quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It is garbage because it follows a pattern of Europeans intentionally and deliberately misrepresenting facts from the Nile Valley.
BINGO
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The point is both of those people have black skin. You are spouting nonsense in claiming that somehow ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Sudanese were more similar in complexion to Europeans than Africans. This picture contradicts everything you are saying and supports what people here and elsewhere have been saying for years which is that skin color is not limited by craniofacial features and Africans don't all look the same. You are simply talking absurd nonsense. Ancient Upper Egyptians, Lower Sudanese and Ethiopians were Africans closer to each other than they were to Europeans. This is what Europeans are desperate to try and contradict by these bogus factoids. They don't use the diversity of African features and phenotypes when making these reconstructions and this is why they always come out looking similar to Europeans. Ancient Upper Egyptians and modern Upper Egyptians do not look like Europeans. [/QB]
so having higher level of melanins makes someone automatically related to a nigerian or a congolese ? Africa is not america. Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
And why do you even brought europeans into this ?? wtf ? You speak as if there were only whites/blacks. Indeed ancient egyptians didn't look european nor like bantus from the united states.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Gee not a chance in the world any ESers are * male inlaws to Ethiopians * go to synagogue with Ethiopians * reciprocate housecalls with Ethiopians * been in personal touch with Ethiopians since 1969
and don't depend on YouTubes for Ethiopian bias and prejudice and even know Shankala are as much or even more Ethiopian than the imagined all-of- -them-Ethiopians are only narrow featured types of Africans.
But the thing supremist and negrophobes alike don't like to think of is the Bronze/Iron SW Asians going to the Horn were predominantly female. There was no male war conquest or colony implant from the Arabian Peninsula.
Not even 1% of the American Freedmen Descent population is into any of the below
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
<< of course the 6 pointed star has nothing to do with Hebrews or the Israel&Judah monarchies --Tu >>
<< Despite his profound levels of knowledge and nation building skills this man is well know nutjob sexual offender and control freak par exellance with never more than a 50,000 official membership following __Tu >>
What of the entire entertainment media producing movie after movie and show after show of Euro yte ppl cast as everything from the king of Siam to Nabta Playa/Bir Kesiba originators of cattle herding?
Can have lotsa fun with race baiter stupidities, bring on more, please.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: So if the figures for Mende-like ancestry represent the bare minimum of sub-Saharan ancestry in the Guanche samples you analyzed, what would the figures for Dinka-like ancestry in those samples look like?
Also, what about Mota? I recall them being related to modern Omotic-speakers in Ethiopia, and Omotic is a branch of Afroasiatic like Berber. It would make sense to me if a little Mota-like ancestry was present in proto-Afroasiatic speakers from the beginning and was then spread to the Maghreb by proto-Berbers.
Wait wait wait... gotta stop you here lol. Lemme clarify, The fits with Mende are good. Which is why I picked them. Others are better and/or have higher contribution. Mende don't represent the "bare minimum." universally.
Omotic related ancestry in that context would predate Iberomaurasians. Therefore their ancestry would hint towards the presence of ANA in N.Africa and the Near east. With the availability of pleistocene and Neolithic North African genomes, Omotic related ancestry for this purpose is obsoleted. The Dinka however harbor downstream ANA-related ancestry that was available in North east Africa or east Sahara (western desert), hence the tub of worms.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: That's really going too far and very speculative...Capsians literally came from the near east and according to some brought the proto-berber culture to NA, it can't be a coincidence. Especially that they found many capsian types living along side IBM types on the same places.
What the...
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement.Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Have your fun but don't cut out the race baiting and unnecessary tribalism
/////////////MODPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I don't get it.
I was 3rd in line on a DougM & Hotep interchange I didn't start it and yes it is not only off topic but off forum before my last post.
Well I thought we all knew genetics can't reconstruct either metrical nor non-metrical facial features or hair textures. They don't teach that in schools no more?
Oh, OK, I'll go away.
EDIT Whoops, had a Sr moment. Of course the Abusir 3 are mummified heads permitting the given craniology.
Interesting is a few years back Xyyman established continental African identity for JK2134 using ADMIXTURE @ K=5.
Omotic related ancestry in that context would predate Iberomaurasians. Therefore their ancestry would hint towards the presence of ANA in N.Africa and the Near east. With the availability of pleistocene and Neolithic North African genomes, Omotic related ancestry for this purpose is obsoleted. The Dinka however harbor downstream ANA-related ancestry that was available in North east Africa or east Sahara (western desert), hence the tub of worms.
Thanks. Gotta say the 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive. You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations (possibly the so-called Capsians) coming in from eastern North Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: What the...
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement.
What I have seen suggested before is that the Capsian culture represents a movement of proto-Afroasiatic speakers coming into the Maghreb to form proto-Berbers. But if that were the case, their origin would be in Northeast Africa alongside all the other proto-Afroasiatic speakers rather than West Eurasia.
posted
By Hotep Boy: "There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again)."
How is OK Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Ancient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. First, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming it's N. African.
So now we know that the God-forsaken Schuenemann et al.(2017) study which used Ancient DNA from a clearly defined Greek-Roman colonial gravesite and from samples probably having Hyksos ancestry does not deserve to be taken seriously as representing indigenous AE ancestry.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is OK for Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Acient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. Fist, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming its N. African.
I haven't forgotten how certain Euronuts were making a big deal out of these AE samples supposedly plotting near PPNB on a PCA over a year ago. Now that the majority of their ancestry has been described as "North African", that might not be the win the Euros think it is.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Thanks. Gotta say the 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive. You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations (possibly the so-called Capsians) coming in from eastern North Africa?
Possibly, or it could just be ANA substructure captured by the Dinka. We need more data to be sure.
Sorry to lie but this intriques me so I gotta ask.
Why would Dinka be more Gafsian than Sahra-Sudanese?
...If it's me you're asking. I haven't put forth evidence to make that claim. Which stat suggests this?
And isn't Gafsian Green Sahara early Holocene while Berber is Dry Sahara late Holocene?
Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations. So for example: I wouldn't be suggesting that Dinka related ancestry traveled with Berber languages, M183 or EEF related ancestry coming from wherever.
I do understand Tamazight originated in Jebel Marra Sudan vicinity. What is it I'm missing?
IDK
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It's not a challenge. Does everything have to be a battle? It's not about who said it, it's about the concepts.
OK reposting with what it was in reply to like I shoulda first done
=======
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: 14% Dinka ancestry in one of your tests on the Guanche mummies (the one with p = 0.82) is rather impressive.
<A> You think this could have been ancestry brought to the Maghreb by proto-Berber populations <B> (possibly the so-called Capsians) <C> coming in from eastern North Africa?
.
Sorry to lie about going away but this intrigues me so I just gotta ask.
<A> Why would Dinka be more Gafsian than Sahra-Sudanese? <B> And isn't Gafsian Green Sahara early Holocene while Berber is Dry Sahara late Holocene? <C> I do understand Tamazight originated in Jebel Marra Sudan vicinity.
What is it I'm missing?
=-=
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [there's] a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian [...].
<< Yes. U6 women escorted E-M81 men from Sudan to Maroc >>
So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
<< naturally >>
=-= EDIT FOR BELOW POST Nah, not combative. Defensive. Acquaintances call me combative. I don't see it, but they do.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
Out of curiosity, how do you think the modern Berber profile formed? Your runs on the Guanches suggests a major Punic contribution to me.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Yeah, & I don't personally see the discrepancy with anything I've said. but I will say that I do believe theirs a cultural and biological discrepancy between Berber and Capsian/gasfian (and protoberber). So most of the components I spoke about predates the Modern Berber profile and were absorbed over by local populations.
Out of curiosity, how do you think the modern Berber profile formed? Your runs on the Guanches suggests a major Punic contribution to me.
You tell me...
quote:Regarding E-M183, as mentioned above, we cannot discard an expansion from the Near East and, if so, according to our time estimates, it could have been brought by the Islamic expansion on the 7th century, but definitely not with the Neolithic expansion, which appeared in NW Africa ~7400 BP and may have featured a strong Epipaleolithic persistence31. Moreover, such a recent appearance of E-M183 in NW Africa would fit with the patterns observed in the rest of the genome, where an extensive, male-biased Near Eastern admixture event is registered ~1300 ya, coincidental with the Arab expansion20. An alternative hypothesis would involve that E-M183 was originated somewhere in Northwest Africa and then spread through all the region. Our time estimates for the origin of this haplogroup overlap with the end of the third Punic War (146 BCE), when Carthage (in current Tunisia) was defeated and destroyed, which marked the beginning of Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean Sea. About 2,000 ya North Africa was one of the wealthiest Roman provinces and E-M183 may have experienced the resulting population growth
Tunisia Chenini Berbers (almost fixed for M81) Punic1 IAM Mende
I'm not ruling out European (possibly EEF admixture) of some sort predating this though. Think about V88. I just caution against attributing the KEB site as Berber though those types of people could have been absorbed locally.
Don't want to get too deep into this atm.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ?
More gaslighting bullshit. Why am I hearing this nonsense when my primary aim is to weigh the beliefs sustaining anti-blackness against science? How is deconstructing the beliefs of racist whites and their ancestors "following" what they impose? To me, following would be accepting the beliefs they've had about Black peoples without question.
Black people acknowledge a common history and set of human experiences that have come with our appearances. Regardless of what whites believe, Black peoples will be connected because our appearances are subject to a certain set of attitudes. We are also posthumously connected to ancient peoples of Egypt in a similar manner. The peoples of southern Egypt/Northern Sudan (and their history) are subject to racism in death. Egyptians of the deep south were originally declared not to have even made the culture they founded. They were said to be conquered by foreign Mediterraneans, and even today remain underrepresented in a lot of the research which is determined to establish the identity of Egypt. "Nubia" which did not exist as historical location has been used to obscure the cultural continuity and civilization that was broadly shared with Egypt the way Western Europe has a common sense of civilization. All this to denigrate and deny them a history because of their appearance.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Which is to say Blacks can be Caucasoid as I said.
quote: Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
But the discussion is about race. You've basically gone from saying they aren't Black to "race doesn't matter!111" because you know they are. I didn't ask whether they thought they look the same outside of racial constructs. Many Black Americans don't think they look all that much a alike either. What I've said is that they have some similarities in history because of judgements made about how they look. You can't just imagine away the invasion of Aborginal peoples simply because they may not look like African Khoisan.
If you don't care about it, stop responding to me. You are wasting your time and mine. You don't have a multi trillion economy and military backing your ideas of people's appearances so it is you whose opinion means nothing here.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historical and social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
Therefore what's the point of spending years here trying to figure if ancient egyptians were black ? It's a social construct after all and you admit being not related to them.
I haven't been spending years figuring that part out. That part I figured out long ago. And though I'm not related to them, my experience as a Black person enhances my ability to empathize with the situations. White supremacists and their allies are attempting to strip ancient southern Egyptians and northern Sudanese of the civilization they built (and yes, due to how they looked).
quote: As far as I know no north africans claim persian or turkish history because of muh appearance.
Most Black peoples are not adopting Egyptian culture as their own and do not adopt Egyptian history as something that is directly related to them. Most Blacks outside of Africa have adopted West African cultures. Egypt when referenced is usually regarded as inspiration to deconstruct ideas of our appearance.
Many of us also feel defensive about Egypt because we know about the historical obscuring of Egypt's connection to Ethiopian looking people. There's the dynastic race theory and invention of Nubia (which is not a historical term for northern Sudan). This has been a form of posthumous attack against people that made the civilization Egypt because they had an appearance judged as Black in today's world. Even now people like you want to say race doesn't matter and no one cares, but then say they weren't Black because some alternative definition nearly no one employs says so. If no one cares you wouldn't have bothered discussing this.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
Again this is in america, here no one will ever put an ethiopian and a nigerian in the same bag.
It's not just America unless you're too stupid to realize Australia isn't part of America. Invasions of Africa (including the Horn), theft of Aboriginal land, etc have all happened because people were "put in the same bag." This produced a common treatment or experience. You say it won't ever happen but it already did. Read a proper history book.
quote: hahahah now even north africans can be black ...smh with that logic everyone is black as long as we make the choice to identify as such.
No that's not really how that works. You have to have the phenotype.
quote:A black person is someone of mostly west african ancestry (this generally includes most bantu speakers in Africa) that's it stop with your mental gymnastic trying to lump together people who are vastly different.
How were Aboriginal Australians labeled Black then if only West Africans are Black people? Peoples that are very different were posthumously denigrated or forced to experience a denigrated status for having a "Black appearance." All I've done is acknowledge the common history.
quote:Obama is not black but mixed and that's how he's seen in most of the world.
Not in the West he's not.
quote:There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
Yea except when you see the graph you notice that the Upper Egyptian samples plot right next to the Ethiopian samples. How he intends to interpret his data doesn't change that his data says they looked like Ethiopians.
quote: [b]The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times.
Don't care. For one, Black people as a whole have a wider diversity of hair textures. Aboriginals can have loose hair and that didn't spare them from white supremacy. Europeans in this generation are just starting to learn many Black people have natural hair textures that are different (and not just an unkept version of theirs) when seen naturally. However when previously less informed of natural hair textures due to the wig wearing, weaves or chemical straightening, this didn't change race relations at all. This is because features like skin tone and cranial structure will be more likely to determine race than hair texture.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Ancient upper egyptians were physically similar to modern upper egyptians deal with it and these people are certainly not related to afro-americans like yourself. An ethiopian is physically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than west africans and genetically they are closer to west eurasians.
You try to bring a social construct such as "black" in order to claim their civilization as yours and we all know how this end up :
What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Because roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization and from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
Do you have any new evidence on the subject to support the first half of this statement. [/QB]
I thought this was common knowledge :
quote:It would be a branch of the Chamito-Semitic languages, probably born in the Nile valley, and which also include Egyptian, Kushitic and Semitic. Indeed, lexical analogies (and even the triliteral structure of the roots) and verbal analogies (in the conjugation) are noted. It is to a similar conclusion that E.Lipinski prudently arrives on the basis, undoubtedly narrow, of the funerary vocabulary that can be identified: it presents similarities with Egyptian and Semitic. Linguistics thus seems to make lean towards an Eastern origin, which could be that of the Capsians.
Jean-Marie Lassère, Africa quasi Roma, p. 31-32
quote:Obviously, the man of mechta el-arbi could not give birth to the proto-Mediterranean men. The latter, which gradually replaced him, appeared first in the east, while the men of Mechta el-arbi were still, in the Neolithic, the most numerous in the west of the country. This progression from east to west clearly indicates the appearance of this proto-Mediterranean human type. The anthropologists and prehistorians specialists, are today in agreement to admit that it came from the Near East.
Gabriel Camps, Les Berbères, p. 57
He also talks about a very clear link between capsian art and the first stages of berber art.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: What I have seen suggested before is that the Capsian culture represents a movement of proto-Afroasiatic speakers coming into the Maghreb to form proto-Berbers. But if that were the case, their origin would be in Northeast Africa alongside all the other proto-Afroasiatic speakers rather than West Eurasia. [/QB]
More like a near eastern migration that split in two in the delta area one going south to the Horn and the other to the maghreb.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
How is OK Egyptians being related NAs some kind of win for you exactly? Are we talking about ancient N. Africans? Ancient North Africans are defined by ANA, which contributed widely into the ancestors of modern SSAs.
You people switch from one narrative to the next with these OK samples. First, it was these OK samples show a clear Eurasian shift; now, ya'll claiming it's N. African.
So now we know that the God-forsaken Schuenemann et al.(2017) study which used Ancient DNA from a clearly defined Greek-Roman colonial gravesite and from samples probably having Hyksos ancestry does not deserve to be taken seriously as representing indigenous AE ancestry. [/QB]
Ancient NAs being defined by ANA ?? Ancient NAs were already similar to modern day north africans with components such as EEF, IAM, natufian, SSA.
This would be "old kingdom" berbers from the maghreb :
ANA ancestry only partially composed the IAM profile but you want late neolithic/copper age North africans to be mostly defined by it ? lol
And do not exaggerate with the abusir samples : they are three mummies from different eras and yet show similar profiles and are similar to modern egyptians so no they weren't "greco-romans" or foreigners.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
Haplogroup J and E1b1b1 carriers are foreigners ?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
They were not foreigners :
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern egyptians and look like them ?
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: I thought this was common knowledge :
quote:It would be a branch of the Chamito-Semitic languages, probably born in the Nile valley, and which also include Egyptian, Kushitic and Semitic. Indeed, lexical analogies (and even the triliteral structure of the roots) and verbal analogies (in the conjugation) are noted. It is to a similar conclusion that E.Lipinski prudently arrives on the basis, undoubtedly narrow, of the funerary vocabulary that can be identified: it presents similarities with Egyptian and Semitic. Linguistics thus seems to make lean towards an Eastern origin, which could be that of the Capsians.
Jean-Marie Lassère, Africa quasi Roma, p. 31-32
quote:Obviously, the man of mechta el-arbi could not give birth to the proto-Mediterranean men. The latter, which gradually replaced him, appeared first in the east, while the men of Mechta el-arbi were still, in the Neolithic, the most numerous in the west of the country. This progression from east to west clearly indicates the appearance of this proto-Mediterranean human type. The anthropologists and prehistorians specialists, are today in agreement to admit that it came from the Near East.
Gabriel Camps, Les Berbères, p. 57
He also talks about a very clear link between capsian art and the first stages of berber art.
You said the Capsians "litteraly came from the near east."
I'm looking for clear evidence of that claim. Proto-Meds as defined by your second quote were that of late neolithic individuals. At the time it was written the gasfian weren't considered a neolithic civilization but a mesolithic one.
With both the genomes of Taforalt and IAM sequenced you'd have to come better than that.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization
It could be argued that during medieval Europe Roman and Greek civilization was not it's core
yet, medieval Europe came well after
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
and from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians. [/QB]
there is only one Y-DNA haplogroup of Mycenaeans, J2a1 Modern Greeks also carry J and E-V13 which is the only E clade more common outside Africa Uncommon in Ireland
R1b-M269 haplogroup is 70% or more in Ireland There was discontinuity between mesolithic central Europe and modern European populations mainly due to an extremely high frequency of haplogroup U (particularly U5) types in mesolithic central European sites.
......
Romanians according to genetic origin by Y-DNA haplogroup Haplogroup I2 28% Haplogroup R1a 18% Haplogroup R1b 15% Haplogroup E1b1b 14% Haplogroup J2 14%
______________________________
Nigeria about 75% E1b1a, African Americans largely
--Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death ofRamesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological,and genetic study Zahi Hawass, Albert R Zink et al 2012
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You said the Capsians "litteraly came from the near east."
I'm looking for clear evidence of that claim. Proto-Meds as defined by your second quote were that of late neolithic individuals. At the time it was written the gasfian weren't considered a neolithic civilization but a mesolithic one.
With both the genomes of Taforalt and IAM sequenced you'd have to come better than that. [/qb]
These are the opinions of specialists, I don't understand what do you need more since their genomes haven't been sequenced. Maybe something like this :
quote:The internal structure of Afroasiatic is far from resolved, and the literature contains many competing models (cf. review in Blench 2006). Nonetheless, the grammar of Berber aligns it strongly with Semitic, and most genealogical trees place these two branches in proximity. Berber verbal affixes are strikingly similar to those of Semitic, both in form, function and position as prefixes or suffixes, and must be inherited from the common ancestor of Berber and Semitic (Lipinski 2001:44).
Roger Blench, Linguistic and archaeological evidence for berber prehistory, p. 2
These two branches split exactly during the time-frame of capsians.
Or this :
quote:The Mediterranean and European origin has no more defender in spite of the presence of a pre-ceramic industry recently recognized in Corsica proving the existence of very old navigations. One would rather lean towards an African and Near Eastern ancestry because of the anthropological data. The Mediterranean human type to which the Capsians belong, exists in the Near East and appears first in the eastern Maghreb when the west is still populated exclusively by Mechta el-Arbi type populations. The lithic industry of the Natoufian of Palestine and especially that of the Haua Fteah cave in Cyrenaica, are not without common points with that of the Capsian.
quote:The proto-Mediterranean men of the Capesian deposits of North Africa are not comparable to the Mesolithic men of southern Europe, notably those of Muge and the Pyrenean region of Montardit, characterized by a much less robust skeleton, a face of average height and rather low orbits. They would be close to the robust proto-Mediterranean men of the Terminal Natoufian of Palestine.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: According to the source Evergreen cited, they used samples from the same Late Period Abusir el-Meleq mummies that has been in much contention since we know that more than likely they were foreigners and NOT indigenous Egyptians so is anyone really surprised that their reconstructions turned out the way they did?
They were not foreigners :
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern egyptians and look like them ?
No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
quote:Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54
The source you posted acknowledges that prior to the birth of any of their sampled mummies, was large scale immigration that took place over a long period of time. Since this is so, continuity post-dating that immigration is rather irrelevant to proving who the AE were originally. And for that matter northern samples in general wouldn't be a great place to start.
Many of those people in the north descended primarily from immigrants and predynastic tribes that adopted southern culture. But when it comes to who made the culture, that resulted from people living deep in Southern Egypt and northern Sudan. And it'd seem these studies, and posters online that have seen unpublished data always leave open the possibility that the most significant people to the founding of Egypt are still largely unknown.
Your source even says:
quote: “However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa 51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made."
Only thing they left out is that even before dynastic Egypt, southern Egypt and northern Sudan shared contacts. Ta Seti was an emerging power or developing kingdom in the predynastic. The northern portion of Ta Seti was absorbed by the dynastic era, but it differed from the northern tribes, because it shared a similar culture to the southern Egyptians prior to this.
So far all I've seen is genetic data on northerners, the descendants of immigrants, and genetically drifted peoples of the Dakleh Oasis that mixed primarily with northerners and Libyans. The most quintessential people that formed Egypt however, have still not been sampled. I could imagine they had some NE mixture in the predynastic, especially after contact with the north. But somehow, I doubt their genetic profiles looked quite like Abusir in the deep south towards northern Sudan.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
I am not sure why you keep repeating this, because Egyptology has always been saying that the Nile Valley was made up primarily of Eurasian "backmigrants". There is no middle ground in this. Again the Abusir paper states bluntly that mixture with "central Africans" is a recent phenomena in the Nile Valley. So they are blatantly suggesting that Africans were never present in the Nile Valley to begin with. And the issue boils down to how you define "African". First it was based on craniofacial categories, which was part of an older "racial" construct. Then it moved on to DNA but in either case the goal is the same, define some characteristic such as narrow noses or DNA lineages as "Eurasian" and then use that to say the Nile Valley was not African because of the presence of said features. And again, for these people there is no middle ground as far as they are concerned the Nile Valley civilization of KMT was never African to begin with. Hawass keeps saying this, various Egyptologists keep saying this and these bogus papers keep suggesting it, yet people swear that there is some "middle ground" to this line of thinking. There is not.
The reconstruction of these mummy faces follows the pattern of many other reconstructions of mummies which always presents them as light skinned, totally in contradiction of how the ancients portrayed themselves. This isn't a data issue or a science issue, it totally an issue of them wanting to promote that regardless of facts and science.
The issue with this reconstruction is the same as the issue with DNA assignment and other kinds of studies being done and that is lack of African data. All of these are using statistical models based on data sets largely either from selected modern populations and ancient DNA from Europe while Africa is relatively under sampled, even from modern populations. The standard dataset for African DNA always uses Central African or West African as the standard for "African" DNA. Not Ethiopia Sudan, Upper Egypt, Mali, Niger or Upper Libya. So it is always going to be skewed away from Africa and towards the predominant data set which is mostly modern "North African" which is coastal North African and Europe.
And again, keep in mind that the 2 of the 3 mummies used in this paper are from generally the time period of the 25th Dynasty. So how are they going to spin this as "proof" that there were no blacks in the Nile Valley when the 25th dynasty is called the dynasty of the so-called 'black' pharaohs?
Not only that where is the DNA analysis and reconstruction of the 21st dynasty mummies which are some of the best preserved of any time period in the Nile Valley with obvious black features? Such as Hennutawy and Queen Nodjmet? If there were no "blacks" in the Nile Valley and thy were mostly mixed, then how does this make sense? Because the reality is that southerners were present and dominant all the way into the Late period and didn't just vanish due to mixing in the New Kingdom because the Southern borders of KMT went all the way to the 5th or 6th cataract so obviously there would have been large numbers of migrants from the South. But again, these inconvenient facts keep getting ignored in order to promote a false narrative.
quote: Some time after 1080 BCE, the Tanite Nesbanebded still had some control over Upper Egypt, Egypt split between a northern 21st Dynasty claiming national recognition reigning from Tanis, and a line of Theban generals and high priests of Amen, who actually controlled the South from Thebes. Relations between the two authorities were peaceful. The Tantes were driven from power by Libyan warriors who established their own Twenty Second Dynasty.
There was a tradition of representing the high priest as the King's representative: Herihor did not claim royal dignity. During this period they called (the) Reinaissance (whm.msw.t) Herihor and his successors Pinedjem, Masaharta and Menkheperre, with the exception of Piankh all usedthe title of High Priest of Amun as their principle title.
Of course High Priest of Amun is the high priest of the deity the said originated in Gebel Barkal, far to the South in Sudan.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: No. But older Egyptologists would even admit demographic changes were happening to where most of Egypt resembled the modern era by the New Kingdom. This meant demographic changes began long before, with a sweeping influx of immigration and NE conquest happening towards the second Millennium B.C.
But you don't have to just take my word for it:
quote:Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54
The source you posted acknowledges that prior to the birth of any of their sampled mummies, was large scale immigration that took place over a long period of time. Since this is so, continuity post-dating that immigration is rather irrelevant to proving who the AE were originally. And for that matter northern samples in general wouldn't be a great place to start.
Many of those people in the north descended primarily from immigrants and predynastic tribes that adopted southern culture. But when it comes to who made the culture, that resulted from people living deep in Southern Egypt and northern Sudan. And it'd seem these studies, and posters online that have seen unpublished data always leave open the possibility that the most significant people to the founding of Egypt are still largely unknown.
So far all I've seen is genetic data on northerners, the descendants of immigrants, and genetically drifted peoples of the Dakleh Oasis that mixed primarily with northerners and Libyans. The most quintessential people that formed Egypt however, have still not been sampled. I could imagine they had some NE mixture in the predynastic, especially after contact with the north. But somehow, I doubt their genetic profiles looked quite like Abusir in the deep south towards northern Sudan. [/QB]
That doesn't mean old kingdom egyptians were more SSA (see the quote I posted about these old kingdom profiles). You think west eurasian migrations to North Africa only started with the Hyksos ?
Anyway no data confirms the idea of an original black egyptian population :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
quote:The body shape of the terminal Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba population is tropical-adapted, with elongated limbs, especially in the distal segments, and is most similar to living sub-Saharan Africans and less similar to late Pleistocene and Holocene North Africans (including Egyptians and Nubians). The sample’s body shape likely reflects elevated gene flow up the Nile Valley from areas further south, but may also be due in part to the tropical hot conditions present at the site, even during glacial periods. The Jebel Sahaba sample are distinct in body shape from penecontemporary humans from Afalou-BouRhummel (Algeria) and El Wad Natufians from the southern Levant—a result consistent with the results of both Irish (2000, 2005) using dental data and Franciscus (1995, 2003) using nasal data.
quote:Comparisons of C-Group and Pan-Grave Nubians to Badari and Hierakonpolis separate Badari from the other samples, indicating no biological affinities with these earlier Nubian groups (Godde, 2009b). The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians with neighboring Nubian settlements.
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups. The Roman Period (AD 50–600) samples of Hawara (haw) and El Hesa (hes), but not Kharga (kha), form a loose cluster, with Hawara consistently positioned near the centroid of all three MDS plots; as above, this location suggests there was considerable affinity with the other groups. It is important to point out that Roman Period burial samples do not necessarily include actual Romans.
You're just desesperate at this point. They clearly were very different to west africans like yourself but yet you still want them to be "black" like you lmao
These upper Egyptians always looked like this :
Now stop obsessing over their race, it's their history not yours.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: What about "Western civilization" where people in various places in Western and Northern Europe imply Greece and Rome as their ancestors and copy their architecture and view their philosophy as part of their own? -when those cultures were largely forgotten until the Renaissance
Because roman and greek civilizations are at the core of western civilization
Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
quote:from a strictly genetic point of view an irish or romanian are closer to these greco-romans than a nigerian is to Egyptians or Ethiopians.
So what if they're relatively more closely related than a Nigerian and Ethiopian? A Nigerian could be more closely related to an Ethiopian or Egyptian than a South African and yet I'll bet you wouldn't be here crying your asses off it that Nigerian paid homage to South African peoples. The extent to which a people are too distant or close enough in relationship to identify with one another is arbitrary.
Who decides what's too small or too large a distance? And why is their decision valid but not another's?
They keep trying to act like race has nothing to do with it, but RACE is the social construct that is telling people these two groups are close enough to assume each other's history. Oh no, nevermind if the group of ancients in question had little to no respect for their northern ancestors. They're both white now, which means they can now be defended as close enough in relationship. No matter how these people sell it, their feelings are not objective. Many of the same people that practice this behavior or watch people do it without care get mad when certain people (often Black) do it.
...Oh. and since we're going there, I'll ask again: why is it permissible that Black Americans are constantly battling the appropriation of FBA/ADOS culture and history for the profits of white businesses? How come Blacks made jazz and rock but are not the ones primarily benefiting? With rock especially, many people around the world still think Europeans made it. They attribute the genre itself to people like the Elvis. Hate Black Americans to the core of their being while playing rock music.
I've come to notice that often times whatever Blacks create something, it often can belong to "everyone" if people like it enough. I get annoyed when I see MENA mad over Blacks wearing ankhs while permitting their own people to make it to Forbes profiting off of FBA/ADOS culture. Why are you mad at a few cherrypicked people in Egyptian garb but not the billions MENA make off our people? They actually affect our economy and livelihoods but not once has this person posting said anything. Didn't last time either.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
1st lemme get this out th way.
Ancient Egyptians were never a monolithic breeding population anytime in history. AEL texts mark nuances like Elephantine south regionals contrasted to north delta dwellers. One look at a map's enough evidence Egypt's Nile is quite easy to access from east south west or north. The nation-state was formed when Africans from the south forced delta Africans from the west and delta 'Asians' from the east & northeast to become the northern kingdom labeled Lower Egypt.
The majority or plurality group shifted in time from African and mixed to mixed and African. In the Old Kingdom era 'Libyan' or 'SW Asian' ancestry had no detrimental effect on Egyptian identity. They didn't have a pure blood concept that they applied to the populace. Ethnicity is cultural. Some ethnic groups have narrow or limited phenotype choices, not all. A nation can be represented by any of its minor or sub-ethnicities from anywhere in the country. The Abusir data can't be dismissed because unliked. That's not science. But yes, its correct and of the essence to qualify samples' provenances and known backgrounds but declaring them true or indigenous in a way the subjects never did themselves is subjective bias. None of the Abusir 3 are foreigners anymore than Keshli affinitied southern Upper Egypt citizens. It is the mixed brood, of whatever percentages of whatever far ancestral geographic origins, that rep Ancient Egypt solidly since the Ramesside New Kingdom.
=-=-=
Xyyman's Abusir 3 original ADMIXTURE run of 30 populations, mentioned earlier, detected JK2134 as overwhelming of Casamanse to Great Lakes African ancestry. Here's a redux of his self-abridged work to compare to Parabon's result.
After seeing this, ones either flat out denouncing Abusir samplings as totally Aamw biased or those touting them as absent inner African genomes display personal prejudice centricity.
I have to say Parabon's non-peer reviewed ADMIXTURE work though not proprietary, is accurately described as GIGO or EIEO Expectations In Expectations Out.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
They didn't chose anything, most of western europe was part of the roman empire and followed its culture/institutions. While such thing never happened between Egypt and the rest of Africa (except lower Nubia)
quote:Originally posted by Ase: So what if they're relatively more closely related than a Nigerian and Ethiopian? A Nigerian could be more closely related to an Ethiopian or Egyptian than a South African and yet I'll bet you wouldn't be here crying your asses off it that Nigerian paid homage to South African peoples. The extent to which a people are too distant or close enough in relationship to identify with one another is arbitrary.
Who decides what's too small or too large a distance? And why is their decision valid but not another's?
They keep trying to act like race has nothing to do with it, but RACE is the social construct that is telling people these two groups are close enough to assume each other's history. Oh no, nevermind if the group of ancients in question had little to no respect for their northern ancestors. They're both white now, which means they can now be defended as close enough in relationship. No matter how these people sell it, their feelings are not objective. Many of the same people that practice this behavior or watch people do it without care get mad when certain people (often Black) do it.
...Oh. and since we're going there, I'll ask again: why is it permissible that Black Americans are constantly battling the appropriation of FBA/ADOS culture and history for the profits of white businesses? How come Blacks made jazz and rock but are not the ones primarily benefiting? With rock especially, many people around the world still think Europeans made it. They attribute the genre itself to people like the Elvis. Hate Black Americans to the core of their being while playing rock music.
I've come to notice that often times whatever Blacks create something, it often can belong to "everyone" if people like it enough. I get annoyed when I see MENA mad over Blacks wearing ankhs while permitting their own people to make it to Forbes profiting off of FBA/ADOS culture. Why are you mad at a few cherrypicked people in Egyptian garb but not the billions MENA make off our people? They actually affect our economy and livelihoods but not once has this person posting said anything. Didn't last time either. [/QB]
Because she asked me about north and west euros who view the Greco-roman civilization as their own which makes of course much more sense than Afro-americans claiming Ancient Egypt as a "black" civilization therefore a heritage they can be proud of. People like Nigerians or Senegalese literally have nothing to do with ethiopians let alone Egyptians while we can't really say such thing if we have to compare romans/italians to let's say Germans or british people.
They literally speak indo-european languages, share common lineages + Autosomal results are very similar, shared many cultural codes : architecture in Europe was for a long time influenced by greco-roman canons same for sculpture, their law is mostly based on the roman code of law, Catholicism used latin for its liturgy, etc etc while there are zero egyptian influences in west africa whether culturally or genetically.
Stop whining with your ADOS "culture" while easily 99% of your cultural background, way of thinking, etc found their roots in western culture.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: That doesn't mean old kingdom egyptians were more SSA (see the quote I posted about these old kingdom profiles).
I never said all Old Kingdom samples would be different everywhere in Egypt. Some of that is the result of predynastic settlers (especially northern). However all peoples living in Egypt are not equal in their contribution to the development of Egyptian civilization. Your own quote admits that samples deeper south in the Old Kingdom may yield different results. A strange statement to make. Why would your source say that if their data extended that far to prove otherwise? Southern Egyptian and Northern Sudan is where the civilization formed. You can't omit the most important component of the story for immigrants, and foreign tribes forcibly assimilated. You tried that last time. It didn't work then, it won't now.
quote:Anyway no data confirms the idea of an original black egyptian population :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
quote:In addition, the predynastic sample from Badari (bad) is consistently positioned near the other two predynastic samples, particularly Hierakonpolis (hrk); early dynastic Abydos (aby) is plotted nearby. Badari and Hierakonpolis are both adjacent to the centroid in MDS space, suggesting they may be similar to many of the other diachronic samples—either through shared ancestry or a significant genetic contribution to subsequent groups.
Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
quote: You're just desesperate at this point. They clearly were very different to west africans like yourself but yet you still want them to be "black" like you lmao
The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Is there a reason why you decided to reference Irish's older works once it was made apparent to you that the paper you posted from him earlier found Ethiopian likeness? Why did you ignore the study from 2010 when the Ethiopian data was pointed out to you? Now you're hunkering down on something published 3 years prior?
Why are the modern Ethiopians (ETH) closer to the Ancient Upper Egyptians than Nubians, Lower Egyptians or the Maghreb? You said no data exists supporting what I said and then turn to older data when people pointed out from a more recent study you posted where you dun goofed.
Did you at least read the paper ? UEG is modern upper egyptians lmao and the pre-dynastic samples from hierakonpolis plot far from ethiopians so it confirms what I said about modern UEG being already close to modern ethiopians but you want us to believe they "changed" and are supposedly more "arab/levantine".
Moreover you seem to avoid this quote from their paper :
quote: To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again, without comparisons with modern samples this doesn't say much. We found for example Ethiopians to be more similar to the pooled Upper Egyptian sample than they were to Lower Egyptians of the Maghreb.
It shows continuity between the different egyptian eras despite what you previously said and as for ethiopians it's still the case today with upper egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: The one who has been shifting goalposts and making definitions for race that aren't used by many people is you. No one said all Blacks are carbon copies of one another. Nor do I have to want them to be anything. Black is how the sum of their phenotypes would be evaluated in modern times. Blacker ancients have also faced denigration and theft of their achievements because of how they look (racism). I never "wanted" that to happen but it did/is happening. Even now so called "MENA" return here insisting they don't care about race but will deny the original Egyptians were Black. Hell, now they post data showing they cluster with Ethiopians more than one another but denial denial denile. [/QB]
Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Haplogroup J and E1b1b1 carriers are foreigners?
Haplogroup J originated in Asia. As for E1b1b1, although the clade itself originated in Africa some downstream subclades like E-M34 did develop in Asia and even some subtypes of E-M78 as well where upon they could have backtracked to Egypt. Of course you've been in this forum long enough to know this lioness so quit playing dumb.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: They were not foreigners:
quote:Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated43,55, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society55. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society55.
Your ignorance of Egyptian history betrays you. You seem equate foreign presence or rule to Greco-Roman periods even though the Abusir mummies date to the time prior to that in the Late Period.
Just to help you out here is a time line of ancient Egyptian history just before the Medieval Era:
Dynastic Egyptian Era:
Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC New Kingdom 1550–1069 BC 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC Late Period 664–332 BC
Greco-Roman Era:
Argead dynasty 332–310 BC Ptolemaic dynasties 310–30 BC Roman and Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD Sasanian Egypt 619–629
What you don't understand is that foreign immigration to Middle Egypt especially in the Abusir area has been going on since at least the Middle Kingdom times.
quote:I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern Egyptians and look like them?
Not at all. The Abusir sample represents a mixture of foreigners and indigenous Egyptians and the majority of today's Egyptian populace is exactly that!
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Your ignorance of Egyptian history betrays you. You seem equate foreign presence or rule to Greco-Roman periods even though the Abusir mummies date to the time prior to that in the Late Period.
Just to help you out here is a time line of ancient Egyptian history just before the Medieval Era:
Dynastic Egyptian Era:
Early Dynastic Period 3150–2686 BC Old Kingdom 2686–2181 BC 1st Intermediate Period 2181–2055 BC Middle Kingdom 2055–1650 BC 2nd Intermediate Period 1650–1550 BC New Kingdom 1550–1069 BC 3rd Intermediate Period 1069–664 BC Late Period 664–332 BC
Greco-Roman Era:
Argead dynasty 332–310 BC Ptolemaic dynasties 310–30 BC Roman and Byzantine Egypt 30 BC–641 AD Sasanian Egypt 619–629
What you don't understand is that foreign immigration to Middle Egypt especially in the Abusir area has been going on since at least the Middle Kingdom times.
quote:I suppose it's a pure coincidence that they are genetically similar to modern Egyptians and look like them?
Not at all. The Abusir sample represents a mixture of foreigners and indigenous Egyptians and the majority of today's Egyptian populace is exactly that! [/QB]
Wait so you don't consider them indigenous or "real" egyptians because they are apparently not similar to egyptians who lived before 2000 BC ? Is that a joke ? With that kind of logic most humans are not indigenous to their region. Moreover you don't have any genetic data about old kingdom egyptians. So additional near eastern migrations during the middle/New kingdom won't tell us much about the previous profile. You also don't seem to be bothered by nubian migrations while it's also well attested.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them?? This is like saying there are no genetic differences between and ancient Aztec and a modern day Mestizo Mexican. LOL
quote:Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
Ethiopians are not blacks and are genetically closer to north africans/middle eastern people than bantus like you :
So you're one of those simpletons who cling to the fallacy of "true negro" when it comes to identifying Africans as black or not. The term 'black' is simply a descriptor of skin color with many Africans including North Africans fitting exactly that description. Using West African/Congoid/ type as "true negro" to represent blacks is like using Scandinavian Nordic types as representative of "true whites". It is a ridiculous and hypocritical argument and one that lead to the downfall of racial typology in physical anthroplogy.
As for your appeal to false authority by citing that Eritrean guy, apparently he doesn't realize that Horn Africans like him are actually closer related to West and Central Africans than they are to South African aboriginals according to the 2018 van de Loosdrecht et al. paper published by Science
This is why people like him and you need to educate yourselves more before making stupid assertions.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them??
What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5 do you consider those foreign?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What part of mixture between foreigners and indigenous populations do you not understand??! Are you saying that there is no difference between pristine indigenous Egyptians and foreigners who intermixed with them??
Old kingdom egyptians were not necessarily more "black", near eastern settlers or not. That's my point. Also These abusir mummies were genetically similar to each other throughout 6 centuries of history and are similar to modern day egyptians therefore were indigenous to Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So you're one of those simpletons who cling to the fallacy of "true negro" when it comes to identifying Africans as black or not. The term 'black' is simply a descriptor of skin color with many Africans including North Africans fitting exactly that description. Using West African/ Congoid/ type "true negro" to represent blacks is like using Scandinavian Nordic types as representative of "true whites". It is ridiculous argument.
As for your appeal to false authority by citing that Eritrean guy, apparently he doesn't realize that Horn Africans like him are actually closer related to West and Central Africans than they are to South African aboriginals according to the 2018 van de Loosdrecht et al. paper published by Science
The fallacy ? Were these genetic distances also a fallacy ? West eurasian admixture and migrations into the Horn are also fallacies ? That some ignorant europeans considered negrito or ethiopians "black" doesn't mean they described an objective reality.
And yes scandinavian nordics can be seen as true whites since they lack the IBM, natufian, iran_N, CHG and black ancestry of southern europeans.
And why do you compare this eritrean to khoisans a tiny minority of southern africa ? He's still closer to North africans and middle eastern people than bantus from Congo, Nigeria or Senegal.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: What about haplogroup R-V88 and U5, do you consider those foreign?
If the parent clades of those groups originated outside Africa then yes they are foreign. Do you consider E-M78 and N1 foreign to Europe?
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: The fallacy? Were these genetic distances also a fallacy? West eurasian admixture and migrations into the Horn are also fallacies? That some ignorant europeans considered negrito or ethiopians "black" doesn't mean they described an objective reality.
Will you stop obfuscating my argument with straw dolls? The only fallacy I was referring to is your argument of using the label 'black' as a euphemism for "true negro". Again the label 'black' is descriptive one referring to skin color. Yes Eurasian 'Negritos' and Australian Aborigines are as equally black as Ethiopians but sharing the same skin pigment does not make them all closely genetically related. Meanwhile Ethiopians and West Africans who inhabit the same continent are closer related as the PCA graph I posted show!
quote:And yes scandinavian nordics can be seen as true whites since they lack the IBM, natufian, iran_N, CHG and black ancestry of southern europeans.
LOL Okay so I take it you are a Nordicist. So all the other Europeans are somehow not 'white' then? Also, what about the ANE ancestry they share with some Siberians and Indigenous Americans? If 'true white' to you means being pristine European with no admixture non-Europeans since the Holocene, then you are hard press to find such a group my ignorant friend.
quote:And why do you compare this eritrean to khoisans a tiny minority of southern africa ? He's still closer to North africans and middle eastern people than bantus from Congo, Nigeria or Senegal.
LOL First off, your comments on the Khoisan are irrelevant. The point is that the Khoisan and Horn Africans are BOTH 'Sub-Saharan' geographically yet the genetic distance between them is great. 2nd, Eritrea is a nation inhabited by several ethnic groups one of which (the Rashaida) are immigrants from Arabia. I don't know which ethnicity that Eritrean ignoramus is part of but the van de Loosdrech et al. PCA graph shows the Eritrean Afar people as being genetically closer to West Africans than Khoisan. Also, notice how the same paper groups North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans together. Don't you think this is due to the Levant Neolithic-- Natufian & black ancestry found in all three groups which you just admitted?
You just need to accept the monumental fact that you are desperate to deny which is indigenous Africans are genetically diverse so pigeonholing them can be easy, but using one group as representative of what is "black" despite that the other groups are also "black" is ridiculous. And yes not just North Africans but Middle Easterners and Europeans have African admixture even from Sub-Sahara as well.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Yes but "westerners" chose to adopt Greek and Roman culture as the core of their civilization WELL before they had any understanding of genetics. Hell many mainstream ideas about genetics in Europe are still wrong. So why not make northwestern Europeans the core of their civilization?
They didn't chose anything, most of western europe was part of the roman empire and followed its culture/institutions.
Oh bullshit. America absorbed Native Americans and Australia has an Aboriginal population too. All have to follow the institutions to some degree. But being forced to follow those institutions doesn't mean you are compelled to establish it as the core of your civilization upon acquiring greater freedom. They CHOSE to ramp up their association with southern Europe and many years after the fall of Rome at that.
quote: While such thing never happened between Egypt and the rest of Africa (except lower Nubia)
Northern Sudan's common culture with southern Egypt predates the dynastic age. Ta Seti had it's own pharoahs before the dynastic period. Meanwhile the northern tribes didn't have a pharonic culture until it was colonized by Abydos. Do NOT compare their similarities with Egypt as a result of mere conquest. They are not the same as northwestern Europeans adopting southern European culture.
quote:[quote]...she asked me about north and west euros who view the Greco-roman civilization as their own which makes of course much more sense than Afro-americans claiming Ancient Egypt as a "black" civilization therefore a heritage they can be proud of.
Arguing that what you're talking about makes relatively more sense doesn't prove it is a sensible concept. Again WHAT objective metric decides a people are closely related "enough" to claim a culture or when they're too far? Deciding that some genetic distances that aren't directly related are "close enough" but not others is an opinion. While it's true that deciding culture by ideas of direct lineage is more objective, Greeks and Romans weren't the direct ancestors of north Western Euros.
And yet...! You guys have decided it's okay. So why are these genetic distances arbitrarily accepted as "close enough" for all of Europe to be claiming? The geopolitical unity and economic benefit race provides Europe is the only explanation. I've yet to hear another explanation for why a bunch of north western Europeans are adopting the culture of ancients that considered their ancestors to be inferior. The fall of Rome happened LONG before Western Europe's rise to prominence. They were not even a newly freed people and built their civilization around southern Europe. But of course you'll give them a pass.
Meanwhile MOST Black Diaspora Africans are claiming WESTERN AFRICA. We are not claiming heritage from Egypt. Egypt has become a symbol of what people designated with a Black appearance can achieve, but that's not the same as heritage. When most people say Black history, we're talking about the collective events of all peoples with a a phenotype labeled Black. People having a connected history do not require a common sense of heritage. Do you have the same energy for people who discuss the history of Communists because they're a diverse group of people? No? Okay then! You'd look like a fool crying over genetics whenever Chinese and Russians are discussed in a historical review of communism.
So in summary, you are CHERRYPICKING a handful of Blacks conflating ideas of heritage with a shared history of denigration to manufacture outrage. Meanwhile an entire population of Europeans get to adopt the culture of people that hated their ancestors.
quote: People like Nigerians or Senegalese literally have nothing to do with ethiopians let alone Egyptians while we can't really say such thing if we have to compare romans/italians to let's say Germans or british people.
We can't say they had no contact, but that contact involved southern Europeans considering northerners inferior or sub human. So that is fine? To adopt large sums of the culture of those that hate you, even when free to do otherwise? Generations to reconnect with your roots? You really think that's better than two groups of people that had nothing to do with each other genetically, but have a common experience of having survived something? That's...so stupid. Only modern ideas of race could justify the extent Northwestern Europe adopted Southern European culture. No one else in their right mind would willingly adopt so extensively the ways of a people who lacked respect for their ancestors.
quote:They literally speak indo-european languages, share common lineages + Autosomal results are very similar, shared many cultural codes : architecture in Europe was for a long time influenced by greco-roman canons same for sculpture, their law is mostly based on the roman code of law, Catholicism used latin for its liturgy, etc etc while there are zero egyptian influences in west africa whether culturally or genetically.
Again most of this was a choice. Western European Catholics did not need to adopt Latin but did. They did mot need to adopt southern Europe's architecture but did. Same goes for any other aspect of the southern European culture they took. These adaptations of southern Europe to "western civilization" occur after a relationship of oppression from Southern Europe. Without race there is no reason to adopt so much from them when they could've focused on northern Europe. Why does their having a similar language family make them "close enough" to do this beyond the mere opinion it does?
quote: Stop whining with your ADOS "culture" while easily 99% of your cultural background, way of thinking, etc found their roots in western culture.
Oh ho wow! Look at the shitty justification you've come with. MENA making it to Forbes change their bodies to more closely resemble Black people, take ideas with clear ties to Africa-- most particularly by attaching themselves to our music and the base it's created. Regardless of who you're attributing our culture to, it's still not YOURS. But you've no problems with MENA using it for BILLIONS in profits. Your response is not refuting the double standard of assigning yourselves to large profits from another culture while bitching over cherry picked Blacks wearing ankhs, AE clothing etc. Honestly, how many people of any race made to Forbes tattooing ankhs on a few Black guys? No one.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
What's funny but also sad is when those same Horn Africans and even the lighter skinned North Africans travel to Europe or even play soccer there, look at how they're treated and the type of names their called! Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Ase, don't waste your time and energy on the boy calling himself 'Hotep'. He is obviously an ignoramus who uses the "true black" fallacy. That's the basic flawed argument that put an end to racial typology in the first place.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Will you stop obfuscating my argument with straw dolls? The only fallacy I was referring to is your argument of using the label 'black' as a euphemism for "true negro". Again the label 'black' is descriptive one referring to skin color. Yes Eurasian 'Negritos' and Australian Aborigines are as equally black as Ethiopians but sharing the same skin pigment does not make them all closely genetically related. Meanwhile Ethiopians and West Africans who inhabit the same continent are closer related as the PCA graph I posted show!
If there is no such thing as "true negro" why are these "black" horners closer to us and many of them are also closer to europeans lmao :
Look again at your PCA graph, nobody cares about khoisans who are light skinned btw but you still consider them black...another contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Okay so I take it you are a Nordicist. So all the other Europeans are somehow not 'white' then? Also, what about the ANE ancestry they share with some Siberians and Indigenous Americans? If 'true white' to you means being pristine European with no admixture non-Europeans since the Holocene, then you are hard press to find such a group my ignorant friend.
If your definition of "white" is based on genetics then yes we're clearly confronted with a european cluster with some europeans being outside of it like south italians and aegean greeks who plot in an intermediate position between the euro cluster and the west asian one making them less "white" than scandinavians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL First off, your comments on the Khoisan are irrelevant. The point is that the Khoisan and Horn Africans are BOTH 'Sub-Saharan' geographically yet the genetic distance between them is great. 2nd, Eritrea is a nation inhabited by several ethnic groups one of which (the Rashaida) are immigrants from Arabia. I don't know which ethnicity that Eritrean ignoramus is part of but the van de Loosdrech et al. PCA graph shows the Eritrean Afar people as being genetically closer to West Africans than Khoisan. Also, notice how the same paper groups North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans together. Don't you think this is due to the Levant Neolithic-- Natufian & black ancestry found in all three groups which you just admitted?
Thanks for admitting "black" doesn't make any sense and isn't based on any objective criteria. And no it's not due to Natufian nor black ancestry wtf are you talking about ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You just need to accept the monumental fact that you are desperate to deny which is indigenous Africans are genetically diverse so pigeonholing them can be easy, but using one group as representative of what is "black" despite that the other groups are also "black" is ridiculous. And yes not just North Africans but Middle Easterners and Europeans have African admixture even from Sub-Sahara as well. [/QB]
Indeed indigenous africans are genetically diverse hence why they look so diverse. Ancient egyptians looked nothing like nigerians nor did the latter looked like ancient malagasies. You only base this on look/phenotype because at the end that's only what you can claim ...quite funny because only you do this, you'll never see an iranian claiming greek or moroccan history because of light skin only afrocentrists do this. So at the end, the only desesperate here is you, always trying to twist the results so they can fit your narrative.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny but also sad is when those same Horn Africans and even the lighter skinned North Africans travel to Europe or even play soccer there, look at how they're treated and the type of names their called! Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
Honestly, that's probably why guys like him are so insistent on distancing themselves from Blackness to begin with. They think that doing so will let them curry favor with racist White people, or at least ameliorate any racist damage they get. It's also why you have all these North African ethno-nationalists who demand to be seen as White or "Caucasoid" and want to keep their heritage as far away from Black people as possible. They think that being associated with Black people makes them more vulnerable.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Original egyptians were not "black" in the sense similar to most sub-saharan africans and let's ask this eritrean what he thinks of your "black" label :
If there really is a widespread sentiment among Horn Africans that they don't qualify as Black, surely you can find one saying so without that individual also calling West African people "apes"? This image choice alone seems like a racist insult on your part.
What kind of short cut is this ? It doesn't tell anything about me nor about my opinions. I just used it so members here understand that horners don't usually identify as "black" nor do they view west africans as their own kin.
Not my fault if most of them are racist on social media but don't start lying about me. I'm probably the least racist member rn in this place full of black supremacists. I literally fight against the usual stereotype of sub-saharans being all the same and fight against the racist views some have here about north africans.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh bullshit. America absorbed Native Americans and Australia has an Aboriginal population too. All have to follow the institutions to some degree. But being forced to follow those institutions doesn't mean you are compelled to establish it as the core of your civilization upon acquiring greater freedom. They CHOSE to ramp up their association with southern Europe and many years after the fall of Rome at that.
It is not even comparable since both native americans/aboriginals were almost exterminated and reduced to tiny communities + Englos always made sure they were isolated. Such thing never happened with Rome where italians were a minority outside Italy and actually integrated the elites of every provinces giving them the chance to participate in political life that explains why some emperors were illyrians, arab, north african, gallic, etc and this explain why even after the fall of the Empire many germanic tribes still viewed themselves as the legitimate heirs of romans. Why do you think we talk about the "Holy roman empire" ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire)
You clearly haven't read much about it.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Northern Sudan's common culture with southern Egypt predates the dynastic age. Ta Seti had it's own pharoahs before the dynastic period. Meanwhile the northern tribes didn't have a pharonic culture until it was colonized by Abydos. Do NOT compare their similarities with Egypt as a result of mere conquest. They are not the same as northwestern Europeans adopting southern European culture.
lmao now you try to make nubians the founders of ancient egypt while they literally owe most of their civilization to Egyptians and shout out to their nilo-saharan dialect btw.
Reality is that nubians have always been viewed as foreigners and eternal ennemies of Egypt along with libyans and asiatics but they didn't express such feeling with the "white" lower egyptians...
Anyway even if we have to follow your lies, it still doesn't contradict what I said since nubia isn't all of sub-saharan africa.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Arguing that what you're talking about makes relatively more sense doesn't prove it is a sensible concept. Again WHAT objective metric decides a people are closely related "enough" to claim a culture or when they're too far? Deciding that some genetic distances that aren't directly related are "close enough" but not others is an opinion. While it's true that deciding culture by ideas of direct lineage is more objective, Greeks and Romans weren't the direct ancestors of north Western Euros.
Mental gymnastic. There is no comparison stop being so desesperate with your relativism, north-west euros share way way more in common with italians than an ancient egyptian and nigerian do and I will not repeat myself again and again as to why they are.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And yet...! You guys have decided it's okay. So why are these genetic distances arbitrarily accepted as "close enough" for all of Europe to be claiming? The geopolitical unity and economic benefit race provides Europe is the only explanation. I've yet to hear another explanation for why a bunch of north western Europeans are adopting the culture of ancients that considered their ancestors to be inferior. The fall of Rome happened LONG before Western Europe's rise to prominence. They were not even a newly freed people and built their civilization around southern Europe. But of course you'll give them a pass.
Meanwhile MOST Black Diaspora Africans are claiming WESTERN AFRICA. We are not claiming heritage from Egypt. Egypt has become a symbol of what people designated with a Black appearance can achieve, but that's not the same as heritage. When most people say Black history, we're talking about the collective events of all peoples with a a phenotype labeled Black. People having a connected history do not require a common sense of heritage. Do you have the same energy for people who discuss the history of Communists because they're a diverse group of people? No? Okay then! You'd look like a fool crying over genetics whenever Chinese and Russians are discussed in a historical review of communism.
Hahaha you're attempting to depict these euros as the poor victims of roman imperialism as if they were aframs or abos while Rome literally never could conquer most of Germania and later got their asses kicked by these north euros. But they did have a consequent cultural impact on these northern euros and no it didn't only started with the Renaissance ,you're simply showing your ignorance here.
And do not lie, most black diaspora africans don't claim western africa except the very smart ones (I only met one or two like this), the rest when they care about history start claiming Egypt, the moors, ancient israelites, etc etc you're not fooling anyone here.
quote:Originally posted by Ase:
We can't say they had no contact, but that contact involved southern Europeans considering northerners inferior or sub human. So that is fine? To adopt large sums of the culture of those that hate you, even when free to do otherwise? Generations to reconnect with your roots? You really think that's better than two groups of people that had nothing to do with each other genetically, but have a common experience of having survived something? That's...so stupid. Only modern ideas of race could justify the extent Northwestern Europe adopted Southern European culture. No one else in their right mind would willingly adopt so extensively the ways of a people who lacked respect for their ancestors.
Almost all ancient civilizations described their neighbours as inferior including many african civilizations but did it prevent germans to reach the highest political and military spheres of Rome ? Did it prevent them to claim to be the legitimate successor of Rome ? No it didn't and at the end the cultural exchange is real while it's nonexistent between Egypt and west africa.
You clearly don't know anything about roman history if you think Rome was as discriminatory as for instance British in America.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again most of this was a choice. Western European Catholics did not need to adopt Latin but did. They did mot need to adopt southern Europe's architecture but did. Same goes for any other aspect of the southern European culture they took. These adaptations of southern Europe to "western civilization" occur after a relationship of oppression from Southern Europe. Without race there is no reason to adopt so much from them when they could've focused on northern Europe. Why does their having a similar language family make them "close enough" to do this beyond the mere opinion it does?
A culture of oppression ?? This is embarassing at this point SMH
Rome always assimilated the nations she conquered and certainly not by "oppression", she had foreign senators/emperors/soldiers, gave citizenship to many foreigners especially after the edict of Caracalla, always respected the gods of foreign nations and even borrowed some cults like the mithra one, etc
My initial point was that they share more in common with italians than west africans do with egyptians that it was by "choice" or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Oh ho wow! Look at the shitty justification you've come with. MENA making it to Forbes change their bodies to more closely resemble Black people, take ideas with clear ties to Africa-- most particularly by attaching themselves to our music and the base it's created. Regardless of who you're attributing our culture to, it's still not YOURS. But you've no problems with MENA using it for BILLIONS in profits. Your response is not refuting the double standard of assigning yourselves to large profits from another culture while bitching over cherry picked Blacks wearing ankhs, AE clothing etc. Honestly, how many people of any race made to Forbes tattooing ankhs on a few Black guys? No one. [/QB]
Which MENA ? DJ khaled XD yes I forget we all want to make billions and be gangbangers. You literally profit everything from western culture and yet dare to complain about them or MENA doing some rap songs lmao
Without european instruments, technology, medias, fashion, wigs, etc there would be no ADOS "culture" ...it's more of a syncretic "culture" but certainly not a real and unique culture like the ancient egyptian one that your people like to adopt the symbology.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Trust me, that Eritrean dude will be no less of an ape in the eyes of the racist Euros.
Printer-friendly view of this topic