quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And what's the deal with calling some North Africans "prestigious"? That sounds like a pretty loaded and possibly racist term, don't you think ?
Don't play dumb with me. I was referring to widely celebrated North African civilizations like Egypt, Carthage, and Kush/Nubia. You know, the ones that appear most often in history books and other media. Those are the ones you have insisted weren't really "black".
I will let DJ defend himself with regards to your attempt to accuse him of hypocrisy with regards to his usage of "black", if he cares to respond to you again in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: He tries to pretend his definition of "black" somehow has more weight than DJ's or that of other posters is an amusing diversion nonetheless. The very fact that he has no standard definition of "black" (besides thinking of it as an association he wants to exclude certain ancient North Africans from) is part of the fun.
This is what in part and parcel is part of the issue. The definition of what "Black" is has always been arbitrary ever since it's inception. For example the Greeks called some of the populations of Africa "Atheiops" (Burnt-Faced) that would've included some "North African" groups such as the Nubians.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: This is what in part and parcel is part of the issue. The definition of what "Black" is has always been arbitrary ever since it's inception. For example the Greeks called some of the populations of Africa "Atheiops" (Burnt-Faced) that would've included some "North African" groups such as the Nubians.
Truth be told, we wouldn't even be entertaining the "what is 'black'" digression again in this thread had Anty not insisted on ancient North Africans not being "black" or "SSA" as if that were some sort of rebuttal to the arguments Swenet and other opponents were making against him. It's all a desperate attempt by him to caricature his opponents' position. He's drowning and he knows it.
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the Palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
So if according to Antalas only Sub-Saharans with 'true negroid' morphology should be called 'black', then all these people below are non-black.
Egyptians
Negev Bedouin
Giza workman
Luxor schoolboy
North Sudanese
Nubian boy
Zeinab Bedawi
Berbers
Coon’s example of a “gracile Mediterranean” (Shluh of Morocco)
Ghadames man
Somali
Yeah nothing black about these people. LOLPosts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Many Afro-americans make the mistake of equating the diversity of their phenotypes (often resulting from numerous mixtures with Europeans or even Latinos/Amerindians) with that prevailing in Africa.
This is incorrect. By the way for most african americans that do have native american or europan admixture,the admixture did not impact phenotype just like for most white americans that have african and native american admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Alright, it's evident that you don't embrace my definition, and according to your statements, it isn't comprehensive enough. Now, I'm curious to understand why you prefer linking this young girl to sub-Saharan populations that share little in common with her, rather than populations that are genetically and morphologically more similar. If your response is solely based on her skin color, then let me inquire: what specific insights can be gleaned from such information in the context of a study on population kinship? Doesn't this approach also run the risk of being misleading and advantageous for certain ideological movements? I pose these questions, fully aware that, much like Djehuti, you may choose not to respond not because you disagree, but because admitting it might be uncomfortable for you, given that you perceive me as "obviously anti-black".
By asserting that the Nubians are "black," we are not just emphasizing their pigmentation, but we are also implying that they would be related to black African populations as a whole and not to other populations living further north. It's a term lacking in nuance. That's why it's imperative to propose a clear definition that allows us to understand that beyond their pigmentation, Nubian populations exhibit a morphology that could be described as intermediate and a genetic profile that shows both African and Eurasian substrates or even better a substrate that is shared by Nubians and Eurasians but not SSAs.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
So my patience is wearing thin and I previewed the book myself on google. Of course there is no such list for Africans as Klepinger did a snapshot based off the most studied US populations. So you're using a 2006 Forensic Anthropology work(last time I checked there are much newer works in the field) that only included African-Americans to make part of your argument on what pure/near pure "Black" people across the whole swath of dark blue and black areas of Africa on the map you posted look like morphologically.
Ok.
Now how is your definition the one true one that is more objective and less arbitrary than DJ or any other poster?
The features listed for African Americans are characteristic of black African populations, and here she chose to use African Americans as an example since there is extensive documentation available. You may not be familiar enough with anthropological studies to know these traits and their presence in Africa. In the second image I posted, you can clearly see that it is written, "African origin", yet you prefer to ignore it. I posted Linda's work because it is one of the few that extensively covers many characteristic traits of African populations, which are, of course, also found in African Americans. The fact that you disagree implies that you perceive African Americans as morphologically very different from sub-Saharan Africans, so that's why I asked you which traits African Americans have that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans do not possess ?
My definition is more objective because it better reflects certain realities. It is more nuanced and allows for a better delineation of certain meta-ethnicities, whereas Djehuti's definition is very vague, simplistic, and inclusive. It is solely based on the darkness of the skin and rejects any genetic, anthropological, or cultural reality. Djehuti's definition associates Papuans, Indians, certain Arab populations, all black Africans, Australian Aborigines, etc., while denying all the differences that distinguish them from each other.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Alright, it's evident that you don't embrace my definition, and according to your statements, it isn't comprehensive enough. Now, I'm curious to understand why you prefer linking this young girl to sub-Saharan populations that share little in common with her, rather than populations that are genetically and morphologically more similar. If your response is solely based on her skin color, then let me inquire: what specific insights can be gleaned from such information in the context of a study on population kinship? Doesn't this approach also run the risk of being misleading and advantageous for certain ideological movements? I pose these questions, fully aware that, much like Djehuti, you may choose not to respond not because you disagree, but because admitting it might be uncomfortable for you, given that you perceive me as "obviously anti-black".
By asserting that the Nubians are "black," we are not just emphasizing their pigmentation, but we are also implying that they would be related to black African populations as a whole and not to other populations living further north. It's a term lacking in nuance. That's why it's imperative to propose a clear definition that allows us to understand that beyond their pigmentation, Nubian populations exhibit a morphology that could be described as intermediate and a genetic profile that shows both African and Eurasian substrates or even better a substrate that is shared by Nubians and Eurasians but not SSAs.
You responded with yet another strawman argument, what you are doing is projecting YOUR thoughts onto others. At this point I don't even understand why people waste their time going back and forth with you.
Now getting back on topic, so called "Negroid" traits, or what Antalas likes to term as "sub-Saharan, have been noted not only in Nubians and seen in the artwork that depicts Nubians, but have been noted in Egyptian crania, imposing YOUR definition of what black is isn't going to make those traits and DNA go away.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
So if according to Antalas only Sub-Saharans with 'true negroid' morphology should be called 'black', then all these people below are non-black.
Egyptians
Negev Bedouin
Giza workman
Luxor schoolboy
North Sudanese
Zeinab Bedawi
Berbers
Coon’s example of a “gracile Mediterranean” (Shluh of Morocco)
Ghadames man
Somali
Yeah nothing black about these people. LOL [/QB]
Are those populations more closely related to their "light" skinned neighbours or West/central/south Africans (who are also described as "black") ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
This man is a Tutsi from Rwanda and not the exception among his people in terms of phenotype but the rule. If you measured up his skull and compared it to some broad trend sub-Saharan Africans and people in the Nile Valley and the Horn, he would cluster with Horn and Nile Valley peoples and he would plot in an intermediate position, but he is 100% sub-Saharan African and lives even further below the Sahara than West Africans, so having a metric phenotype that's intermediate does not equal having zero affinities with sub-Saharan African people.
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time [/qb]
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Are those populations more closely related to their "light" skinned neighbours or West/central/south Africans (who are also described as "black") ?
Of course the former because those light skinned neighbors-- both Southwest Asians & Europeans-- have admixture from North Africans. That still doesn't change the fact that those North Africans are still black.
Now answer me this, are West/Central Africans more closely related to North and East Africans or the light-skinned click-speaking populations of Southern Africa??
And for a bonus is this couple black?
And who are they most related to??
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
[/QB]
Yeah let's throw mulattoes, indians, Griffe, Quadroon, Rashaida, Soqotri, Pygmies, Nilote, etc all in the same bag or else it's "true negroidism"...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course the former because those light skinned neighbors-- both Southwest Asians & Europeans-- have admixture from North Africans. That still doesn't change the fact that those North Africans are still black.
Do they lack Eurasian admixture altogether ? Additionally, if their genetic makeup aligns more closely with the former, wouldn't labeling them simply as "black" be potentially misleading ? It could imply a closer relationship with other populations identified as black no ? Furthermore, considering their dark skin complexion, how is this relevant in discussions about kinship ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now answer me this, are West/Central Africans more closely related to North and East Africans or the light-skinned click-speaking populations of Southern Africa??
Isn't their light skin due to eurasian introgression ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And for a bonus is this couple black?
And who are they most related to?? [/QB]
How can they be black if they aren't african ? Those people are definitely much closer to Chinese or even me than any black african. There is no reason to associate both of them.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
If it's just a strawman, you should have no problem doing what I've asking you to do. You said, certain Sub-Saharan Africans fall into North African variations. What North African fossils did you have in mind when you said that, and can you give a list of fossils with these variations in the last 20ky?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the Palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
There is a certain type of anthropology commentator, with otherwise Eurocentric views, who'll agree that the population arose in Africa or areas directly adjacent to Africa, that were in genetic contact with palaeolithic Africans. These types of admissions simply reflect a common sense interpretation of the fossil situation which allows big regions (eg the steppes, Europe, etc) to be excluded from consideration.
Migration could have come from those regions, but the ancient morphotype itself was not a transplant from those regions. As I mentioned elsewhere, the palaeolithic populations in question were changing due to admixture with some 'southern' types of ancestry, that imparted shorter faces and shorter stature, especially in Badarians and Tenereans. Which is yet another clue that they were in Africa, even in between the al Khiday and predynastic time interval in which this transformation must have happened, but in which we can't seem to find much evidence of their whereabouts.
Things like that is why even some of those people I mentioned, with Eurocentric views, know better.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Sorry I meant to say modern "West/Central Africans" Overall Antalas position is not completely incorrect because based on the traits I outlined in my previous post his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Sorry I meant to say modern "West/Central Africans" Overall Antalas position is not completely incorrect because based on the traits I outlined in my previous post his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
West/Central Africans are diverse themselves, but no one has said Nile Valley and Northwest Africans are very closely related. Seems like there are many different ways of saying "true Negro."
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [The features listed for African Americans are characteristic of black African populations, and here she chose to use African Americans as an example since there is extensive documentation available. You may not be familiar enough with anthropological studies to know these traits and their presence in Africa. In the second image I posted, you can clearly see that it is written, "African origin", yet you prefer to ignore it. I posted Linda's work because it is one of the few that extensively covers many characteristic traits of African populations, which are, of course, also found in African Americans. The fact that you disagree implies that you perceive African Americans as morphologically very different from sub-Saharan Africans, so that's why I asked you which traits African Americans have that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans do not possess ?
My definition is more objective because it better reflects certain realities. It is more nuanced and allows for a better delineation of certain meta-ethnicities, whereas Djehuti's definition is very vague, simplistic, and inclusive. It is solely based on the darkness of the skin and rejects any genetic, anthropological, or cultural reality. Djehuti's definition associates Papuans, Indians, certain Arab populations, all black Africans, Australian Aborigines, etc., while denying all the differences that distinguish them from each other.
1. I majored in Anthropology, took classes in forensic and biological anthropology, and continue to read studies on African populations. I asked you for those traits as I wanted what they were in your own words.
2. I asked you for the list for Africans from that book as I found it curious she listed Native Americans ans Asians together but not African-Americans and Africans. You could've simply said she only used African Americans as those were the most studied in the US(which she clearly stated in her book). You instead throw your own opinions in there and deflect from questions I'm asking you about the source you're using.
3. So once again intentional vagueness while you criticize others. "Certain realities"? What realities? In what specific ways is it more nuanced? What certain meta-ethniticies? And you chide DJ for being vague?
4. Since you clearly cannot follow a simple request(directly answering what I asked you instead of throwing all types of things into it that were neither said nor asked), maybe some time off will do you good.
Enjoy your vacation.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one is denying this, the point is that its simplistic and basically ignores the variation and complexity in both so called SSAs and Eurasian Africans.
If you or Antalas or anyone else wants to die on the hill of Eurasian=the reason for physical variation, just call it what it is, True Negroidism. Weird how some of the purest Eurasians such as Negritos etc. look like Typical SSAs physically, weird how Massa Kakazoid didn't bestow them with non SSA negroid features its almost as its more complex than wandering Kakazoids bestowing features on Negroid Africans...
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats because "His People" end up having a much closer shared Ancestry with Afro-Asiatic people, and the Genetics of so called SSAs is much older and more varied
Here is how some so called "Eurasian" NHSY people were depicted in A. Egypt
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Indeed a "convention" as you say, that was set during the old kingdom therefore can't be representative of all egyptians. Moreover such conventions used a red type of skin tone similar to what many modern egyptians have not black like their nubian neighbours and let alone the traits who were typically caucasoid in contrast to the negroids from Nubia.
Gee I guess their Euasianess did'nt stop them from being Abid True N#gger examples for Antalas to contrast the A. Egyptians with, Miro even said these are ADOS Ancestors in A. Egypt....Weird were NHSY War Captives West Africans now...How odd..
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all of my years on egyptsearch I would have never thought that people today still hold on to variations of truenegroidism and Hamitic hypothesis(Eurasian mix is reason for variation). These days they just calling SSA, West/Central Africa, or even worse Niger-Congo people, as if there is no variation in that area and the people all just look alike and have the same genetics.
Look at this plot at the bottom, look at the variation with West and Central Africa itself and the Bantus, PLEASE STOP WITH SSA=ONE STEREOTYPICAL PHENOTYPE. There's just as much variation there as there is in Northeast Africa, even more.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
I believe a better analogy would be to treat modern populations as the granchildren and ancient ones as the sons and fathers.
That is to say, the father would be basal AMH, and his two children would be ancient West Africans on the one hand and ancient Northeast Africans on the other. Modern West Africans would be the children of ancient West Africans, and both modern Northeast Africans and modern Eurasians would be the children of ancient Northeast Africans.
It's still an overly simplified model, but I hope you're still able to get the idea. Maybe a visual tree diagram would help?
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
I believe a better analogy would be to treat modern populations as the granchildren and ancient ones as the sons and fathers.
That is to say, the father would be basal AMH, and his two children would be ancient West Africans on the one hand and ancient Northeast Africans on the other. Modern West Africans would be the children of ancient West Africans, and both modern Northeast Africans and modern Eurasians would be the children of ancient Northeast Africans.
It's still an overly simplified model, but I hope you're still able to get the idea. Maybe a visual tree diagram would help?
I can't remember whether it was you or DJ who posted it years ago on here, but it was a diagram posted that shows Sub-Saharans, then Northeast Africans branching off from them, then all non-Africans branching off from Northeast Africans. My position is that Northeast Africans and Southwest Asians are close in SOME respects because of shared common ancestry with the OOA population as well as TWO WAY gene flow between the two, but if you take the word of Antalas that gene flow only went one way into Africa. I believe he says that because the papers published by a lot of these geneticists push that one way narrative of Africa only being the recipient of gene flow as well as his own biased ignorance.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If you or Antalas or anyone else wants to die on the hill of Eurasian=the reason for physical variation, just call it what it is, True Negroidism.
I don't disagree with this. In my second response to Antalas I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here. It's the reason why you see questions like "Are Somalis, Ethiopians Black?" Speak to a 100 Ethiopians and and Somalis and they'll all tell you something different.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Weird how some of the purest Eurasians such as Negritos etc. look like Typical SSAs physically, weird how Massa Kakazoid didn't bestow them with non SSA negroid features its almost as its more complex than wandering Kakazoids bestowing features on Negroid Africans...
This is very true and I actually made this point to Antalas earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: It's sort of like how you can get some phenotype crossover between West/Central Africans and Melaniasians/Ogne obviously these people are not Africans despite them sometimes resembling West and Central Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover such conventions used a red type of skin tone similar to what many modern egyptians [b]have not black like their nubian neighbours and let alone the traits who were typically caucasoid in contrast to the negroids from Nubia.
OK I wasn't aware he said this. This is a contradiction as he now he appears to be arguing Ancient Nubians have nothing to do with "Negroid" Africans. I'll admit there's definitely a "Negroid" bias with Antalas which he seems to exclusively equate with black and now seemingly with Nubian for some reason.
As for Miro C he's talking non-sense. There's zero proof that the "ancestors" of West Africans and by extension the ancestors of "ADOS" were ever in the Nile Valley during the Dynastic period. What is more likely though is that HIS ancestors were captured and kept as slaves by the Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here.
If "black" means "any person with dark skin" to you and not "Negroid" but there is no concrete definition,
then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
Posts: 43064 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here.
If "black" means "any person with dark skin" to you and not "Negroid" but there is no concrete definition,
then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
"Negroid" is a racially loaded term, which if in the strict sense were used would exclude most Africans.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
I personally like to use the term "Black African" as it describes both skin color (darker skin) and either exclusive or majority African genetic ancestry.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another word. This was posted in another thread awhile ago.
Africoid peoples Part 1
quote: Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term? A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
I personally like to use the term "Black African" as it describes both skin color (darker skin) and either exclusive or majority African genetic ancestry.
This is why "black" shouldn't be used. If Antalas means "Negroid" he should say "Negroid" not black
And you may not be conscious of it or not but you moved the goal post
First you said " black is simply a skin color"
Now you change it to African ancestry + skin color.
Doug might say no, Asians with no African ancestry can be black. BUT rather than having an unresolvable endless new conversation about if Asians can be black (let's not) if you don't use "black" then the semantic diversion is eliminated
Posts: 43064 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to believe that "black" for chuds like Antalas is little more than something they just don't want applied to people from charismatic North African civilizations. I haven't forgotten how vehemently he denied that Paleolithic to Copper Age inhabitants of North Africa would have had "dark to black" skin as suggested by genetic software and instead insisted that they must really have been just tan-skinned. He knows that, were ancient North Africans substantially darker-skinned than tan, then at least some people out there (e.g. DJ) would describe them as black or black-skinned no matter what their genetic affinities actually were.
It also explains why he gets upset when people like DJ apply "black" to darker-skinned peoples around the world, accusing them of trying to link those populations to "sub-Saharan" Africans somehow. It's all about association for him, as if "black" were some social club he wanted to keep his precious North Africans out of. Dudes like him just want to keep blackness, however one defines it, away from the parts of North African history he is invested in.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Do they lack Eurasian admixture altogether?
Who? North Africans? If you mean ancient/indigenous North Africans that is looking more and more like that isn't the case. It used to be thought that ANA was "Eurasian" until it was discovered that it wasn't. Now the only allegedly "Eurasian" admixture is that of Natufian/Levant-Neolithic. But if Swenet is correct about the African parental lineages, skeletal features, etc. then that too is likely of African origin. Western Eurasians (both Europeans and SW Asians) show admixture of both ANA and Natufian.
quote:Additionally, if their genetic makeup aligns more closely with the former, wouldn't labeling them simply as "black" be potentially misleading? It could imply a closer relationship with other populations identified as black no? Furthermore, considering their dark skin complexion, how is this relevant in discussions about kinship?
"Black" is a label based on color on appearance NOT kinship or genetic lineage you dummy! A Nubian is equally as black as a Nigerian, as is a Bhil aboriginal of India or Melanesian. Nobody limits a color label by ancestry alone except for you! LOL
quote:Isn't their light skin due to Eurasian introgression?
You did not answer my question as to whom are West/Central Africans closer related to. And NO, I've already proven here that Khoisan light complexion has nothing to do with Eurasians as was already explained in the correction to the Mota error.
Even Loosdrecht's autosomal study shows this:
Whatever true Eurasian admixture that is present is miniscule overall and is limited near areas where "Coloured" populations reside. Though it's interesting how there are clusters of Natufian brown even though there are NO Eurasian parental lineages amongst them. Not to mention the fact that in most autosomal fst charts, Khoisan are the MOST distant of any African group to Eurasians.
quote:How can they be black if they aren't African? Those people are definitely much closer to Chinese or even me than any black african. There is no reason to associate both of them.
Because again 'black' is a reference to SKIN COLOR not ancestry or geography, you moron! Do you have any idea what Chinese call those people related to them??!
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is a certain type of anthropology commentator, with otherwise Eurocentric views, who'll agree that the population arose in Africa or areas directly adjacent to Africa, that were in genetic contact with Palaeolithic Africans. These types of admissions simply reflect a common sense interpretation of the fossil situation which allows big regions (eg the steppes, Europe, etc) to be excluded from consideration.
Migration could have come from those regions, but the ancient morphotype itself was not a transplant from those regions. As I mentioned elsewhere, the palaeolithic populations in question were changing due to admixture with some 'southern' types of ancestry, that imparted shorter faces and shorter stature, especially in Badarians and Tenereans. Which is yet another clue that they were in Africa, even in between the al Khiday and predynastic time interval in which this transformation must have happened, but in which we can't seem to find much evidence of their whereabouts.
Things like that is why even some of those people I mentioned, with Eurocentric views, know better.
What comes to mind is when Tukuler once reminded me of what Guiseppi Sergi's 'Brown Mediterranean Race' concept actually was. It wasn't part of the "Caucasoid" or "Caucasian" race but was its own entity that developed in Africa NOT Eurasia. Sergi theorized that this population was a branch of a larger group called "Eurafricans" which in turn diverged from the Paleolithic common African stock which also gave rise to the "Negro" race. The more I thought about it, I realized the skeletal evidence supports Sergi's claims and now molecular evidence does as well.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@LostStranger If you grasp some of the ideas that had been thrown around in this thread (Paleolithic Morphological Variation in Africa) you wouldn't think he had much of a point. But I won't harken on him since he's banned and can't defend himself. I would like to pivot and talk about Anthrotardology in general. And how simple concepts can get obfuscated in ways to make them seem more complex. And complex realities are dumbed down in real time.
The concept of black and race is not complicated. It's often made complicated by an agenda. Especially online. I, and I'm sure you have noticed, that talking about these things in real life under a calm setting almost leads to 0 confusion. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you're a race realist or not. It's not a complex issue. People in general mainly use black to denote one of two things... African ancestry or phenotype. Once people say which one they are using to describe blackness it's fairly easy to understand. Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Now here's a more complex example. With the exception of South African Natives (who could have through European Ancestry), all Modern day Africans likely have ancestry from an Ancestral North African source. We have morphological types who'd cluster with non Africans of today buried deep below the equator of Africa. Archaeologists then knew better than to attribute them as being non African. We also know now that lightskin mutations are recent, and not likely associated with those skulls.
quote:An Afro-Mediterranean stock in North Africa (Columnata, Taforalt, Malou) and East Africa (Gamble's Cave, Bromhead, Olduvai 1, Naivasha) extending to the Great Lakes region. A Negroid stock in western Africa (Two Eleru), in the Sahara (Asselar and some Neolithic sites), in the northeast (Khartum, Jebel Sahaba, Wadi-Halfa), in the east (Kangatotha, Lukenya Hill), in Zaire (Ishango), and in South Africa (Bushman Rock Shelter). A Rhoisan stock in southern Africa (Fish Hoek, Maties River Cave, Mumbwa Cave) and eastern Africa covering also Tanzania and Kenya. Brauer
L. EXCOFFIER, 1987
So if we take these broad classifications for ancient Samples into context. Which explanation can you provide that will allow you to say the East African Mediterranean stock is less "black" than the Negroid & the Khoisan? Which definition of black allows for that dichotomy? If you claim that it's genetic closeness to Eurasians, then by default you are claiming that Negroids are less black than the Khoisan stock. And the Negroid populations not of Africa such as Austorlasians/Melanasians are the antithesis of black - as they are the furthest from Africans in general. If you want to base it strictly on Negroid morphology, then you'd have to concede that the Khoisan aren't black and samples like that of the Afro-Mediterranean aren't black or that they're mixed. In that case which arm chair anthropologist who uses the term black would ever claim KNM-KX 2 wasn't black or less black than some Modern Egyptians for example.
quote:Pairwise tests were not used for the cranial metric analyses because the Kisese II sample only consisted of one individual. The Taita, Early Holocene/LSA, Pastoral Neolithic, and KNM- KX 2 all had a similar ratio of maximum cranial breadth and length compared to the other modern African populations. Dimensions of the nasal aperture for KNM-KX 2 were smaller than most of the modern African populations but overlapped with Egyptian individ- uals. Kruskal-Wallis
[..]
Although there was overlap between groups, most mesiodistal and buccolingual measures varied chronologically such that the early Holocene/LSA Holocene/LSA (?10.0–4.0 ka) individuals had the largest teeth followed by early pastoralists. The smallest teeth are found in the Pastoral Neolithic (?3.5–2.0 ka) sample (Figure 4). With the exception of the mesiodistal length of the upper canine and lower second incisor, there were no significant differences in measurements for the incisors and canines.
With a date of ?7.1 ka, dental measurements of KNM-KX 4/5/6 are expected to be most similar to the early Holocene comparative sample. However, buccolingual and mesiodistal dental measures of KNM-KX 4/5/6, as well as KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2, were closest to the Pastoral Neolithic sample, broadly dated from 4–1.5 ka (Figure 4). This suggests the individuals from Kisese II had relatively smaller dentitions than early Holocene foragers, but similar to those of early pastoralist and Pastoral Neolithic eastern Africans. If KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2 are substantially younger than KNM-KX 4/5/6, the Kisese II samples would imply the relative persistence of small teeth at the site across the Holocene
Human burials at the Kisese II rockshelter, Tanzania 10.1002/ajpa.24253
Genetics:I8821 (Kisese II)
quote: In model 1, along with other populations, we included three geographically and genetically diverse ancient eastern and south-central African individuals with high sequencing coverage: I4426 (Fingira, about 2.5 ka), I8821 (Kisese II) and I8808 (Jawuoyo). On the basis of the results in the previous section, we hypothesized that they could be fit with mixtures of three ancestry components: one related to the Mota individual (representing an ancient group of foragers from the northern part of eastern Africa), one related to central African foragers (represented by present-day Mbuti) and one related to southern African foragers (represented by four ancient individuals from South Africa). Indeed, we obtained a good fit to the data in model 1 (max residual Z = 2.0), even when specifying identical sources for all three individuals, and the relative ancestry proportions were as expected: Mota-related ancestry decreased from north to south, and Jawuoyo (I8808) had the highest ratio of central-African-related ancestry to southern-African-related ancestry. Omitting any of the three components for any of the individuals results in a poor fit (Z ≥ 4.0) (Supplementary Note 6). As in ref. 16 , we also estimated around 30% of a separate and deeply diverged ‘ghost’ ancestry component in the Mota individual (replicated here using new higher-coverage diploid whole-genome data)
And there will be more an more examples like this in the future. If you take into account what was being said in this thread; when we account for clear Non-African ancestry we get morphology that is distinct from the populations in question (North East Africans.) All this time the armchair guys hiding behind the the subjectivity of blackness, used Non-African ancestry to try to explain the differences between Modern African's and ancient North Africans and North Africans. The argument was that it was non-African ancestry that made people look physically and genetically close or far from other samples. The reality is that it was post OOA African ancestry outside of Africa that brought Middle easterners closer to each other and even closer to SSA despite having negligible SSA over time.
The whole, "closer to Natufian" thing that people have been doing for 10 years was a ruse. This is how we can have a scenario where we'd attribute west African innovation to Eurasian occupation (since you wanna bring up Miro C.) Once it's clear that Africans have ancestry that doesn't look "SSA" in the future but more "Natufian-like" would you join in and say something as silly as, "The real west Africans were more close to Modern people of Socotra or Sicily because of genetic distance?"
Posts: 1791 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Wow, you had a Somali guy claim closer kinship to melanated people all over the world, including Asian Negritos, than to "Caucasoids"? He would be shocked to see what some of his ethnic compatriots in the online anthro fandom have been saying.
I guess it goes to show you that not every trend you observe online necessarily has that much significance in the offline world.
posted
^ You'd be surprise how many people (black and non-black) alike think that all black populations around the globe are closely related. I've seen one too many videos from black Americans claiming black aboriginal types of Southeast Asia and Oceania as "Africans outside of Africa" or "Africans around the world". I've even heard some whites say that Melanesians like Fijians are "African" because of their black appearance. Yet we have Antalas who claims that the only 'black' people are West/Central Africans! LOL Make that make sense.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Wow, you had a Somali guy claim closer kinship to melanated people all over the world, including Asian Negritos, than to "Caucasoids"? He would be shocked to see what some of his ethnic compatriots in the online anthro fandom have been saying.
I guess it goes to show you that not every trend you observe online necessarily has that much significance in the offline world.
For the most part the internet is quite an illusion. The loud minority will always paint the narrative. That being said, my friend grew up in Saudi Arabia and I know his experiences there shaped his world view a bit.
And speaking of online MENA wannabes. The tribalism is Africa has always been a thing, but I believe the Natufian study is 110% the reason for what we're seeing now from both North and East Africans (not wanting to be associated with Africa.) It's one of the most damaging studies in recent times in my opinion and it's for so many technical reasons.
Posts: 1791 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ DJ I've seen more than my fair share of melanophobic racists posting photos or video footage of Papuan people in traditional getup to prove "natural Black African backwardness". I guess the 4C hair and certain facial features (e.g. broad noses and full lips) fools them into thinking the subjects are African instead of Melanesian. TBH, Melanesia and its cultures aren't even that well-represented in mainstream Western media, especially compared to neighboring Polynesia, so a lot of Westerners probably don't even know such populations (or Asian Negritos for that matter) even exist.
@Elmaestro The claims that such and such African population are X% "Natufian" are annoying, but I suspect those guys would have appropriated any finding to justify their antipathy. Melanophobia is at its core an emotional phenomenon, not a rational one.
posted
But getting back to the topic, for some context...
Here is the Al-Khiday site.
Note that it's just southwest of Khartoum along the White Nile.
Here is the Kadruka site.
Kadruka is right beside the town of Dongola. I already cited the Hassan 2009 study on the Neolithic Kadruka men all carrying A-M13 even though they all exhibit the typical North African 'Type A' morphology. The Al-Khiday remains date to the Epipaleolithic and exhibit the same morphology so what are the chances that they too carry A-M13??
Again, here is the modern distribution of hg A.
^ Note again a significant frequency in northern Ethiopia which is predominantly populated by 'Type A' morphology
Though Ethiohelix shows that the highest frequency occurs among Wolayta of southwest Ethiopia.
The prevalence of this haplogroup in Ethiopia has always been known to us, however the extremely high frequency in the Wolayta is quite a surprise, this could be due to the relatively small sample size however, as the much higher sample size of the Wolayta found in the Plaster thesis, only showed 13% of A-M13.
But then we have Beyoku's Ancient Egyptian FBD results from the Old and Middle Kingdoms.
quote: OK A-M13, L3f Ok A-M13, L0a1 OK B-M150, L3d OK E-M2, L3e5 OK E-M2, L2a1 OK E-M123, L5a1 OK E-M35, R0a OK E-M41, L2a1 OK E-M41, L1b1a OK E-M75, M1 OK E-M78, L4b OK J-M267, L3i OK R-M173, L2 OK T-M184, L0a
Although A is a minority, the point is the majority of male lineages are African which is why Eurocentrics are turning to autosomal data. They think that the Natufian/Neolithic Levant ancestry is Eurasian, but how true is that? As Swenet has pointed out, the Natufians and other ENF related material display many African features and carry African parental lineages yet we are to assume their autosomal signature is Eurasian.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Although A is a minority, the point is the majority of male lineages are African which is why Eurocentrics are turning to autosomal data. They think that the Natufian/Neolithic Levant ancestry is Eurasian, but how true is that? As Swenet has pointed out, the Natufians and other ENF related material display many African features and carry African parental lineages yet we are to assume their autosomal signature is Eurasian.
Very good point but the answer that is usually given for the presence of E Haplogroups in Natufians is them being mixed with ANA.
quote: Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians)Lazaridis_2018
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Yeah I have to agree with everything you said there. I do remember the days when Euronuts kept trying to Eurasianize Haplogroup E especially E1b1b (E3b).
My only concern going forward is euronuts and their African lapdogs using genetic distance as an argument. For example saying Basal Eurasian or ANA is closer to Eurasian or is more "Eurasian shifted" compared to West Africans. In a matter of fact I had this very same thing said to me personally by a Nigerian Fulani who I was discussing on whether Ancient Nubians were a mostly genetically indigenous population or heavily genetically Eurasian admixed population.
This is what he wrote to me in a series of replies:
quote:Genetic and linguistic studies have demonstrated that Nubian people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt are an admixed group that started off as a population closely related to Nilotic people.This population later received significant gene flow from west Asia and other east africans
quote:"Even if it is African (ANA or Basal Eurasian) they were still shifted towards Eurasian and far distinct from ghanians and people in the Congo"
quote:You simply don’t want to accept it, either way the picture is clear. Later middle Stone Age North Africans especially in the Paleolithic was already shifted towards Eurasians and some segments did drift back. The picture is clear and obvious. Africa is a continent with differences
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why be concerned? It IS a fact that some Africans are more related to Eurasians than others for the simple fact that Eurasians descend from a specific subset of Africans, namely in northeast Africa.
I've already explained here that even within Africa certain populations are going to be less related to others. That doesn't mean they are any less African.
This is why West Africans are closer in genetic distance to Eurasians than they are to South African Khoisan.
The same also holds true with Eurasian populations.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Why be concerned? It IS a fact that some Africans are more related to Eurasians than others for the simple fact that Eurasians descend from a specific subset of Africans, namely in northeast Africa.
I've already explained here that even within Africa certain populations are going to be less related to others. That doesn't mean they are any less African.
This is why West Africans are closer in genetic distance to Eurasians than they are to South African Khoisan.
The same also holds true with Eurasian populations.
Of course!! I'm so stupid it works both ways. So if a Euronut says something like "Well who cares if Ancient Egyptians/Nubians are "African" or "Black" genetically they're still more Eurasian shifted compared to us. One can easily turn around and say well certain Eurasian populations are more African shifted so there...
Thnx man Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Yeah I have to agree with everything you said there. I do remember the days when Euronuts kept trying to Eurasianize Haplogroup E especially E1b1b (E3b).
My only concern going forward is euronuts and their African lapdogs using genetic distance as an argument. For example saying Basal Eurasian or ANA is closer to Eurasian or is more "Eurasian shifted" compared to West Africans. In a matter of fact I had this very same thing said to me personally by a Nigerian Fulani who I was discussing on whether Ancient Nubians were a mostly genetically indigenous population or heavily genetically Eurasian admixed population.
This is what he wrote to me in a series of replies:
quote:Genetic and linguistic studies have demonstrated that Nubian people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt are an admixed group that started off as a population closely related to Nilotic people.This population later received significant gene flow from west Asia and other east africans
quote:"Even if it is African (ANA or Basal Eurasian) they were still shifted towards Eurasian and far distinct from ghanians and people in the Congo"
quote:You simply don’t want to accept it, either way the picture is clear. Later middle Stone Age North Africans especially in the Paleolithic was already shifted towards Eurasians and some segments did drift back. The picture is clear and obvious. Africa is a continent with differences
Just ask him if Natufians are more SSA than Taforalt. The former is more shifted towards Yoruba. I don't get how any of his replies answer whether or not Nubians were indigenous though. Reiterating genetic distance is not particularly forthcoming at all. This is especially useless once you realize he's stating the parent component is "shifted towards" the child. That's like saying TianYuan man is more Native American than he is Eurasian. Also, which "Nubians" were you guys talking about?
Posts: 1791 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well this thread in particular is referring to A-Group Nubians and their kinsmen.
I know in the past Antalas liked to bring up the Kulubnarti Christian era Nubians as an example of having Eurasian introgression. Though this introgression was said to come directly from Egyptians.
posted
I was just reading through this thread again and wanted to ask about the Al-Khiday remains again.
It has been mentioned throughout this thread that Late Pleistocene populations such as Taforalt, Afalou, West Asians, as well as Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are distinct from the Nubian Al-Khiday remains and thus Egyptian/Nubian pre-dynastics. My two questions are:
1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
2. What proof or evidence is there that that these Eurasian populations didn't enter Africa at some point at or even prior to the Late Pleistocene and admix with Negroid or other some other indigenous Sub-Saharan population to create the Al-Khiday morphology/population?
Is there any chance the Al-Khiday morphology/population could've originated as a combination of an older Eurasian population AND an indigenous African population which would explain why Al-Khiday differs to Late Pleistocene Taforalt, Afalou, Western Asians and even Late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) in the first place?
As Always thank you for your continued support.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic