with E there is J, R, I, T and G. Which shows external male presence. (this is assuming R is actually from outside of Africa).
The YDNA haplogroup considered to be indigenous to North Africa is E-M81 (common sub clade is M183)
and indigenous NA mtDNA haplogroup, U6 and M1
thank you. I knew of E. Didn’t know the mtdna info. Do your know where U6 and M1 is said to be from?
just start with wikipedia type "haplogroup U6 " in google
and then
"haplogroup M1" in google
usually the wiki will come up or just read a few source that comes up
then if you want something genetics journal level just not the references in the wiki article and then see where they are at the bottom
Some African haplogroups have African ancestors others have Eurasian ancestors but developed a unique variations of it when people returned to Africa and resettled for a while
The origin of many are uncertain and the detail complicated generally the origin is strongly suggested by
1) diversity of sub-clades of given haplogroup 2) frequency percentage in populations 3) location of oldest remains found
thank you! Isn’t oldest remains found a bit of a weak foundation to rest upon? For example not even 80% of possible archeologically significant sites in Africa have been excavated, let alone the entire world. I feel like it opens up the possibility for the theory of a given haplogroup will always be changing.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The origin of many are uncertain and the detail complicated generally the origin is strongly suggested by
1) diversity of sub-clades of given haplogroup 2) frequency percentage in populations 3) location of oldest remains found [/qb]
thank you! Isn’t oldest remains found a bit of a weak foundation to rest upon? For example not even 80% of possible archeologically significant sites in Africa have been excavated, let alone the entire world. I feel like it opens up the possibility for the theory of a given haplogroup will always be changing.
It is a consideration of all these factors and geneticists have way of estimating the age of haplogroup. So if they were analyzing the diversity and frequency of a haplogroup in a population and estimated that it's origin was in that place and it was a about 6,000 years old, if remains are later discovered in some other place and they find that haplogroup in those remains and they are dated (with a method independent of the DNA analysis) and those remains are, say, 9,000 years old then they would have to revise their conclusions as to the origin.
Also sometimes they find remains that seem to be of a haplogroup they have already identified but as they find out more about it and test people in the region they may discover previously unknown clade of it. Some of these clades could be the most recent mutations and others could be the basal clade, the first form of the haplogroup (usually indicated when written by * ) which is often rare and can be extinct in modern people.
This is the nature of science conclusions may continually be updated. But as time goes on many of these revisions become smaller revisions. Theses are estimates and best guesses.
Additional factors added
1) diversity of sub-clades of given haplogroup 2) frequency percentage in populations 3) location of oldest remains found 4) historical context 5) degree of isolation 6) genetic drift
An additional factor is historical factors. If a migration was recorded in the past it could influence the interpretations of the DNA results.
Then there's isolation. Some people with a given haplogroup go into an area and they don't leave it for a long time and not many outsiders intermarry with them (Endogamy) So you might see high frequency of a haplogroup in an area which is one of the factors suggesting origin. However if diversity is low and there aren't other variant clades it suggest isolation rather than origin in some cases
Similar to this is genetic drift. Suppose a given population has a certain amount of genetic genetic variation. Not everyone in it is exactly the same but are related. So if there are 9 typical variations within the group and a couple of families representing only two of them leave the group and resettle somewhere else then after they resettle just their two variants multiply.
So again the frequency of their sub clade could become high in their new location due to this arbitrary situation. The high frequency of the clade in the area might originally have suggested place of origin but in fact it is this genetic drift, particular individual leaving the group and their particular characteristics becoming prominent somewhere else.
In other cases the high frequency is the place of origin. So there are a lot of factors to consider. People who want the outcome to be a certain way might exaggerate one of these factors to fit and expectation or agenda so peer review and re-testing hypothesis is necessary.
I think as time goes on people will be viewed by their specific DNA rather than the origin of it. There will be new findings which will indicate more attributes to the specific DNA. And there are also new dangers in the interpretation of this.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti says: You posted genetic studies but failed to properly convey what they mean. You even deny the fact that E1b1b originated in Sub-Saharan Africa as that is where it has its highest diversity and concentration NOT Eurasia, and all the ancient depictions you posted are cherry-picked portraits either unpainted or have completely lost their paint with the narrowest noses and thinnest lips in an attempt to white-wash while all the portraits we post show otherwise. You're anthropological data is also laughable as all you post is craniometric data showing Egyptians had narrow noses similar to Europeans who have narrow noses.
Meanwhile what about anthropological data about skeletal limb proportions like these?
Indeed. And Smith 2002 laid out the allegedly "non existent" connections between Egyptians and FELLOW Africans in detail as well.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Great video, very reminiscent of what I am familiar with. And that thee has to be miracle.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: His premise was RETARDED and misinformed from the beginning.
1. MOST AMERICANS, don't even know that Egypt is in Africa (This includes So-Called Afro Americans)
2. Many "African Americans" don't even consider themselves "Africans" (regardless how wrong they are about this) to begin with, so no, they aren't looking to Africa/Egypt for a sense of "Self Esteem".
3. Most "African Americans" can give 2-F**Ks about Egypt, and don't think about Egypt AT ALL.
4. The average "African American" is Christian by religion, and believes that "Ancient Egyptians were Evil".
Bring an Ankh into the "Average Christian" Black American home, and they will look at you like you are a "Devil Worshiper", especially with the older "Black American" population.
There is a reason why Harriet Tubman is paralleled to Moses and NOT PHARAOH.
Your General lack of knowledge about "African Americans" continues to drive your WRONG, ILL-FORMED BABBLE.
5. The Average "Black American" couldn't tell you jack $**t about the Moors, so no they aren't trying to be "Moors".
6. White "Europeans" (as a group/historically) have "Appropriated" Ancient Egypt, to a level that would make the most uncompromising "Afrocentric" seem moderate.
Damn near 100% of every movie, video game, comic book, children's book, school textbook, biblical illustration, "historical reenactment" about Ancient Egypt, is portrayed by "White Europeans" ( WITH BRITISH F**KING ACCENTS ).
Damn near all of them!
Yet NOT ONE SINGLE WORD out of you and the OTHER HYPOCRITES who seek to chastise "Afro Americans".
You even used some of those fake-a** modern illustrations in your post to "Prove" your point.
Your Anti-Black hypocrisy is so blatant it's repulsive.
Yet you "play" like you are only concerned with presenting the truth, as you "Protect Egypt" from the "Darkies".
lol do I have a clone? I don't think I would go as far as to say that the average African American still doesn't know Egypt is in Africa and thinks they were evil but I will say that when it comes to 'appropriating' Egyptian culture its a world wide phenomenon. When it comes to monetizing and racialising ancient Egypt, African Americans have nothing on Europeans and Euro Americans.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: His premise was RETARDED and misinformed from the beginning.
1. MOST AMERICANS, don't even know that Egypt is in Africa (This includes So-Called Afro Americans)
2. Many "African Americans" don't even consider themselves "Africans" (regardless how wrong they are about this) to begin with, so no, they aren't looking to Africa/Egypt for a sense of "Self Esteem".
lol do I have a clone? I don't think I would go as far as to say that the average African American still doesn't know Egypt is in Africa and thinks they were evil but I will say that when it comes to 'appropriating' Egyptian culture its a world wide phenomenon. When it comes to monetizing and racialising ancient Egypt, African Americans have nothing on Europeans and Euro Americans.
I'm from an older generation, as well as raised in a highly religious home (Father was a Minster).
So with my experience, and the church communities I grew up in and around, anything that wasn't "Christian" was "From The Devil".
I do agree, that there are a lot of modern/current Black Americans, that have a more balanced understanding of Egypt (Africa as a whole).
Learning about African history and using African iconography has become more "Mainstream" in the Black community.
Posts: 115 | From: usa | Registered: Feb 2020
| IP: Logged |
Yeah this is just a small sample of the foolishness that goes on with "Appropriating Egypt".
Yet folks are only "concerned" when "Black" people do it.
The vitriol, and combativeness goes beyond level 1000 when Black folks discuss Egypt, yet those same folks who had "Smoke" for "Afrocentrics" are extra silent, when "Whites" and other "Non-Blacks" use Egypt.
It's hypocritical.
Posts: 115 | From: usa | Registered: Feb 2020
| IP: Logged |
That is the closest to a Siwa. He is from a group of Libyan Berbers that came to Egypt in the 8th century.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Moroccan from Fes - paternal Hg : E-M35 - Maternal hg : H20a1a (I noticed many fassi are highly mixed but from a historical point of view that's not surprising) :
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic