Indeed it was whites who started the narrative. Blacks just followed suit. But note that this theory of African origins was based solely on facial features.
Gee, this sounds awfully familiar...
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
You are right.
In Mexico Black people have been recognized as a group, only a few years ago.
José Vasconcelos - the Cosmic Race / La raza cosmica (Race in the Americas) is very telling.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It sounds a lot like the theory that Egyptians were white/caucasoids based on their facial features.
It comes to show you can't judge a peoples' ancestry by their features alone.
funny because you acknowledge the fact they were craniometrically distinct from 90% of Sub-saharan africa, you don't have their genetic results except the abusir samples and two samples found in lebanon and yet you imply they were "black". May I ask you based on what are you claiming this ?
Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get. [/QB]
I actually totally get it but it still doesn't mean we should accept those fancy claims as factual. We're looking for the truth not something to appease our mental suffering.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, some claim that their ancestors always been in America, others claim that Africans (Egyptians, Nubians, West Africans) came to the Americas in precolumbian times and built civilisations like the Olmec, the Maya, Aztec, Moundbuilder, Inca and so on. There are some different versions. I have followed some of the discussions about this for a couple of years now and I heard the most hilarious statements, whereof some are promoted rather aggressively.
Indeed some, some online. As if that is significant. You need to seek a hobby, other than this. There's people who claim they came from other space as well.
Most of these people in these spaces do not even show their face. You are obsessed with stupidity.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I can later make a list of some books and videos where such claims are promoted.
Anyone can write and publish a book. That's not special. smh
Start making a list of the billions of dollars being stolen from the actual Native Americans, by these pretentdians.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So enough many make the claims for it to be considered as a nuisance by some Native Americans, they feel that they already lost so much after 500 years of genocide and land theft and now some people also try to steal their history. Maybe you can not understand their frustration since you prefer to excuse black people because they have had traumatic experiences in the past. But guess what, so have Native Americans.
I have not heard Native Americans say this about Black Americas. But I can show you frustrated Native Americans over 5 dollar pretendians, who steal billions of dollars annually. I can understand how traumatic that has to be. They have stolen this identity for over 100 years.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I have no number on exactly how many black Americans who reject the historical distortions or how many promotes it, especially in public, I do not know if anyone have made some research about it yet.
So basically you don't know nothing about Black Americans.
For someone to be concerned as you claim that is a very odd answer. Especially because you have claimed to have communicated with Native Americans about their conditions.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: But they are still grown up people, and it is no excuse for trying to appropriate another peoples history, or try to take credit for their achievements. It is no excuse for spreading false information and pure lies in books, articles, on social media or in other ways, or trying to infiltrate schools with the nonsense. It is no excuse for poaching on a smaller, also traumatized minorities cultural heritage.
You don't no nothing about Black Americans and American history, the American curriculum and school text books. You are talking out of your nasty behind, that's all!
What these people are saying is that there was Native Americans who had dark skin like in the images I have shown. They claim to have mixed with them and have both ancestries. Others are all out and say they're not from Africa at all. Most of these people are scared to do a DNA test. So I don't take them serious at all. It's rather comical.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You seem to have difficulties in understanding what I write. You talk about the white pretendians, and it is a problem. And some Black groups wanting to distort Native American history is another problem.
I talk about white pretendians because the steal billions of dollars.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And that some of those African Americans want to sneak such narratives into school curricula is another problem.
Do you even know who writes the school text book curriculums? lol smh
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And I do not talk about mixed people, it is a well known fact that Native Americans and Black people have mixed for centuries. I talk about those who claim that Blacks (Africans, or "original" black people) built the ancient Native American cultures in precolumbian times, or those who say that Native Americans are recently arrived, Siberian or mongolian Invaders. Some even claim that most Native Americans descend from Asians who were imported by the whites to replace the original black peoples, so they (the black people) could be used as slaves. There are many fringe ideas out there, and some Native Americans take offense about some of those ideas.
These Native American African mixed people became instrumental in American history and why some Black Americans claim part of this identity.
Most Black Americans do not even claim anything about the pre-Columbian era, or other weird conspiracy stuff. You are delusional. It's only a few people online who say these things. It's a nothing burger!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is maybe 1% of Black Americans who claim such a thing, but they are rather active spreading their messages. Especially on social media, but also through books. I even seen examples of childrens books where those kinds of messages are spread.
Really? What is active to you? On social media? ok. smh
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You always come back to the 5 dollar Indians. They are a problem, but those blacks who want to distort Native history is also considered a problem. There are Native Americans that are afraid that those ideas will spread, infiltrate the school system, or vorse influence politicians, which could have an impact on Native life (concerning land rights and similar). Maybe some of the worries are exaggerated, but Native Americans have been badly treated through history so some of them gets very supicious when other groups starts to talk about that they (the Natives) are not the original Americans, and that Black people have more right to their land.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I did not write Haslip Vieras book. I did not make the podcast. If you don´t like their vocabulary I suppose you can take it up with them.
When and where did I say you do and did?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I do not know if you listened to the podcast, it is interesting and it explains some of the problems with historical distortions.
Yes, I do listen to podcasts. But only productive stuff such as IT, actual historians etc, not some pseudo intellectuals.
There's all types of conspiracy theorist, All over the world. I am not going to spend time listen to that.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One can also add that some of the worst fringe types now and then post stuff that upset Native Americans more than usual, and native Americans have even received threats online and sometimes in telephone. Seems the fringe movement attract one or another not so stable person. Here is just an example of how toxic some of them can be. I have seen worse. Some of it is probably trolling, but it still upsets, and it is rather consistent. If you had followed these discussions some time you would see some examples of rather bad behaviour.
Are you talking about the dawes rolls 5 dollar indian white pretendians?
Bobby Hemmitt has not been on social media as an active known member for over 10 years. Please stop it!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Fortunately some people trying to refute some of the crazy claims. Also African Americans like this young man:
Here is one Facebook page created by a Native American which adresses the Black Olmec myth. In some way the Olmecs has come to be a kind of symbol for much of the claims and speculations that are promoted in books,articles, pods, videos and social media, and sometimes even in school curricula.
One can add that it sometimes seems like everyone wants a piece of the Native American cake, since so many claim that their ancestors (or some other preferred group) visited the Americas in precolumbian times, teaching the Natives all kinds of cultural traits, like writing or building pyramids.
I already addressed this, but for some reason you are slow and do not understand that it was WHITES who started this narrative. What you do is called a circular argument. You've created your own argument and keep posting sources to emphasize this argument. It leads to nowhere, because Black Americans didn't start this.
No normal functioning Black Americans are taking these people serious. This tells something about you as well. lol
Indians Exposed123: "#SisterBethy Year in Review Ep8, #SisterBethy still showing fake ancestry HAPPY NEW YEAR #2022"
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is not only Black people who make speculations about other peoples predating Native Americas, which the debates about the Solutrean hypothesis or the Kennewick man show. Some white fringe groups have used such speculations to claim that whites were first in the Americas.
Even if the problem with fringe groups trying to enchroach on Native American history is not a big problem for you (or many others who do not care about such issues), it still is a problem for some Natives. They see it as just another way for other groups to further marginalize them.
It is also funny that some Black pople get upset if non blacks claim the Egyptians where light skinned, or react negatively if someone claim that North Africans always been light skinned. One can even see such discussions here on ES.
At least Native Americans live in the land where some of the fakery is produced, while most black Americans do not live in Egypt, and many have perhaps not even visited Egypt or know any Egyptians.
For you the Black fringe groups that claim Native American history in different ways are perhaps not a problem, but for some Native Americans it is. And in the end it is what matters.
There always have been people who speculate over historical events. This is nothing new and will always exists.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
I actually totally get it but it still doesn't mean we should accept those fancy claims as factual. We're looking for the truth not something to appease our mental suffering.
You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc. This is why you come with these superimposed arguments when it comes to Black Americans.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc. [/QB]
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Yes, that's the entire point. And that is what makes the claim with these white 5 dollar pretendians so obscure. It's a money grab scam.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Why can't you just get rid of your racist and simplistic black/white labels ? Both europeans and west africans have nothing to do with native americans. Let these people in peace you literally harass 3/4 of the planet because of your complexes and lack of identity.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should they leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
quote:Enslaved Labor and the Construction of the U.S. Capitol
“Would it be superstitious to presume, that the Sovereign Father of all nations, permitted the perpetration of this apparently execrable transaction, as a fiery, though salutary signal of his displeasure at the conduct of his Columbian children, in erecting and idolizing this… temple of freedom, and at the same time oppressing with the yoke of captivity and toilsome bondage, twelve or fifteen hundred thousand of their African brethren…making merchandize of their blood, and dragging their bodies with iron chains, even under its towering walls?” -Jesse Torrey, 1815
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should to leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
I think we both agree that studying the history and cultures of West Africa would make more sense for them than obsessing over Egypt or the Near East. And yes afro-americans can rightfully feels american but still they don't have to claim 3/4 of civilizations on this planet. They descend from west african slaves and also have around 20% of west european ancestry that's it. They are not native americans, moors, egyptians, numidians, carthaginians, israelites, indians, mesopotamians, persians, phoenicians, etruscans, etc
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What's funny is Native being dark skin means the offspring should be closer to the people at the bottom of the second pic or closer to the little girl,with the biggest visible difference being the form of the head so it's disturbing when some Black who look more African are dismissed as being Native.
Why can't you just get rid of your racist and simplistic black/white labels ? Both europeans and west africans have nothing to do with native americans. Let these people in peace you literally harass 3/4 of the planet because of your complexes and lack of identity.
Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
quote:“When the immigrant from Eastern Europe meets the Negro in New York,” Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois told us, “he is curious. He has never before seen a colored man; he therefore gazes at him as something new and novel. In his next step, through the process of Americanization, the immigrant will be told to avoid the Negroes, not to have any dealings with them, etc., etc. and later the final step, he will unconsciously begin to absorb the current prejudices against Negroes.” […]
The Martyrdom Of The Negro
“But before the immigrant goes any further, he should be stopped and warned. The millions of Negroes in America represent the exploited and persecuted group, just as these wanderers from Russia and Poland and Romania represent that of their countries. And the persecuted group gets little chance to be understood by the foreigner. The press, society, all the domineering forces of the state are against it” — and for the first time in our conversation the Doctor’s brown eyes flamed up.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You don't get it that's the problem. When people have no reference to an identity they seek for things that look like what possible be their identity.
Black Americans didnt cause this confusion, it was "white Americans".
You don't understand half of the story and what happened in American history with the census reports etc.
They should then naturally look at the land of their west african ancestors instead of appropriating the history of unrelated populations in order for them to feel better about themselves.
What land in West Africa dummy? And why should to leave a land they've been at for over 400 years. A country they set the foundation for and built.
Not only are you a simple mind, you are also a dumbass!
I think we both agree that studying the history and cultures of West Africa would make more sense for them than obsessing over Egypt or the Near East.
And yes afro-americans can rightfully feels american but still they don't have to claim 3/4 of civilizations on this planet. They descend from west african slaves and also have around 20% of west european ancestry that's it. They are not native americans, moors, egyptians, numidians, carthaginians, israelites, indians, mesopotamians, persians, phoenicians, etruscans, etc
You keep arguing this circular babble.
The average Black American has no time for any of this stuff you are talking about. And the people who make these claims are flute minor group.
You create your own algorithm that's the issue you have.
And people can study whatever they want. Whites do it all the time all over the globe! If some Black Americans want to study the near East and Northeast Africa they have that right. You are not going to police Black people on what Black people can or cannot study and say! And you have no idea if Black Americans don't study West African history. You just say anything hoping it will stick on the wall.
Dr. Cassandra Newby-Alexander, The Carter G. Woodson Lecture Series:
There's hundreds of festivals like the above, you ignoramus. smh
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations"
(fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
"Egypt, Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%" (Verena J. Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods)
“E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.” (Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim, Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History)
"E-V22 is mainly an eastern African sub-haplogroup, with frequencies of more than 80% in the Saho population from Eritrea, but it has also been reported in Egypt and Morocco" (Fulvio Cruciani, The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages)
"Saho, Eritrea (N=94) E-V22: score = 88.3% Turkana, Kenya (N=6) E-V22: score = 33.3% Gurage, Ethiopia (N=7) E-V22: score = 28.6%" (Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms)
"Gishimangeda Cave mt-DNA - HV1b1 y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22 Jawuoyo Rockshelter mt-DNA - L4b2a2c y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22" (Mary E. Prendergast, Ancient DNA Reveals a Multi-Step Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't no nothing about Black Americans and American history, the American curriculum and school text books. You are talking out of your nasty behind, that's all! What these people are saying is that there was Native Americans who had dark skin like in the images I have shown. They claim to have mixed with them and have both ancestries. Others are all out and say they're not from Africa at all. Most of these people are scared to do a DNA test. So I don't take them serious at all. It's rather comical.
Well, I am no expert on Black Americans but I do not think they are children that are not responsible for what they say or do. If some are behaving in weird ways it is no more than right to pay attention to it, and debate them.
And I do not have to be an expert on American school curricula to understand that some Native Americans actually are worried that these ideas shall spread into the schools and maybe be taught, at least by some schools.It is their worry. You may not worry about it, but what is relevant is what they feel
And you do not seem to know much about Native Americans either or what they think about those who try to steal their cultural legacy. Seems you never talked with any Native Americans about these things.
It is not a matter about what you think about the peoples who claim that Blacks where there first, it is irrelevat what you think in this matter. The important is what Native Americans think. I talked with enough many who think it is a problem, and that is whats counts not what you think.
quote: Yes, I do listen to podcasts. But only productive stuff such as IT, actual historians etc, not some pseudo intellectuals. There's all types of conspiracy theorist, All over the world. I am not going to spend time listen to that.
Those who made the podcasts are actual schoolars, if you lsiten to the podcast you can see that one is an archaeologist and one is a historian. I think they know much more about these matters than you. If you listen on their podcast you might actually learn one or another thing.
quote:Bobby Hemmitt has not been on social media as an active known member for over 10 years. Please stop it!
As I said this is just one example of these crazy postings. And there are still groups which wear his name and which are dedicated to him on social media. I had interactions with some of the fringe types on groups with his name within the last two years. Most of the crazy stuff I seen are from the last years until now. Ten years ago I was not active concerning these issues. And the threats against Native Americans that I have been told about from Native Americans directly, in direct communication, was also made recently, not ten years ago..
Bobby Hemmitt, group on Facebook, latest post 20 minutes ago
quote: I already addressed this, but for some reason you are slow and do not understand that it was WHITES who started this narrative. What you do is called a circular argument. You've created your own argument and keep posting sources to emphasize this argument. It leads to nowhere, because Black Americans didn't start this.
It is totally irrelevant if whites started it. If some Blacks mimic these ideas it is on those Blacks. They could study and read literature about real history, both Native American history and their own factual history. To blame everything on the white man is disingenuous. Grown up people ought to be able to take responsibility for their own actions. One can not blame everything on the whites
quote: No normal functioning Black Americans are taking these people serious. This tells something about you as well. lol
Well, actually some Native Americans are actually being worried about the propaganda and lies those people spreads. That is what counts. If they feel that their culture is under attack we ought to respect their feelings and worries.
The phenomena obviously have existed for a while. Also academics of non Native and even African American background have reacted, already many years ago. They are not flimsy conspiracy theorists.
Gabriel Haslip Viera is an academic, not a conspiracy theorist. He wrote a whole book about the subject. I am sure he knows more about the impact of the false narrative on Native Americans than you do.
Already many years ago he wrote about these issues together with people like Bernard Ortiz de Montellano and Warren Barbour (African American archaeologist with precolumbian native culture as his field of study). Obviously they already at that time found the pseodo historic narrative about the alleged Black African Olmecs (and other alleged precolumbian cultures) troublesome.
And if you seriously are worried about the light skinned pretendians you always mention, you can start threads about them and discuss them on social media or other platforms.
Some words from a Native American
quote: Some say they don’t take these Afrocentric claims and activities serious, that they are akin to “Ancient Alien” fanatics. However, unlike Ancient Alien type fanatics, the Afrocentrics who hold these supremacist beliefs work with us in our social justice movements and education circles. Even our own Brown / so-called “Latinx” and Native people propagate this misinformation or are reluctant to confront it at the risk being called racist or “anti-black.” Many influential “conscious” music artists also espouse these false notions in their music.
If our Native youth were not struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide, which is directly tied to their history and identity then perhaps this Afrocentrism misinformation wave would not merit much concern. However, that is not the position we find ourselves in. The social struggles of Black & Brown/Native people overlap in almost all areas. To ignore this abuse of our ancestors’ legacy and not give it the proper attendance it deserves is to gamble with not only our Indigenous culture reclamation, community justice, and unity goals but that of of our Black African relatives as well. I don’t have all the answers but I do know it can and needs to be resolved in a firm but loving way.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
They are not mutually exclusive you can be a black american with west african roots. 400 years is a short period of time historically and there is no reason to stop at this your history goes back thousands of years.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You keep arguing this circular babble.
The average Black Americans has no time for any of this stuff you are talking about. And the people who make these claims are flute minor group.
You create your own algorithm that's the issue you have.
And people can study whatever they want. Whites do it all the time all over the globe! If some Black Americans want to study the near East and Northeast Africa they have that right. You are not going to police Black people on what Black people can or cannot study and say! And you have no idea if Black Americans don't study West African history. You just say anything hoping it will stick on the wall.
That's simply false most AAs are into afrocentrism and even the ones who aren't interested in history think ancient egyptians are their ancestors and were black. In all my life I've only seen a few serious and smart black individuals who weren't into this madness.
Yes you can study whatever you want but stop being such a hypocrite they don't do it simply for the sake of curiosity like most "whites" do.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote: “African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations"
(fig. S6B).
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
"Egypt, Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%" (Verena J. Schuenemann et al., Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods)
“E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.” (Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim, Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History)
"E-V22 is mainly an eastern African sub-haplogroup, with frequencies of more than 80% in the Saho population from Eritrea, but it has also been reported in Egypt and Morocco" (Fulvio Cruciani, The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages)
"Saho, Eritrea (N=94) E-V22: score = 88.3% Turkana, Kenya (N=6) E-V22: score = 33.3% Gurage, Ethiopia (N=7) E-V22: score = 28.6%" (Trombetta et al., A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms)
"Gishimangeda Cave mt-DNA - HV1b1 y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22 Jawuoyo Rockshelter mt-DNA - L4b2a2c y-DNA - E1b1b1a1b2; E-V22" (Mary E. Prendergast, Ancient DNA Reveals a Multi-Step Spread of the First Herders into Sub-Saharan Africa)
See ? That's another of your pathetic attempt at trying to find any small detail that can make you cling on those populations. You're clearly desesperate and try to find commonalities between you and distant populations you wish would "accept" you. Have some pride ffs
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: funny because you acknowledge the fact they were craniometrically distinct from 90% of Sub-saharan Africa,..
When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
quote:you don't have their genetic results except the abusir samples and two samples found in lebanon and yet you imply they were "black". May I ask you based on what are you claiming this?
The Late Period Abusir samples from an area of Egypt known to have immigrant communities are far from accepted as being typical of indigenous Egyptians. That Egyptians are black is based on melanin dosages likening them to Sub-Saharans in terms of complexion. Not to mention again certain cranial traits traits as well body skeletal structure, HLA, HBS, paternal lineages and maternal lineages. What else is there? LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black people's (particularly in America) history, culture and identify was marginalized and destroyed. So in the end Black American who believe this can't be blamed. This is the part you don't get.
Ish, Antalass is just mad because the fallacy of "racial features" is busting his false claims! If features on ancient Indigenous Americans like broad noses and broad lips does not make them "negroid" then what are we to make of "caucasoid" features on Africans both North Africans and Southern Africans on the opposite pole of the continent? He is bankrupt.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
Sorry to contradict you here, but where did you read that AE group with stereotypically "sub-Saharan" (i.e. West or Central African) populations in nonmetric analyses? The Hanihara papers made it look like they and Kushites grouped with Europeans rather than SSA. Now, I personally don't interpret those results as showing that Egypto-Nubian populations were necessarily "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" (I don't think I need to go into how I personally interpret such results), but it wouldn't be right to say they grouped with West/Central African populations instead.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, I am no expert on Black Americans but I do not think they are children that are not responsible for what they say or do. If some are behaving in weird ways it is no more than right to pay attention to it, and debate them.
Of course you are no expert on Black America, that's obvious. Otherwise you would not hav said such much utter nonsense as you do. This has nothing to do with children and a child like mindset, this has to do with the detriment of a people for 400 years. It's something you can't grasp because you lack not only the IQ, but also the EQ (emotional intelligence).
You seem not to grasp that Black Americans historical lineage has been removed from what was before 400 years prior. So what they reconstruct is based on their surroundings. This is why some claim to be from America only, especially when their census from shows some Native American ancestor.
Black Americans didn't make it this complicated it was the racist American government. Can you grasp that? Yes, or no?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And I do not have to be an expert on American school curricula to understand that some Native Americans actually are worried that these ideas shall spread into the schools and maybe be taught, at least by some schools.It is their worry. You may not worry about it, but what is relevant is what they feel
Of course you have no knowledge on this, as you are just talking out of your ass.
Perhaps you should start with this?
quote: Pequot War, war fought in 1636–37 by the Pequot people against a coalition of English settlers from the Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Saybrook colonies and their Native American allies (including the Narragansett and Mohegan) that eliminated the Pequot as an impediment to English colonization of southern New England. It was an especially brutal war and the first sustained conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in northeastern North America.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And you do not seem to know much about Native Americans either or what they think about those who try to steal their cultural legacy. Seems you never talked with any Native Americans about these things.
I do know that the 5 dollar white predentians steal billions of dollars. All throughout this thread and other I have shown my concerns. So I have no idea what you are talking about with these false allegations
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It is not a matter about what you think about the peoples who claim that Blacks where there first, it is irrelevat what you think in this matter. The important is what Native Americans think. I talked with enough many who think it is a problem, and that is whats counts not what you think.
Can you tell me how many tribes and which tribes have been annihilated and what the population size was of this massacre? Black Americans who claim these things say they are the descendants of these people. Can you prove them wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Those who made the podcasts are actual schoolars, if you lsiten to the podcast you can see that one is an archaeologist and one is a historian. I think they know much more about these matters than you. If you listen on their podcast you might actually learn one or another thing.
Give me a list of these people and the reputable degrees they have, and the fields they are in.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: As I said this is just one example of these crazy postings. And there are still groups which wear his name and which are dedicated to him on social media. I had interactions with some of the fringe types on groups with his name within the last two years. Most of the crazy stuff I seen are from the last years until now. Ten years ago I was not active concerning these issues. And the threats against Native Americans that I have been told about from Native Americans directly, in direct communication, was also made recently, not ten years ago..
Bobby Hemmitt, group on Facebook, latest post 20 minutes ago
Bobby Hemmit- group on Facebook .
Inserting, is Boddy making a comeback, is this the real Bobby or a trope?
But are these Black people wrong about the Dawes Rolls? It appears you don't understand how complex and complicated it has become with these governmental scams and massacres.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Well, actually some Native Americans are actually being worried about the propaganda and lies those people spreads. That is what counts. If they feel that their culture is under attack we ought to respect their feelings and worries.
The phenomena obviously have existed for a while. Also academics of non Native and even African American background have reacted, already many years ago. They are not flimsy conspiracy theorists.
Gabriel Haslip Viera is an academic, not a conspiracy theorist. He wrote a whole book about the subject. I am sure he knows more about the impact of the false narrative on Native Americans than you do.
Already many years ago he wrote about these issues together with people like Bernard Ortiz de Montellano and Warren Barbour (African American archaeologist with precolumbian native culture as his field of study). Obviously they already at that time found the pseodo historic narrative about the alleged Black African Olmecs (and other alleged precolumbian cultures) troublesome.
What part of IT WAS WHITE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano was of age to start an intellectual discourse with Carlos Cuervo Marqueze (1920), Carlo Marquez (1956, 179-80), Dr. Wiercinski (1972), Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975), Pailles (1980), Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980), Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989), Diehl and Coe (1995), Poe (1997).
Van Sertima merely collected the data put forward by those who did primary work, but somehow Dr. Ivan Van Sertima is the problem?
You don't know how to analyze and put things in proper context.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: And if you seriously are worried about the light skinned pretendians you always mention, you can start threads about them and discuss them on social media or other platforms.
Ok cool, but who made these? Was it Black Americans? I ask so, to understand the correlation to the 5 dollar pretendians.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Some words from a Native American
quote: Some say they don’t take these Afrocentric claims and activities serious, that they are akin to “Ancient Alien” fanatics. However, unlike Ancient Alien type fanatics, the Afrocentrics who hold these supremacist beliefs work with us in our social justice movements and education circles. Even our own Brown / so-called “Latinx” and Native people propagate this misinformation or are reluctant to confront it at the risk being called racist or “anti-black.” Many influential “conscious” music artists also espouse these false notions in their music.
If our Native youth were not struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide, which is directly tied to their history and identity then perhaps this Afrocentrism misinformation wave would not merit much concern. However, that is not the position we find ourselves in. The social struggles of Black & Brown/Native people overlap in almost all areas. To ignore this abuse of our ancestors’ legacy and not give it the proper attendance it deserves is to gamble with not only our Indigenous culture reclamation, community justice, and unity goals but that of of our Black African relatives as well.
I don’t have all the answers but I do know it can and needs to be resolved in a firm but loving way.
Who is the author of this master piece. Show me the author of this master piece. Thanks in advance.
Ps. The author stated to have no idea to resolve the problems. Well, I do. Start with the 5 dollar pretendians, that will solve the core issues of Native Americas struggling with violence, drug addiction, and suicide All those billions should be relocated / located to the proper people. And these 5 dollar pretendians need to pay back all they have stolen included the inserts rate.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: You seem to have a problem seeing these matters being debated and paid attention to.
Why is it when the school curriculum IQ test asked who founded America, the correct answer was Columbus?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Black Americans aren't West Africans, Black Americans are Black Americans. They've been so for over 400 years. America is where their history is at. And it was whites who created these labels, not Black Americans. Having West Africans ancestry and being a West African are two different things. Black Americans have Black American culture.
They are not mutually exclusive you can be a black american with west african roots. 400 years is a short period of time historically and there is no reason to stop at this your history goes back thousands of years.
Hmm 400 years of massacres and systemic detachment from "who you are as a people" (names taken away, culture and language, humans dignity etc taken away) is a long time. You have no concept of time. As I said, having roots is not the same as being West African. Black Americans recreated their own culture in American over the course of 400 years. They are and became their own unique group of people, with a new identity. A Black American identity, history and culture in America.
As always you are simply uttering, like a half-wit.
quote:The Ugly, Fascinating History Of The Word 'Racism'
The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Pratt was railing against the evils of racial segregation.
Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's simply false most AAs are into afrocentrism and even the ones who aren't interested in history think ancient egyptians are their ancestors and were black. In all my life I've only seen a few serious and smart black individuals who weren't into this madness.
Yes you can study whatever you want but stop being such a hypocrite they don't do it simply for the sake of curiosity like most "whites" do.
Afrocentrism is the curriculum called Africana. Tell me what the Africana curriculum looks like, from an academic stand point. Tell me and show me all the steps.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: See ? That's another of your pathetic attempt at trying to find any small detail that can make you cling on those populations.
What was pathetic about it?
Explain this …
This image shows of how the ancient egyptians depicted themselves:
And this….?
quote:“Ancient finds in the Western Desert of Egypt at Gebel Ramlah circa 5,000 BC show culture closely linked with indigenous tropical Africans of both the Saharan and sub-Saharan regions, not Europe or the Middle East. Dental studies put the inhabitants of Gebel Ramlah, closest to indigenous tropical African populations.”
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:"In the Rayayna Desert we have evidence of ossuary burials, and similar interrments are also known from Gebel Ramlah (between Nabta Playa and the southern Sinn el-Kiddab).28 The burial practices at Nuq‘ Maneih contribute to our suspicions — aroused by our work at Rayayna — that the desert communities along the Darb Gallaba/Darb Bitân route disinterred those who had died during preceding years’ treks, and brought the skeletized and dismembered bodies to major centers for burial. The practice of ossuary burial connects the Rayayna, Nabta, and Nuq‘ Maneih groups.”
quote: “The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. […] Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
quote:“The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)”
(Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni, Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan)
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[…]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography"
(Kathryn A. Bard, Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology (2015))
quote: NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
(Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014, Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism EJHGOpen)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You're clearly desesperate and try to find commonalities between you and distant populations you wish would "accept" you.
When I was in Egypt they considered me to come back home to visit my family. I mean like in a biological family.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Have some pride ffs
Where did I say I have no "pride"?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: When and where?? You have a horrible habit of claiming I said things I never did. I've always maintained that Egyptians as North Africans are no more distinct in certain features from Sub-Saharans as they were to Eurasians. Which is why metrically they are intermediate between the two. Nonmetrically however, they group entirely with Sub-Saharans.
The Late Period Abusir samples from an area of Egypt known to have immigrant communities are far from accepted as being typical of indigenous Egyptians. That Egyptians are black is based on melanin dosages likening them to Sub-Saharans in terms of complexion. Not to mention again certain cranial traits traits as well body skeletal structure, HLA, HBS, paternal lineages and maternal lineages. What else is there? LOL [/QB]
This is simply a lie they don't group entirely with sub-saharans especially not negroid groups and they aren't intermediate only a small set of the population far back in time might have been "intermediate".
There is no reason to believe the abusir samples are foreigners since there is no such indication when it comes to their burial context and because they are from different time periods as highlighted by the authors :
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.
You can say they were not representative of all egyptians which would make sense but there is no reason to believe they were foreigners especially that the closest modern population to them are copts and they also cluster with 2 other egyptian samples found in Lebanon. I suppose these are all coincidences ? Also how come the 90 mtDNAs of this paper show less SSA mtDNAs than what we find in modern day Egypt ? 90 foreigners too ? LOL
melanin dosage ? Based on what ? 1 sample from upper egypt a place where even today their skin tone match with what exist in SSA ? Also you're quick to label the abusir samples as foreigners but strangely this sample is surely indigenous ? Why not a nubian ?
Can you provide the paper on any HLA study done on AEs ? Anyway all of what you wrote do not make them black since they are found in modern north africans and even non african population. For example you have more SSA lineages among modern north africans than in the past yet you never called them black.
So we conclude that you have no consistent data that supports the idea of ancient egyptians being "black".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Hmm 400 years of massacres and systemic detachment from "who you are as a people" (names taken away, culture and language, humans dignity etc taken away) is a long time. You have no concept of time. As I said, having roots is not the same as being West African. Black Americans recreated their own culture in American over the course of 400 years. They are and became their own unique group of people, with a new identity. A Black American identity, history and culture in America.
As always you are simply uttering, like a half-wit.
Funny how now you try to reject your west african roots and then proceed to obsess over african civilization such as egypt, Morocco, etc Seems like you despise anything related to west africa.
No matter what your culture or identity is, most of your ancestors lived for thousands of years in west Africa and that's why you look closer to them than any other population that's it stop being a self hater like that.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: Afrocentrism is the curriculum called Africana. Tell me what the Africana curriculum looks like, from an academic stand point. Tell me and show me all the steps. [/QB]
Africana is a bs term created by afrocentrists to make their racist supremacist ideology sounds less politically motivated.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Funny how now you try to reject your west african roots and then proceed to obsess over african civilization such as egypt, Morocco, etc Seems like you despise anything related to west africa.
More half ass wit assumptions. Tell, what do you know about me?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: There is no reason to believe the abusir samples are foreigners since there is no such indication when it comes to their burial context and because they are from different time periods as highlighted by the authors :
Where did I say the Abusir settlement are or aren't foreigners?
All I did was show a genetic connection, and this has your panties in a bunch?
quote:“Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined”
(Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You can say they were not representative of all egyptians which would make sense but there is no reason to believe they were foreigners especially that the closest modern population to them are copts and they also cluster with 2 other egyptian samples found in Lebanon. I suppose these are all coincidences ? Also how come the 90 mtDNAs of this paper show less SSA mtDNAs than what we find in modern day Egypt ? 90 foreigners too ? LOL
In fact we've always have advocated that these haplo groups have origin in Africa . So I have no idea what you are uttering here.
quote:
Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: melanin dosage ? Based on what ? 1 sample from upper egypt a place where even today their skin tone match with what exist in SSA ? Also you're quick to label the abusir samples as foreigners but strangely this sample is surely indigenous ? Why not a nubian ?
What are you talking about?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So we conclude that you have no consistent data that supports the idea of ancient egyptians being "black"..
The social and ritual contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom Tassie, G.J.; (2009) The social and ritual contextualisation of Ancient Egyptian hair and hairstyles from the Protodynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom. Doctoral thesis , UCL (University College London).
posted
One can always discuss how serious of an issue it is, but obviously there are Native Americans, but also African Americans, whites and Latinos who think it is worth discussing and who write books and articles, or post on social media to refute the claims made by fringe groups who claim that the precolumbian American cultures were created by black/African people. Obviously those who adress these questions think they are important enough to spend some time on.
Do you know the exact number of African Americans who claims that Black peoples were in the Americas in precolumbian times? Do you know the exact numbers of African Americans that try to refute those ideas? Do you know the exact number of Native Americans who actively, on social media or in other ways try to refute those notions? I suppose you do not know. That is why you can not say that the matter is without importance. It becomes just an opinion. But if there are people that find it worthwile to adress these questions it means that it is important for them. And if some Native Americans worry about that others in different ways ty to distort their history, it is worth discussing.
quote: Of course you are no expert on Black America, that's obvious. Otherwise you would not hav said such much utter nonsense as you do. This has nothing to do with children and a child like mindset, this has to do with the detriment of a people for 400 years. It's something you can't grasp because you lack not only the IQ, but also the EQ (emotional intelligence).
Here we go with the personal insults. Not very mature behavior. You seem to get worked up about these issues. Still you seem not to be able to grasp that some Native Americans can get upset when some Black people try to distort their past or question their identity. If you have any EQ it seems very selective.
quote: You seem not to grasp that Black Americans historical lineage has been removed from what was before 400 years prior. So what they reconstruct is based on their surroundings. This is why some claim to be from America only, especially when their census from shows some Native American ancestor. Black Americans didn't make it this complicated it was the racist American government. Can you grasp that? Yes, or no?
I never claimed to be an expert on Black Americans but still even if a group of people are being opressed it is no excuse to try to steal or distort another marginalized and oppressed groups identity and history. I never claimed that all, or a majority, of Black Americans are doing that, but enough many are doing it to be considered a problem by some Native Americans (and even some African Americans and whites who have adressed these issues).
quote: Can you tell me how many tribes and which tribes have been annihilated and what the population size was of this massacre? Black Americans who claim these things say they are the descendants of these people. Can you prove them wrong?
Do you not think that any Native American peoples where annihilated? So the Yahi people of California where not annihilated? How came that the last one of them, Ishi, saw the rest of his people being killed by the whites? Did he dream that? Which are their black descendants? So the Susquehannocks did not disappear? Where they black? So you think the original Pequots were black? What about the Natchez, did not the French crush them in 1731 so only 400 survived whereof most of them were sold as slaves to the West Indies (a few survivors took refuge among other peoples). Where they originally Black? Where the Beothuk in Canada black?
Talking about California again and I quote:
quote:According to Russell Thornton, estimates of the pre-Columbian population of California may have been as high as 300,000. By 1849, due to a number of epidemics, the number had decreased to 150,000. But from 1849 and up until 1890 the Indigenous population of California had fallen below 20,000, primarily because of the killings. At least 4,500 California Indians were killed between 1849 and 1870, while many more perished due to disease and starvation. 10,000 Indians were also kidnapped and sold as slaves.
Before the Americans arrived many California Natives where forced to work more or less as slaves at missions founded by Spanish missionaries which resulted in the death of many of them.
About Blacks claiming to be descendants of now extinct tribes: Are there any archaeological remains, or DNA evidence that any of these peoples where Black/African before they first came in contact with Europeans (and Africans)?
That some peoples can have mixed descendants is another matter. That has occurred in other parts in the world too, for example in Tasmania where some mixed descendants who survived the extermination of the Tasmanian aboriginal population.
I am actually working on trying to make a comprehensive list of Native American tribes that was annihilated, or were wiped out through disease, or whose remnants seek refuge among other tribes. It will take a while. Seems there is a need for a comprehensive list since there are revisionists who don´t believe that there has been any genocide against Native Americans, or that the reports thereof is exaggerated.
Wikipedia has a list of extinct tribes, but it is only for North America and it is incomplete.
There of course have been mixing between Native Americans and Black Americans, as there has been mixings between Native Americans and White people. That is to expect after these peoples living in proximity of each other for over 400 years. That does not mean that Native Americans were black Africans before their first contact with he Europeans (and the Black people who arrived with them).
If you want to read about genocide against Native peoples in for example California (like the Yahi people) you can start by reading "An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873" by Benjamin Madley. If you want to learn about Genocide in South America an introduction is Lars Perssons "The doomed Indians". About exploitation and genocide in the Amazon you can read Jacques Meuniers, and A.M. Savarins book "The Amazon chronicles". For a broad overview of what happened to Native Americans at, and after, their first contact with Europeans you can read David A Stannards "American Holocaust".
Do you question the genocide of Native Americans, are you a history revisionist like those people who deny the holocaust?
quote:Give me a list of these people and the reputable degrees they have, and the fields they are in. [quote]
The podcast was made by two people: Kurly Tlapoyawa, Supervisory Archaeologist and Professor of Chicano Studies at Colegio Chicano del Pueblo, and Ruben A. Arellano (Tlakatekatl), History Ph.D.
Here is their letter to the The Urban Review Journal who published Greg Wiggan et al:s article about African Olmecs. They read the letter in the podcast, and you can also read it here.
Other academics that adressed the narratives of Africans in precolumbian Americas are people like Warren Barbour (an A A archaeologist), Gabriel Haslip Viera (professor in Latin American and Latino Studies), Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. Ann Cyphers (archaeologist) one of the leading experts of the Olmec culture has also stated that they were not African. She has thirty years of experience conducting archaeological research in Mesoamerica. Other academics who has written about the matter is Peter Furst (cultural anthropologist), the late Michael Coe (expert on precolumbian MesoAmerican culture), Rebecca Gonzales Lauck (Research Professor at the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Tabasco), Karl Taube (art historian).
You can easily look them up, I have no interest in posting their CV:s to you since I doubt that you would care anyway. You just want to try dismisse the whole debate about the fringe claims about Black people in precolumbian Americas.
[quote] What part of IT WAS WHITE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
What about it? Whites may have started it but there are blacks that uphold outdated ideas. They ought to know better. If they promote an outdated, false narrativ that was started by now dead white people, how is it not their fault still promoting such ideas? It is weird, one does not so often here claIms from African Americans that the ancient Egyptians where white, which also is an idé first promoted by white people. But the idé that precolumbian Native Americans where black was obviously more easy to digest for some African Americans.
quote: Inserting, is Boddy making a comeback, is this the real Bobby or a trope?
I do not know exactly who is running the Facebook group, many people on it are anonymous.
Native Americans on social media that protested against the false narratives have many times become harrassed, so now several of them prefer to remain anonymous. Some has been spammed by hateful messages, others have been hanged out on social media with name and photos, some have gotten angry phone calls.
People like the archaeologist "Navajorocks" (I must look up his real name, I forgot it) who made a couple of videos questioning or refuting the Black precolumbian Native narrative has been harrassed and his account reported.
I know some of the Native Americans that debate these issues by their real names. We have had e-mail contact, video chats, messenger groups and so on. But do not ask me to reveal their names here. I do not want to contribute to them being harrassed.
I know one woman telling about her trips to Mexico and how proud she was over her ancestors achievements. She was called a wh*re, and her Native identity was questioned by some aggressive "Wabos" or extreme "Afrocentrics" or whatever one wants to call them.
I was among other groups in a group where we refuted specific claims made by the fringe people and where we searched for the origin to some of the fake or mislabeled images they often post.
The pictures you show, are not made by black Americans, you already know that. They are made by Europeans whereof many never visited America. They often mixed different elements from both Africa and America (and some totally free fantasies) to create allegorical or pedagogical images often aimed at people who also never visited America.
Most Europeans were more acquainted with Black Africans so they often used them as a model for these pictures and paintings.
Interestingly enough the oldest European painting with what at least some experts believe are Native Americans show them as white. But one can doubt if that painter ever saw any real Native Americans either.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is and has always been that Europeans created the concept of race and applied it all over the world starting a few hundred years ago. And yes, black was never limited to Africa and many times was applied to any population with similar skin colors and features. And at the same time, they came up with other racial classifications in order to 'muddy the waters' by in many cases removing 'black' from certain populations by calling them something different like "caucasian", solely based on facial features, not skin color. This is how you get black Ethiopians treated as if they are not Black Africans in general purely based on certain cranial features being common in Ethiopia. And no matter how much people try to claim otherwise, this pseudo-science of race still persists to this day and is applied even in genetics. So the problem started with Europeans and the fact that some non Europeans parrot or promote such talking points doesn't change this. Great Zimbabwe is part of this model of trying to appropriate any kind of ancient "advanced" society to some other 'racial' group other than black within the European white supremacist model of history. And they have done it everywhere and we have discussed this many times.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to some of the Native American people I spoke with they feel that their history and identity are under attack from both some whites (as for example in the discussions about the Solutréen hypothesis and Kennewick man), and now also by some Black people who are parroting the doctrines that were created by the whites, just that white is exchanged with black in those narratives.
One Native American I spoke with said that he felt that some of the research about things as population Y also was a part of a larger narrative to further remove Native Americans from their heritage. He felt that many had an exaggerated focus on the Australasian part of the DNA of some Native Americans but where not so concerned with the remaining 98% or so of the DNA which is not Australasian.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: When it comes to some of the Native American people I spoke with they feel that their history and identity are under attack from both some whites (as for example in the discussions about the Solutréen hypothesis and Kennewick man), and now also by some Black people who are parroting the doctrines that were created by the whites, just that white is exchanged with black in those narratives.
One Native American I spoke with said that he felt that some of the research about things as population Y also was a part of a larger narrative to further remove Native Americans from their heritage. He felt that many had an exaggerated focus on the Australasian part of the DNA of some Native Americans but where not so concerned with the remaining 98% or so of the DNA which is not Australasian.
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Just like this following image makes no logical sense. Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Sorry to contradict you here, but where did you read that AE group with stereotypically "sub-Saharan" (i.e. West or Central African) populations in nonmetric analyses? The Hanihara papers made it look like they and Kushites grouped with Europeans rather than SSA. Now, I personally don't interpret those results as showing that Egypto-Nubian populations were necessarily "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" (I don't think I need to go into how I personally interpret such results), but it wouldn't be right to say they grouped with West/Central African populations instead.
I was referring to the 1976 Berry & Berry study which Keita (1993) cited: Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).
As for Hanihara's study, could you specify which one? Because if you recall I cited his 2003 study in my thread here showing that according to his PCO data, Egyptians and other North Africans are in an intermediate position between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians. Either way they are NOT as Antalas wishes grouped entirely with Eurasians but form a continuity of sorts with Sub-Saharans for the obvious reason that North Africans are also Africans.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Well, it is not mainly I who are worried about these things, I am only supportive of some friends among Native Americans. I am not alone disussing these issues.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, obviously some people worry about this, or are interested in the issues, since not only Native Americans but even some African Americans and some White and Latino people have written about it or have discussed it on social media.
Population Y I only mentioned as an example of things I heard Native Americans discuss. I leave the discussion about it to the other thread.
For some reasons there has been people debating these questions for many years now,
African Origins of Olmec Civilization - Debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ0OwYjVHhI&t=4216s (a couple of white guys discuss the issue. In the video also a comparison with Great Zimbabwe is made. Razib Khan is also in the video discussing DNA)
Why do you think that people take their time to write articles, books, letters, make videos or talk on social media about this subject? Why would for example also an African American archaeologist like Warren Barbour write about it? For some reason some people actually like to discuss these issues, or think they are important.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Just like this following image makes no logical sense.
About images. An Olmec head painted on an African-American heritage Juneteenth mural made by artist Reginal C. Adams. The mural located in Galveston created a controversy. After a petition on Change.org it was removed.
Europeans and only Europeans stole everything from the Native Americans. History, land, people, culture, gold, resources, etc. Just like the Europeans stole everything from Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). How on earth do you try and equate some fringe theories among some AAs to what Europeans did and continue to do is ridiculous. AAs didn't colonize America and didn't create European racial theories and there is a thread on population Y. The people doing those studies aren't black people. And there is already a thread on it, why do we need to discuss that here?
Bottom line, Europeans have been shown themselves to be liars, especially when it comes to skin color in the history of anthropology. They have been obsessed with skin color and promoted it since the began colonizing the world. To sit here and suggest this is something that originates anywhere else is pure revisionist fantasy. And that is the point, but many online love to argue that somehow "Afrocentrics" created this and are the cause of it knowing that this is false. Anything but to deny the obvious that these Europeans have been obsessed with skin color for the last few hundred years at least.
Well, it is not mainly I who are worried about these things, I am only supportive of some friends among Native Americans. I am not alone disussing these issues.
And, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, obviously some people worry about this, or are interested in the issues, since not only Native Americans but even some African Americans and some White and Latino people have written about it or have discussed it on social media.
Population Y I only mentioned as an example of things I heard Native Americans discuss. I leave the discussion about it to the other thread.
For some reasons there has been people debating these questions for many years now,
African Origins of Olmec Civilization - Debunked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ0OwYjVHhI&t=4216s (a couple of white guys discuss the issue. In the video also a comparison with Great Zimbabwe is made. Razib Khan is also in the video discussing DNA)
Why do you think that people take their time to write articles, books, letters, make videos or talk on social media about this subject? Why would for example also an African American archaeologist like Warren Barbour write about it? For some reason some people actually like to discuss these issues, or think they are important.
Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
quote: Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829 under an African-Mexican president, and Melgar y Serrano’s statement suggested ideas about race far ahead of his time (slavery, of course, was legal in the United States until 1865). By suggesting an ancient blending of Mexican and African cultures, Melgar y Serrano was implicitly arguing against the ideas of racial purity that led (and still lead) to violence and oppression. Since their discovery, these Olmec heads have spurred new research and interpretations that, more than anything, offer insight into how we look at other cultures.
In her new book, How Do We Look: The Body, the Divine, and the Question of Civilization, classicist Mary Beard invokes the example of the Olmec heads to assert that “how we look can confuse, even distort, our understanding of civilisations beyond our own.” She argues that 18th-century scholar Johann Joachim Winckelmann cited the Apollo Belvedere—a sculpture of an idealized human form, either Greek or Roman, its date of creation unknown—as being the “very pinnacle of classical art.” Future generations understood the work as a manifestation of expertly worked out proportions and “civilized” society.
That’s why, Beard suggests, it wasn’t the colossal stone heads but Olmec Wrestler (date unknown) that became “the poster boy not just for the Olmec but for all ancient Mexico,” beginning in the 1960s. Unlike the oversized Olmec heads, the seated figure displays more lifelike proportions, and his arms appear strong and ready to fight; he’s unlike any other discoveries from Mexican antiquity—and is now even considered a potential fake. The Wrestler was said to have been found in 1933 by a farmer near Veracruz, but its stone is unlike any of the area’s natural materials. “The wrestler seems to fall outside many of the canons known for Olmec monumental sculpture,” Susan Millbrath wrote in a 1979 study. She suggested that the wrestler represents "a little-known aspect of Olmec monumental art."
The Mexican government purchased the sculpture as part of an attempt to glorify the country’s cultural past. As opposed to Melgar y Serrano, who’d tied ancient Mexican civilization to Africa, the 20th-century authorities seemed compelled to link their past with that of Greece and Rome.
Beard herself is suspicious of the Wrestler’s provenance. She writes, "If this is the work of an outstanding Olmec sculptor, it is one who by chance got later tastes spot on, hitting on the particular blend that we often look for in the art of other cultures: that it should be sufficiently different from our own to count as foreign, but at the same time fully understandable in our own aesthetic terms."
Basically here the last bold section is saying that the Olmec heads were too "negroid" or black looking. Again, not coming from African scholars. The point being that the concept of "negroid" being a race primarily found in Africa starts with European scholars and nobody else.
For example, Ignacio Bernal wrote he following in his book, The Olmec World in 1969:
quote: I believe that this is the 'Olmec type' as well as we can reconstruct it. Nevertheless there are still other problems. Let us observe the epicanthus a moment = the most typical trait of Mongoloid faces; it clearly indicates its Asiatic provenance and does not offer any special problem. But at the same time let us remember that it has often been said that the colossal heads represent a Negroid type; this would indicate the presence of true Negroes who reached the Gulf Coast. This migration is improbable though not impossible, and even more improbable is the combination of the epicanthus with Negroid faces. The combination is frequently found in Olmec figures which are not men but children, and which form one of the basic themes of Olmec art. Children everywhere tend to have more rounded and chubby-cheeked faces, shorter and wider noses, and thicker lips than the adults they will be in time. The same appearance results when the human face is combined with the short, wide nose of the jaguar. Both the children and the men-jaguars represent an aesthetic ideal and not a definite race.
Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas:
quote: Heyerdahl later became interested in the possibility of cultural contact between early peoples of Africa and Central and South America. Certain cultural similarities, such as the shared importance of pyramid building in ancient Egyptian and Mexican civilizations, perhaps suggested a link. To test the feasibility of ancient transatlantic travel, Heyerdahl built a 45-foot-long copy of an ancient Egyptian papyrus vessel in 1969, with the aid of traditional boatbuilders from Lake Chad in Central Africa. Constructed at the foot of the Pyramids and named after the sun god Ra, it was later transported to Safi in Morocco, from where it set sail for the Caribbean on May 24, 1969. Defects in design and other problems caused it to founder in July, 600 miles short of its goal. It had sailed 3,000 miles.
Undaunted, Heyerdahl constructed a second papyrus craft, the Ra II, with the aid of Aymaro Indian boatbuilders from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. With a multinational crew of seven, the Ra II set sail from Safi on May 17, 1970. After a voyage of 57 days and 4,000 miles, the ship arrived in Barbados. The story of this voyage is recorded in the book The Ra Expeditions (1971) and in a documentary film.
So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
As for Hanihara's study, could you specify which one? Because if you recall I cited his 2003 study in my thread here showing that according to his PCO data, Egyptians and other North Africans are in an intermediate position between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians. Either way they are NOT as Antalas wishes grouped entirely with Eurasians but form a continuity of sorts with Sub-Saharans for the obvious reason that North Africans are also Africans. [/QB]
Literally no mention of being "intermediate" in this paper just your interpretation of the chart which simply further confirms that you clearly don't know much on the subject. "intermediate" would make sense for populations like ethiopians, sudanese, eritreans, etc certainly not north africans.
Reality which you constantly avoid :
quote:We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
quote:Three broad geographic based groups are evident: (1) Europe/Mediterranean (Europe, West Asia, North Africa) , (2) Northeast Asia/New World (South Siberia, China-Mongolia, Northeast Asia, American Arctic, North and South Native Americans), and (3) Australia/Oceania (Southeast Asia, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia). These groupings, alone, support the utility of categorization at a broad, that is, geographic, level [e.g., Mongoloid Dental Complex (Hanihara 1968) and Sinodonty characterize the second grouping]. Moreover, the Southeast Asian sample, as would be expected given known population history, is intermediate between the latter two groups. The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others, though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 279
quote:As seen in Figure 2, there is an obvious separation of Sub-Saharan and North African samples, yet apparent homogeneity within regions — particularly North Africa. These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data (see Mourant 1954, 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al, 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).
What's funny is that your interpretation of "intermediate" based on the position of senegambians or tukulor is based on something you forgot :
quote:And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
Like I asked to Ish Geber before, can you provide a single evidence of a proper black population indigenous to mediterranean north africa between 3000 BC and today ? (a hyperbolic term used in an ancient literary text isn't an evidence).
Moreover I already acknowledge the enslavement of other people in North africa and showed that their numbers were ridiculously small compared to the millions of imported black slaves.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: If there wasn't a trend of Eurocentric historiography racially whitewashing or denigrating indigenous African civilizations, I doubt Afrocentrics would pay as much attention to the Olmecs or other civilizations outside of Africa. I do find the Black African Olmec claims etc. to be an annoying problem, but you can't deny they're a reaction to the narrative that "Black" Africa has produced nothing worthy (or at least nothing worthy without "Caucasoid" input).
stfu you do the exact same thing to north africans. You normalize racism towards north africans and try to constantly erase them from their history. You probably do this only to make profit from blacks by selling them your fictional stories. I will not even speak about your propension to depict interacial relations and constantly sexualizing black women.
And you completely erase indigenous Black North Africans from both Ancient to modern times unless they come in the package or slavery(your favorite excuse). I seem to recall you telling me I made up people calling the Mauretanians and Numidians Black at which point I pulled several citations.
You also conveniently ignore the enslavement of Non-Blacks into the Maghreb, as well as the fact that the TAST included North Africans and East Africans. That in the USA they had to eventually *codify* that freed people of North Africa from Morocco to Egypt were exempt from the enslavement of Black Africans is significant in itself.
Maybe you should focus on yourself instead of writing thinkpieces on Black Americans and our issues?
Out of respect for keeping the forum mostly civil I have laid back from getting with you on this, but I have time today.
Like I asked to Ish Geber before, can you provide a single evidence of a proper black population indigenous to mediterranean north africa between 3000 BC and today ? (a hyperbolic term used in an ancient literary text isn't an evidence).
Moreover I already acknowledge the enslavement of other people in North africa and showed that their numbers were ridiculously small compared to the millions of imported black slaves.
A "hyperbolic term" from people who were actually contemporaneous with the North African populations in question? But calling people Burnt-Faces isn't 'hyperbolic"?
Ok. I'll play this game with you.
What is a "proper Black population" in your world? This way I can cut straight through your bull.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: A "hyperbolic term" from people who were actually contemporaneous with the North African populations in question? But calling people Burnt-Faces isn't 'hyperbolic"?
Ok. I'll play this game with you.
What is a "proper Black population" in your world? This way I can cut straight through your bull. [/QB]
It doesn't even make sense since aethiopian was the word used to describe black people (even dark skinned asians) and this term never got used for north africans.
Aithiopes was *one* term to describe Black people, and exceptionally dark people at that. It was not the only one or as broad in its pigment range as the modern American racial category Black is. Hence Ptolemy the Geographer referring to the people beyond the first Cataract as a sort of half-caste and the *pure* ethiopians being closer to Meroe.
And some african authors like Manilius claimed they were the lightest of all "black" people so yes it was clearly hyperbolic to describe a population that was darker than europeans or even levantines. You can ask any modern european if north africans are as light as them or if they are "white" and you'll see their answers.
I'm not talking about Modern Europeans. I'm talking about Ancient ones. Though there are certainly numerous medieval to early Modern European writers who described legions of black Moors(before the later creation of "Blackamoor" and "tawny Moor" as well as the broadening of Moor to include Muslims of any color)
Anyway You completely ignore the genetic and anthropological papers and even all the depictions we have. You ignore the cardial and bell beakers migrations, you don't have datas about capsians except anthropometric datas which don't show any particular SSA affinity and even the paleo/mesolithic iberomaurusian population was distinct from sub-saharans so what is your evidence pls ?
I don't ignore anything. Black in the racial sense is a socially defined term, not a scientifically valid term. Yet your ilk continues to try to make Black a biologically valid category hence your constant moving of the goalposts to cover up your continued trotting out of the "True Negro". That is besides the point of the countless depictions we have of Black North Africans that you call exaggerations.
A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa and that is indigenous to mediterranean north africa (not the sahara since I already acknowledge the presence of indigenous black populations there). I swear If you're able to provide a single evidence of it I'll frankly accept it.
Now we get to the meat of it. So your definition of Black is anyone that resembles niger-congo speakers either physically or genetically. That is awfully convenient and a nice way to exclude the rest of the continent.
[ 09. November 2022, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please see my comments above. I figured you would have such an arbitrarily and tightly construed definition of Black to make sure your opponent would have to jump through as many hoops as possible.
Now do tell me what is the physical Niger-Congo type? And no this is not a trick question.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
I forgot them so most sub-saharan africans except mixed groups like horners (the ones with substantial amount of eurasian ancestry ofc) and malagasy
I want evidence of indigenous mediterranean north africans who looked like this :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Doug M Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
I of course know that African Americans did not come up with these ideas from the beginning. But unfortunately some African Americans continue to uphold outdated racial models, as for example when they draw the conclusion that the Olmecs where African based on the look on the famous stone heads which are just a fraction of all Olmec art that has been found. They often ignore artwork that show other features. And other types of evidence (like genetics) they also often ignore. It seems that their ignorance is willful, many of them ought to know better (and probably do it), but their reasons to uphold the myths seem many times to be political and ideological.
quote:Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas
I am very aware of Heyerdahls reed boat adventures (Ra I and Ra II), they showed that such travels were not impossible, but they did not prove that such travels actually took place. If one should claim that such travels took place one have to find unmistakably African artifacts (preferably made in Africa, or at least of the same type, as for example metal objects) and maybe buildings, and human remains with a DNA profile that is compatible with whatever African people these travelers descended from. If they continued to have any prolonged contact with their ancient home countries one could also expect exchange of domestic plants and domestic animals.
No one have proved Heyerdahl right yet concerning ancient African travels. His first great adventure though was a journey over the Pacific from South America to Polynesia, and later genetic research suggest contacts between some Polynesian islands and South America, some 800 years ago.
On L'Anse aux Meadows on Newfoundland a few Norse people who stayed for a rather limited time period still left very tangible traces of their existence with remains of houses, a smithy, metal objects and similar. Africans who came to the Americas and according to many of the speculations even founded whole civilisations, and who maybe remained in contact with their old home continent, would have left much more traces than a few vikings.
Maybe someone actually crossed over from Africa to South America, but we still have to find any convincing evidence. Until then it remains speculations. People who have worked as archaeologists in for example Mesoamerica for a long time have not found any such evidence (yet). I know personally some archaeologists who work there, one for more than 25 years.
[/quote] So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.[/quote]
I never claim that Europeans did not do all those things. But there are some similarities between the cases of Zimbabwe and the Olmecs, in both cases we have members of one people who claim that they founded a civilisation that was founded by a completely different people. Great Zimbabwe was claimed in a colonial context, while todays African American claims are not colonialist per se (since A A people not physically have invaded for example Mexico), but the claims still show some kind of colonial mindset, and a disregard for Native American feelings and right to their heritage. That some people really dislike this can be seen by the reaction on the Olmec head in the Juneteenth painting. It is a matter of pride over ones ancestors and ones identity. Native Americans are not fond of white peoples distortions of their cultures either. The bitterness over the whites is of course larger than over African Americans.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A hypothetical indigenous black north african population would be a population that show either great physical or genetic similarity to niger-congo speakers of sub-saharan africa
I take it Nilotes, Omotics, and Hadza aren't really Black people then, either? They don't speak Niger-Congo languages.
Sheesh, even by "true Negro" standards, this is restrictive.
I forgot them so most sub-saharan africans except mixed groups like horners (the ones with substantial amount of eurasian ancestry ofc) and malagasy
I want evidence of indigenous mediterranean north africans who looked like this :
Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Aithiopes was *one* term to describe Black people, and exceptionally dark people at that. It was not the only one or as broad in its pigment range as the modern American racial category Black is. Hence Ptolemy the Geographer referring to the people beyond the first Cataract as a sort of half-caste and the *pure* ethiopians being closer to Meroe.
That's not the opinion of scholars (including black scholars who studied the question like Frank M. Snowden) and aithiopes was literally a descriptive term above all why distinguishing two populations who apparently had the same skin color with a term that explicitly refers to dark skin color ? And yes of course he refers to ethiopians closer to meroe being "purer" that's exactly what we can see today with the eurasian admixed lower nubians being clearly different physically from south sudanese.
If north africans were black why the existence of intermediate types known as "black gaetulians" or "libyoaethiopes" ? especially where we should expect them to be :
"As one advanced further to the south of Gaetulian lands, into the Sahara and its northern peripheries, the ethnic labels became fuzzier, more general, and often, since land and space were so vast and indeterminate, they were based more on a phenotyping of personal appearance than of place. The peoples deep to the south in the Sahara were called Aethiopes or peoples whose skin had been burnt to a darker color. (Hölscher 1937; Thompson 1989; Desanges 1993). The simple existence of these peoples naturally suggested to the logical mind the necessary existence of intervening types, and so the category of Melanogaetuloi, black Gaetulians, was invented and bandied about by scientific geographers such as Ptolemy. Analogous terms such as Leukoaethiopes, “white black people,” or Libyaethiopes, “African black people,” were exploited by the same Ptolemy and by Pomponius Mela, all in the name of the geographer’s science."
Brent D. Shaw, Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 532
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I'm not talking about Modern Europeans. I'm talking about Ancient ones. Though there are certainly numerous medieval to early Modern European writers who described legions of black Moors(before the later creation of "Blackamoor" and "tawny Moor" as well as the broadening of Moor to include Muslims of any color)
I'm not aware of any of this and you might refer again to hyperbolic labels like the one used by Isidore of Sevilla.
Not even black scholar like Frank snowden agree with you :
quote: "The child of a white mother and an ethiopian father was decolor (discolor). These two words were often used to describe the skin color of the peoples of India and Mauretania."
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Blacks in Antiquity, Harvard University Press, pp. 4
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I don't ignore anything. Black in the racial sense is a socially defined term, not a scientifically valid term. Yet your ilk continues to try to make Black a biologically valid category hence your constant moving of the goalposts to cover up your continued trotting out of the "True Negro". That is besides the point of the countless depictions we have of Black North Africans that you call exaggerations.
The only "socially defined term" is your american label which do not acknowledge all the mixed individuals and which is very inclusive hence useless and inaccurate. But for anthropologists or geneticists it's quite easy to distinguish west eurasians from sub-saharan africans or east asians (this does not prevent continuums from existing ofc).
You did not adress what I said. Why do you ignore all the studies on the biological profile and affinities of ancient north africans ? Literally none of them have shown the presence in ancient mediterranean north africa of a "black" population. And we don't have "countless depictions" of black north africans all you have are dubious medieval european depictions. I already made a thread about depiction of ancient north africans why did you ignore it ?
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Now we get to the meat of it. So your definition of Black is anyone that resembles niger-congo speakers either physically or genetically. That is awfully convenient and a nice way to exclude the rest of the continent. [/QB]
You actually have to restrict to something that makes sense : population defined by common characteristics especially when it comes to genetics or phenotypes.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type. [/QB]
I've never believed in the true negro stereotype since there is obviously a minimum of variation among SSAs but like with any other population, they have their own physical specifities like frizzy hair combined with dark skin, negroid features/metrics as defined by anthropologists and which are easily recognizable, etc stop trying to have a very relativistic approach as if sub-saharans could look like anything.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Who are these people and which country are they from? Are they from Niger-Congo country? I'm surprised you didn't post a pitch black, afroed, wide eyed, bright red lipped minstrel instead.
Back to seriousness, I asked you for a definition of what a Niger-Congo person looks like. I want you to actually type out what physical traits is the Niger-Congo type.
I've never believed in the true negro stereotype since there is obviously a minimum of variation among SSAs but like with any other population, they have their own physical specifities like frizzy hair combined with dark skin, negroid features/metrics as defined by anthropologists and which are easily recognizable, etc stop trying to have a very relativistic approach as if sub-saharans could look like anything. [/QB]
What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Doug M Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the people who first claimed that the Olmecs were at least part African were the Mexicans who first discovered them. This is not something that originated with African scholars as you claimed. Native Americans have always been diverse and the reason that so-called "Negroid" features are confused with Africans is because of European racial theories. None of that comes from African scholars, because racial models based on facial features and phenotype is something created by Europeans......
I of course know that African Americans did not come up with these ideas from the beginning. But unfortunately some African Americans continue to uphold outdated racial models, as for example when they draw the conclusion that the Olmecs where African based on the look on the famous stone heads which are just a fraction of all Olmec art that has been found. They often ignore artwork that show other features. And other types of evidence (like genetics) they also often ignore. It seems that their ignorance is willful, many of them ought to know better (and probably do it), but their reasons to uphold the myths seem many times to be political and ideological.
If the idea that the Olmec heads were "Negroid" and therefore evidence of African origin didn't come from so-called Afrocentrics, why keep focusing on Afrocentrics as the only ones promoting the idea when they aren't? You seem to be acting like it is something that came from them when it didn't. The root of the issue is the use of European racial typologies which is where this idea of African Olmecs came from. I find it odd how you are avoiding the outrage of the whole concept of racial models that originated with Europans as part of divide and conquer but you are quick to jump on Africans using them. It is hypocritical. Europeans have spread more misinformation and pseudo science about "race" than anybody on the planet but you make it seem like this is somehow an "Afrocentric" thing or somehow that the Afrocentrics are the 'more evil' than the Europeans who raped, pillaged, conquered and robbed their way around the entire planet and created racial hierarchies everywhere they went.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Then you also have Thor Heyerdahl who actually built reed boats to prove that the Africans could have sailed to the Americas
I am very aware of Heyerdahls reed boat adventures (Ra I and Ra II), they showed that such travels were not impossible, but they did not prove that such travels actually took place. If one should claim that such travels took place one have to find unmistakably African artifacts (preferably made in Africa, or at least of the same type, as for example metal objects) and maybe buildings, and human remains with a DNA profile that is compatible with whatever African people these travelers descended from. If they continued to have any prolonged contact with their ancient home countries one could also expect exchange of domestic plants and domestic animals.
No one have proved Heyerdahl right yet concerning ancient African travels. His first great adventure though was a journey over the Pacific from South America to Polynesia, and later genetic research suggest contacts between some Polynesian islands and South America, some 800 years ago.
On L'Anse aux Meadows on Newfoundland a few Norse people who stayed for a rather limited time period still left very tangible traces of their existence with remains of houses, a smithy, metal objects and similar. Africans who came to the Americas and according to many of the speculations even founded whole civilisations, and who maybe remained in contact with their old home continent, would have left much more traces than a few vikings.
Maybe someone actually crossed over from Africa to South America, but we still have to find any convincing evidence. Until then it remains speculations. People who have worked as archaeologists in for example Mesoamerica for a long time have not found any such evidence (yet). I know personally some archaeologists who work there, one for more than 25 years.
Whether or not he proved the thesis doesn't change the fact that this man believed in the idea of African origins enough to build a boat similar to those used in the Nile Valley. The point is these ideas aren't from "Afrocentrics" and some of the most famous proponents aren't black people at all, including the Mexicans who discovered the heads to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:So again, what does this have to do with Great Zimbabwe? Seriously you aren't claiming that Europeans have not been promoting falsehoods in history and anthropology far beyond anything Africans have ever done. Not to mention all the systematic theft, murder and everything else along with that.
I never claim that Europeans did not do all those things. But there are some similarities between the cases of Zimbabwe and the Olmecs, in both cases we have members of one people who claim that they founded a civilisation that was founded by a completely different people. Great Zimbabwe was claimed in a colonial context, while todays African American claims are not colonialist per se (since A A people not physically have invaded for example Mexico), but the claims still show some kind of colonial mindset, and a disregard for Native American feelings and right to their heritage. That some people really dislike this can be seen by the reaction on the Olmec head in the Juneteenth painting. It is a matter of pride over ones ancestors and ones identity. Native Americans are not fond of white peoples distortions of their cultures either. The bitterness over the whites is of course larger than over African Americans.
So you are still trying to exclusively express outrage for Africans having theories you find to be fringe, but don't have the same outrage for the Europeans who created those theories? How does that make sense? Again, the whole racial model of anthropology started with Europeans and according to that model, any kind of "Negroid" features is a sign of African origin. Hence why the Olmec heads were seen to be proof of African origin. That underlying racial model is the basis of this theory and it solely originated with European race scientists. Because according to that same model, Native Americans are supposed to be Mongoloid and lighter skinned. I don't see how you think that this somehow is something that is the fault of Afrocentrics. And at face value, there is nothing outright that is wrong with the theory, other than lacking concrete proof. There is no reason why Africans couldn't have sailed directly from Africa to the Americas given that there are currents between the two continents. Yet you seem to be so fired up on somehow proving "Afroentrics" are at the root of this problem when again, numerous scholars from Europe, Mexico and elsewhere made this exact argument before the African scholars even knew about it. And that is just hypocritical. African scholars went with what they thought was valid evidence but unfortunately further proof was never found. At the end of the day, what is at fault is racial models that suggest that grouping people by phenotype is valid anthropology, especially when it tries to imply certain features are unique to certain groups. That entire model of anthropology and diversity is completely false. So just like it is possible Africans sailed to the Americas, it is also more possible that populations with "tropical" features have always existed in this area as it is in a tropical latitude similar to parts of Africa.
And don't get me wrong, I agree some AAs do follow outdated models such as the way someone looks makes them African. But you cannot criticize that concept without going to the source, which often is a European racial model, but not always.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like? [/QB]
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: What studies are you reading that says there's a minimum of variation among SSAs?
I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose any remaining interest in this discussion.
What, in your own words, does a Niger-Congo speaking person look like?
by minimum I meant they do not all look like the true negro stereotype there is obviously diversity and the average niger-congo person look like the people I posted. [/QB]
Let's try this again.
So you're telling me that across the entire area of the proposed Niger-Congo language family, the people in all of those countries on average look like the people in those three photographs from one country you have refused to identify.
Have you gone mad?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic