...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Challenge to Chimu (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Challenge to Chimu
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems a former dissident forumer Chimu, aka Salsassin, has returned. I offer the following challenge to him:

1) Provide evidence that any the first humans in equatorial Africa were lighter than the range of complexions generally called "black", therefore justifying your assertion that we cannot call the first humans "black".

2) Provide evidence that light-skinned, partially European-descended Maghrebians* are as tropically adapted as dynastic-era Egyptians (whose melanin levels have been reported as "Negroid" according to a fairly recent study on mummified remains). You were insisting earlier that Maghrebians had limb ratios similar to those of tropically adapted Africans based on the eyeballing of one photograph of a Maghrebian athlete, but that isn't hard enough data here.

* BTW, Keita mentions in one of his papers that Egyptian skeletons' limb ratios are closer to those of Africans than southern Europeans. Since southern Europeans are the maternal ancestors of "Caucasoid" Berbers, I think it logical to infer that said Berbers would have more southern European-type skeletons.

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In which case, I might as well repost this here. All the better, as the distorted screen size of the other thread was sort of getting in the way.


quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:

Mark Shriver, Rick Kittle’s partner in that study agreed with Frank and had this to say.
quote:
Frank has some good points. Clearly more work needs to be done on the variation within continents in particular Africa. We do have one recent paper that shines some light on these questions (McEvoy, Beleza & Shriver, 2006). Note that we did not find many genes with signatures of natural selection on the West African branch and thus no clear indication that the West Africans have gotten darker since their separation from the East Asians and Europeans. This fact, although interesting in and of it's own, does not address the issue of the lighter skinned African populations. Good questions, clearly, But There Is Not Data Yet To Even Let Us Speculate Intelligently.
He clearly states that there is not enough data to speculate intelligently. They only know that from there research, there is no clear indication West Africans haven’t gotten darker since the migration out of Africa (a claim contradicted by Jablonski who says there was further skin color selection), but this still does not address the populations that are lighter within Africa, and he clearly states that.

And again, for reasons that I have posted before, I don’t fully agree with Jablonski that darker skinned people like Dinka had less to go in terms of skin color evolution than the Bisa Sandawe did, or the San.

Hot air. Of course, dark skin as the original state of modern humanity has been comfirmed.

Norton, Kittles et al:

In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**

The above of course supports Jablonski's common sensical point about dark skin being the natural state at the equatorial regions. It betrays all logic for "white" skin to be the natural response to the solar environment of this region, and this is where humanity emerged, as buttressed time and again by molecular genetics and skeletal remains, including cranio-metry. The fact that skeletal remains of the Upper Paleolithic display nothing that's suggestive of 'leucodermic' individuals, but rather approximate tropical groups like Australo-Melanesians and Africans than Europeans, should be a sure sign that a 'leucodermic' state of humanity is nothing but a flight of fantasy for those who entertain it.

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Might as well add mine from the other thread...


Chimu, in equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern humans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans. Lighterskin is needed when humans moved into northern Latitudes, since ligterskin allows for synthesis of UV to produce Vitamin D, under darker skies. Pale skin is best explained through the spread of farming, There are two general sources for vitamin D—sunlight and diet. We know that a farmer’s diet does not have enough vitamin D, meaning that people in farming-based societies need to get a lot of it from the sun. We also know there is not enough sunlight in Northern Europe for dark skinned people to get enough vitamin D. So farming based societies that live in Northern Europe need to have lighter skin. But farming didn’t really take a hold in Europe until 6,000 or 8,000 years ago. So what about the 30,000 or 35,000 years that people lived in Europe before farming you ask? Well, If there was enough vitamin D in their diet, then there would have been no need for pale skin. Recent genetic work suggests that the diet of these hunter-gatherers had plenty of vitamin D. Therefore humans in Europe were therefore brown-skinned for 10's of thousands of years before they turned pale.


The convergent evolution of pale skin
in Europeans and East Asians, was
completely independent of Africans
and of each other, so even
if Asians became lighter
around 15ky before humans in
Europe, this would have no bearing
on Europeans at all.



quote:

Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract

KEYWORDS
human pigmentation • skin color • positive selection • genetic adaptation • Perlegen database • SNP • EHH test
ABSTRACT

Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.

quote:

The genetic architecture of normal variation in human pigmentation: an evolutionary perspective and model

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/suppl_2/R176

ABSTRACT

Skin pigmentation varies substantially across human populations in a manner largely coincident with ultraviolet radiation intensity. This observation suggests that natural selection in response to sunlight is a major force in accounting for pigmentation variability. We review recent progress in identifying the genes controlling this variation with a particular focus on the trait's evolutionary past and the potential role of testing for signatures of selection in aiding the discovery of functionally important genes. We have analyzed SNP data from the International HapMap project in 77 pigmentation candidate genes for such signatures. On the basis of these results and other similar work, we provide a tentative three-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation. These results suggest a complex evolutionary history, with selection acting on different gene targets at different times and places in the human past. Some candidate genes may have been selected in the ancestral human population, others in the ‘out of Africa’ proto European-Asian population, whereas most appear to have selectively evolved solely in either Europeans or East Asians separately despite the pigmentation similarities between these two populations. Selection signatures can provide important clues to aid gene discovery. However, these should be viewed as complements, rather than replacements of, functional studies including linkage and association analyses, which can directly refine our understanding of the trait.

Chimu you seem to have quite a challenge ahead of you, hope you don't become frightened....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
akoben
Member
Member # 15244

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for akoben     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This topic has been addressed before with rasolowitz responding to Jamie's bait with his usual definition of black as simply "dark skin", allowing Jamie to throw "light skinned" Africans into the mix to argue against them being black and of course to augment his signature "admixture" thesis. Interestingly, he has used hybridization in reference to black populations in Africa, reminds me of some dumbasses in here and their willy nilly use of the word.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
T-rex, what is the point of creating this bait thread for the troll?? The trolls will obviously bite at any thread no matter what the topic is. Unless you want to boost Jaimie's status as the new boss troll. [Wink]
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by T. Rex:
[QB] It seems a former dissident forumer Chimu, aka Salsassin, has returned. I offer the following challenge to him:

1) Provide evidence that any the first humans in equatorial Africa were lighter than the range of complexions generally called "black", therefore justifying your assertion that we cannot call the first humans "black".

Generally, y whom? That is the problem. By Eurocentrics? By Afrocentrics? I know KhoiSan that would throw a fit if you called them Black. They see their complexions as red.
Again, if A tanned Japanese woman in Tanzania was darker than a population there that lived in that area all their lives, yes, I would say ther are populations that are not dark enough to be called Black.

quote:
2) Provide evidence that light-skinned, partially European-descended Maghrebians* are as tropically adapted as dynastic-era Egyptians
Show me first that all Maghrebians of medium complexion are of partial European descent. Not all Maghrebis are Kabyles.
quote:
(whose melanin levels have been reported as"Negroid" according to a fairly recent study on mummified remains). You were insisting earlier that Maghrebians had limb ratios similar to those of tropically adapted Africans based on the eyeballing of one photograph of a Maghrebian athlete, but that isn't hard enough data here.
Feel free to quote the study. I hope you aren't referring to Diop's mythical study.
And I didn't have to eyeball. Go look at that forum again.

quote:
* BTW, Keita mentions in one of his papers that Egyptian skeletons' limb ratios are closer to those of Africans than southern Europeans. Since southern Europeans are the maternal ancestors of "Caucasoid" Berbers, I think it logical to infer that said Berbers would have more southern European-type skeletons.
Again, where is your evidence all Maghrebians have substantial European ancestry or that the genetics for short limbs is prevalent in all populations.

All other posts in this thread have been answered in their appropriate threads.

Done.

Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by T. Rex:
[QB] It seems a former dissident forumer Chimu, aka Salsassin, has returned. I offer the following challenge to him:

1) Provide evidence that any the first humans in equatorial Africa were lighter than the range of complexions generally called "black", therefore justifying your assertion that we cannot call the first humans "black".

Generally, y whom? That is the problem. By Eurocentrics? By Afrocentrics? I know KhoiSan that would throw a fit if you called them Black.
Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?

Chimu, in equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa, or West Africa so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans. This is not a guessing game of you seeing lighterskinned Khoisan in South Africa, modern humans **DID NOT** evolve in South Africa, they evolved in equatorial tropical East Africa. South Africa, which has temperature zones similar to that of Southern Europe is not tropical Africa and is not where modern humans evolved.


Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]

The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]

By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Khoisans are in fact regarded as 'black' in South Africa. They must be throwing fits there quite often, 24/7.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What could possibly address this to be other than what it is, explained in plain English...

Norton, Kittles et al:

In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^The Khoisan that he knows, most likely doesn't feel comfortable being called black, being around an individual who suffers from blackphobia, such as Chimpu.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatbox
Member
Member # 10819

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Whatbox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What could possibly address this to be other than what it is, explained in plain English...

Norton, Kittles et al:

In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**

I was going to say much earlier, on this point, this arguement was over AS soon as you posted the above.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^As of course does the following


quote:

Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract

ABSTRACT

Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatbox
Member
Member # 10819

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Whatbox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Agreed. It's rather weak that Chimu rails against "black", "black-centrism", etc, and not "white", "mixed", or any of those centrisms.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?

Mindless Matter, I see you ignored the fact that the Bisa Sandawe where lighter until recently due to admixture.

quote:
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.


quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Khoisans are in fact regarded as 'black' in South Africa. They must be throwing fits there quite often, 24/7.

Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.
From a Khoi in Botswana:
quote:
it really depends on our different definitions of black and white. In apartheid South Africa, where classification was rife, Bushmen people were regarded as Coloured. In Botswana, we are regarded as Black. They call themselves N/oakhwe, 'the red people'.

Kgeika Kwena means the First People. N/oakhwe means The Red People. In our Bushmen societies, we do not have many stratas as the other societies do (blacks, whites, indians etc). That I think is the reason why we have not considered ourselves along any lines of race. Of course we're as unique as you can imagine to all of you in our ways of core existence. In Botswana, we have accepted that we're black and not coloured.

Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.

From a San in South Africa
quote:
I have to make a few things clear in order to answer you.
1. The Khoisan are not Black
2. They are separate from other population
The Khoisan people are not easy to classify due to outside elements that has been playing part in destroying our identity. We are brown; yellowish in colour even some are white. There are even some of us that are darker in colour, but we don’t classify ourselves as Blacks. Why? The term Black, same as Coloured has become an insult, because we are seen as not White and also not Black we are seen as not part of the population in this country. I really get angry for those Khoisan people who call themselves Coloureds and say they are even proud. I feel sorry for them because they do not know their culture and their heritage. I am asked a lot about why do I still wear that animal skin in front and I simply say it’s my culture. To answer you, on are we Black, the answer is no no no. You can call us Brown but not Black. The term Black refers to the Nguni people, the Xhosas (name given by us), Zulus, and other Black tribes. We are indigenous to this land so if we were labelled as Blacks, our Nguni people that are Blacks and us would be on the same level (which we are not). You see, to call us Blacks would be an insult, but sadly our people of Khoisan descent because of poverty and for getting jobs in the new South Africa they now call themselves Black (Black economic empowerment). The Khoisan can never be seen as Black nor can they be called Black they are the true Africans because they are indigenous to this land. The outside areas (outside South Africa) even Namibia there are Khoisan, but to the overseas people there are two people in South Africa: Blacks and Whites (we need to tell them about the Khoisan) I ask one tourist this question and his answer was that their knowledge about the Khoisan was that they are rebellious and that they wore animal skins. You see, that is why I am proud to wear my traditional clothes for heritage day to show people that I am Khoisan. That is who I am. To finish the discussion we as the Khoisan see ourselves as people not like the Blacks, but separate from them and would not be seen or known like anything else.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Norton, Kittles et al:

In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**

An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^The Khoisan that he knows, most likely doesn't feel comfortable being called black, being around an individual who suffers from blackphobia, such as Chimpu.

LOL, I am always entertained by these claims. And Eurocentrics call me Afrocentric. Extremists always try to project.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.

[/QUOTE]
Same unique origin as that of the Bisa Sandawe and they were lighter.

quote:
Originally posted by Alive:
^Agreed. It's rather weak that Chimpu rails against "black", "black-centrism", etc, and not "white", "mixed", or any of those centrisms.

Don't make me laugh. Eurocentrics constantly accuse me of being Afrocentric, Mulattocentrics accuse me of being Afrocentric, Indigenocentrists accuse me of being Afrocentric. Why? Because while I will shoot down Afrocentric mythologies in boards such as this, I actually promote the very real Afro Diaspora that is alive and kicking today. I don't live in lala land fantasies.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatbox
Member
Member # 10819

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Whatbox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh.

quote:
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.

^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is because dark skin is simply a trait that evolved in tandom with the loss of fur/hair.

So it only shows that the ancient ancestral population full of the ancestral melanin genes still likely possesed a variation in skin tone. Big whoop.

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:


Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.

The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".

quote:

Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.

Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?


quote:

Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.

So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Norton, Kittles et al:

In general, the derived allele (associated with lighter pigmentation) is most common in Europeans and East Asians, and the **ancestral allele** predominates in **sub-Saharan Africa** and **Island Melanesia.**

An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[Well here's the thing dimwit. T-rex wasn't asking you to tell him about Khoisan throwing fits, he asked you to provide information which says that modern humans did not evolve in equatorial tropical East Africa, and being in this tropical zone wouldn't have been dark...?

Mindless Matter, I see you ignored the fact that the Bisa Sandawe where lighter until recently due to admixture.
And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.

quote:
quote:
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:

What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?

And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...

The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.

Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.

There is no evidence that anatomically modern humans as they emerged, were ever anything but dark complexioned, i.e. "black", because there is no evidence of the alleles generally associated with the dark skin seen in equatorial Africans and groups like Melanesians, were ever a product of a selection event subsequent to an earlier state. Even Chimu openly admitted to this fact.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:

Uh no, they weren't. They were regarded as Griqua or Colored.

This fellow has a different take...

Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com

By the same author above...

The Peoples of South Africa

Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.

The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.


My emphasis for clarity: the numbers [1*] through to [4*]

Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.

There is no evidence that anatomically modern humans as they emerged, were ever anything but dark complexioned, i.e. "black", because there is no evidence of the alleles generally associated with the dark skin seen in equatorial Africans and groups like Melanesians, were ever a product of a selection event subsequent to an earlier state. Even Chimu openly admitted to this fact.
True, this is basic biological science, in tropical climates humans would have to be darkskinned to protect themselves from harmful UV rays. There is no guessing about this, and the fact that there is no evidence that the peoples you mention in Melanesia were any lighter or any selection to make them darker. The fact that Oceanic's represent OOA descendants the most, I.e, genetically and phenotypically. Is all the evidence we need to come to the conclusion that the ancestors of non Africans(a group of East Africans who left from equatorial Africa) were definitely black.

The Bisa Sandawe and Khoisan of South Africa, were not part of the single group of East Africans who left via the horn to populate the world.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

There is no guessing about this, and the fact that there is no evidence that the peoples you mention in Melanesia were any lighter or any selection to make them darker. The fact that Oceanic's represent OOA descendants the most, I.e, genetically and phenotypically. Is all the evidence we need to come to the conclusion that the ancestors of non Africans(a group of East Africans who left from equatorial Africa) were definitely black...

Speaking of Melanesians, we are told...

The discordance between our Fst-based divergence values and allele frequencies in the Melanesian CEPH populations at ASIP largely stem from the relatively low frequency of the ancestral allele in the 2 CEPH Island Melanesian populations relative to our original Island Melanesian sample. These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead inter-population variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between Africans and non-Africans. The discordance between the frequencies of the ASIP ancestral allele in our original Island Melanesian sample and the Melanesian samples from the CEPH panel may be indicative of both the complex demographic history of Island Melanesia (involving several migratory events (Spriggs 1997) and probable extensive genetic drift (Friendlaender 1975, 1987) as well as the importance of multiple loci in determining pigmentation phenotype - Norton, Kittles et al.

Note that the sample of the "original Island Melanesians" showed up relatively greater frequencies of the ancestral state of the allele in question than the "CEPH Island Melanesians".

Ps -

From above...

These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead inter-population variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between Africans and non-Africans.

As I have noted elsewhere for the above...

Thus possible further extensions of variations detected amongst Melanesians can be explained by successive demographic events After their African ancestors migrated over 40ky ago.

Whether the derived state has much of a "lightening" effect amongst sections of Melanesians or not, is trivial to the point that the ancestral state is predominantly found in equatorial Africans.

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alive:
Oh.

quote:
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.

^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is because dark skin is simply a trait that evolved in tandom with the loss of fur/hair.

So it only shows that the ancient ancestral population full of the ancestral melanin genes still likely possesed a variation in skin tone. Big whoop. [

And that variation allowed for more than one skin tone. No evidence that they were not of multiple hues, just like great apes today.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".

Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.

quote:
Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?
quote:
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
quote:
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.

"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
quote:
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Yes, they are.
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96

quote:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.

Go read the literature. I already quoted it. And the Snadawe do show strong admixture today with Bantu. Go read Tishkoff.

quote:
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?

And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...

The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.

Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state. [/QUOTE]
Feel free to show that Jablonski shws any evidence, other than hypothesis. that they have a derived state. I know what Jablonski believes. I am only interested in what she has proven though.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...

Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com

Yes the Griquas are mixed. But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.
quote:
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.
And KhoiSan fell under Coloreds.

quote:
The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.[/i]
Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
quote:
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
Read above.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The Bisa Sandawe and Khoisan of South Africa, were not part of the single group of East Africans who left via the horn to populate the world.

Neither were modern Horners. Did you have a point?

This guy is not Griqua. He is San, and he is Colored
 -

Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:

Whether the derived state has much of a "lightening" effect amongst sections of Melanesians or not, is trivial to the point that the ancestral state is predominantly found in equatorial Africans.

Good catch, could be a possible explanation. The derived state, and the very low frequency of said ancestral alleles found in said population compared to others where the allele predominates. As indeed you've noted, in the original Island Melanesian sample and equatorial East Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JMT
Member
Member # 12050

Member Rated:
5
Icon 13 posted      Profile for JMT     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:
Originally posted by Alive:
Oh.

quote:
chimu:
An ancestral allele that was present in the Bisa Sandawe and yet they were lighter.

^It also predominates in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is because dark skin is simply a trait that evolved in tandom with the loss of fur/hair.

So it only shows that the ancient ancestral population full of the ancestral melanin genes still likely possesed a variation in skin tone. Big whoop. [

And that variation allowed for more than one skin tone. No evidence that they were not of multiple hues, just like great apes today.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".

Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.

quote:
Do you have evidence that in Apartheid South Africa, Khoisans were given the same treatment as "coloreds", and were better treated than the "blacks"?
quote:
In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.
http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
quote:
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.

"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
quote:
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Yes, they are.
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96

quote:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
And how light is this supposed lighter? Of course Bisa Sandawe are dark enough and retain enough melanin to survive in tropical climates. Therefore there skin would not be light. Please show otherwise, and post evidence that this "admixture" made them darker..... Btw, Non Africans ancestors migrated out of tropical East Africa, the horn.

Go read the literature. I already quoted it. And the Snadawe do show strong admixture today with Bantu. Go read Tishkoff.

quote:
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]?

And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...

The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.

Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.

Feel free to show that Jablonski shws any evidence, other than hypothesis. that they have a derived state. I know what Jablonski believes. I am only interested in what she has proven though.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...

Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com

Yes the Griquas are mixed. But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.
quote:
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.
And KhoiSan fell under Coloreds.

quote:
The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.[/i]
Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
quote:
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
Read above.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The Bisa Sandawe and Khoisan of South Africa, were not part of the single group of East Africans who left via the horn to populate the world.

Neither were modern Horners. Did you have a point?

This guy is not Griqua. He is San, and he is Colored
 -
[/QUOTE]

You and your blatant color complex is truly repugnant. I suspect you're not the color or shade you wish to be. You're probably miserable. Do yourself a favor and put the barrel of a chambered .45 caliber pistol in your mouth and pull the trigger. This will end your misery.

Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More, non Euro mixed light San and Khoi
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -

Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JMT:
[b]You and your blatant color complex is truly repugnant. I suspect you're not the color or shade you wish to be. You're probably miserable. Do yourself a favor and put the barrel of a chambered .45 caliber pistol in your mouth and pull the

Awwwwww still pissed because I fvcked your mother?
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

quote:
quote:
quote:
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation, weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do. It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin, Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African.
I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine.

They do possess the ancestral allele. What do you mean by a mutation from the original gene?

You commented on Rogers saying any progeny with any whiter skin would've been killed off, by you saying "Sandawe were not killed off". Therefore I replied "Sandawe are not white". They are pigmented Africans, retaining melanin levels to protect from harmful UV rays. The original humans who left Africa to become non Africans from the horn of East Africa were darkskinned Africans. These humans are represented by the Oceanic populations, these Oceanic populations possess the ancestral allele that all Africans possess, and these people are black, these are what the ancestors of non Africans looked like and the color they were.


In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
akoben
Member
Member # 15244

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for akoben     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing Africans as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other.

As I said this guy chimp's ass was kicked before.

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The Sandawe have enough melanin to survive in the environment they live in, and their complexion is what one would call "dark complexioned"; essentially what we also call "black".

Wrong. They were always described as lighter. Don't confuse the Tehla Sandawe with the Bisa.
According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?

quote:
quote:

In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.

http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this.

quote:
quote:
Chief Little believes the event is a signal for all those of Khoisan descent to reclaim their identity.

"She's brought to the fore that we need to be proud of our identity instead of hiding behind the classification of 'coloured' which was given to us by the racist apartheid regime," he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1971103.stm
Yes, Khoisans mixed with non-African groups may have been given leeway to identify as "coloreds", but you have shown no evidence that Khoisans were not grouped with "black Africans". I've already cited a piece that suggests otherwise.

quote:


quote:
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Yes, they are.
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96

This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?

quote:

quote:
What was the allele, found in the Bisa Sandawe by whom, and associated with what skin complexion [that is to say, with "dark" or "light" according to the study]? Your opinionating that the Bisa Sandawe are "lighter" in no way changes the fact of the study that you are citing above about dark skin alleles in Africans and Melanesians, nor does your *personal* characterization of the Sandawe as "lighter" make them not to be "dark" complexioned folks, that is to say, "black".
Lighter than a tanned Japanese woman. Not Black.
You realize that you evaded what you cited above, don't you?

quote:


quote:
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...

The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.

Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.

Feel free to show that Jablonski shws any evidence, other than hypothesis. that they have a derived state. I know what Jablonski believes. I am only interested in what she has proven though.
You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.


quote:

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This fellow has a different take...

Coloreds: Mixed-race descendants of Africans, Asians, and Europeans, coloreds compose two distinct communities: the Malays (mostly Moslem, descended from Indonesian slaves), and the Griquas, whose origins are from Khoikhoi and white **unions**. The Coloreds speak Afrikaans and, to a lesser extent, English. They are concentrated in the three Cape provinces. Since the official beginning of apartheid in 1948, they have tended to identify socially with Blacks more and more - Obi O. Akwani, IMDiversity.com

Yes the Griquas are mixed.
Exactly, so why did you pass off the term as though it were some kind of a category in which **all** Khoisans were generally placed?

quote:

But the pure KhoiSan were also classified as coloured.

If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?

quote:

quote:
Modern South Africa is composed of many peoples who, as a result of the country's history, fall into four main race-based categories: indigenous [1*]Africans or Blacks, [2*]Europeans or Whites, [3*]Asians or Indians, and [4*]Coloreds.

The African majority consists of three main cultural groups: the Khoikhoi, the San or Khoisan people of the Cape region and the Bantus.

Yes there were two African groups. The Colored and the Blacks or Bantus.
Not according to what you are reading. What official Apartheid document can you present that suggests what you are replying to is wrong? What Apartheid state or even contemporary south African state documents can you produce that suggests that they was/are 5 as opposed to the 4 "racial" categories mentioned. And if you are saying that Khoisans were grouped in the African category, well then, that was only one category of that kind. There was no "two African" categories; if you have official south African state documents stating otherwise, then produce them for us.

quote:

quote:
Chimu, do you have evidence that Apartheid South Africa, and henceforth, modern South Africa's "racial" or ethnic categories are different from what is being stated above?
Read above.
I have, I was the one who posted it, and it contradicts everything you've said; how do you intend to prove otherwise?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Furthermore...

quote:
Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories.

The black population consists of several groups: Khoi-San, Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged.

The apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus), and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.

Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml

References, as indicated above in the piece, are as follows:

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/hunt.html

http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/southafr.htm

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html

http://www.ngo.grida.no/soesa/nsoer/general/about.htm

http://www.southafrica-travel.net/pages/e_bevoelk.htm

http://www.tky.hut.fi/~remburssi/projects/sa_golden/sa_tgo/country.htm

http://www.unfpa.org/regions/africa/countries/s_africa/1saf0206.doc

Ebsco: Background Notes on Countries of the World, Oct99 Honduras, p1, 15p

--------------------
The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/south_africa_faces/

From National Geographic.

There are nearly 43 million South Africans, most of them belonging to one of four major ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group is black (75.2 percent of the population); followed by whites (13.6 percent). Coloureds, as South Africans call people of mixed race, make up 8.6 percent of the population. Indians, mostly the descendants of South Asian immigrants, comprise about 2.6 percent of the population.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

quote:
quote:
So, is this your way of saying that the San in Botswana are darker in skin tone than those in South Africa?
Yes, they are.
Botswana (Kalahari - Central Bushmen, Yellow Bushmen at Lone Tree, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Takashwani, Central San, Yellow Bushmen at Ghanzi, Central San) 42.4
South Africa (Warmbath - Hottentot) 43.75
South Africa (Namaqualand, Hottentot) 46.8
South Africa (Cape - Cape Coloureds) 50.96


This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source? [/QUOTE]


I searched and found this....

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/09/uv-skin-color.php

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker? Sandawe seem like one of the darker observed populations.


India (Southern) 46.7

Mali (Dogon) 34.1

Spain (Basque - Basque and non-Basques) 65.7

Australia (Darwin - Aborigines) 19.3

PNG (Karker - Karker Islanders) 32

Morocco 54.85

Netherlands (Dutch (mainly resident in Utrecht)) 67.37

South African (S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5

Tanzania (Sandawe) 28.9

Nigeria (Ibo) 28.2

Sudan 35.5

Ireland (Ballinlough) 65.2

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker?

Funny, ain't it?

--------------------
The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat

Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
More, non Euro mixed light San and Khoi
 -
 -
 -
 -
 -

LOL, Those pictures of Kio-San look like faded airline clips from the Early 90's. The San Bushmen do not represent the Africans that evolved in East Africa...they represent a people adapted to the envioment where they migrated to.(South Africa)  -

Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..
 -
 -
compared to white people the San are clearly Black Africans...The people in your selected faded pics are not a representation of the San people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c246fZ-7z1w

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker?

Funny, ain't it?
Oh indeed it is, actually hilarious, and to an extent pretty much ridiculous.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:

Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..

Also, if you haven't noticed, he always posts the same same selective pics. The kid is a clown......

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Explorador
Member
Member # 14778

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Explorador   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:

Note that in Botsana, the Black identity has been pushed while in South Africa it has not. The Khoi in Botwana are also much more heavily mixed with Bantu than the San in South Africa.

BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatbox
Member
Member # 10819

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Whatbox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by akoben:
If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing Africans as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other.

As I said this guy chimp's ass was kicked before.

Now all of a sudden "you're" all for black, since some of "us" are calling for Keita to state the AE were black. Hmmm...

A color reference you've been opposed to for a while. Why? Because it "divides Africans"? You're too crafty. I can post more than a few links to your past comments btw.

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
akoben
Member
Member # 15244

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for akoben     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ no need for links, just post ref. or quotes where i was "opposed" to black as an ethno-national label.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:

Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..

Also, if you haven't noticed, he always posts the same same selective pics. The kid is a clown......

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266

Its is rather pathetic, the boys argument is flawed and contradictory....I mean if the first humans looked like the San then he first humans were on average darker complected. He only selects pictures of the lightest San, and the presumes his argument is a valid one...lol
 -

 -

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chimu
Member
Member # 15060

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Chimu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Follow along nincompoop
quote:
Originally posted by MindlessMatter78:
quote:
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation(speaking about the mutation specifically mentioned by Rogers0[b], weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
Of course they have the mutation you idiot, as all Africans do.[b](But you obviously are too clueless to read a post in context It's the ancestral state of all humans. The Bisa Sandawe are not white and were not white ever. The original humans when they lost their fur were likely pink/white skinned, and under the intense sun of Equatorial Africa it would of killed of any offspring that retained this pink skin(More stupidity. they are not talking about babies being with born with pink skin from ancestral times with fur, they are speaking of new mutations that arise that would lead to change of skin color. In other words mutations like that of Europe may have occurred, but they never survived in the population), Bisa are not pink, nor is any indigenous African. [/QUOTE]I meant a mutation from that original MCR1 gene.
And no one claimed they were White. Nice strawman. I said they weren't Black. Your dumb dichotomy, not mine. [/QUOTE]They do possess the ancestral allele. What do you mean by a mutation from the original gene? [/quote]
Read above

quote:
You commented on Rogers saying any progeny with any whiter skin would've been killed off, by you saying "Sandawe were not killed off". Therefore I replied "Sandawe are not white". They are pigmented Africans, retaining melanin levels to protect from harmful UV rays. The original humans who left Africa to become non Africans from the horn of East Africa were darkskinned Africans. These humans are represented by the Oceanic populations, these Oceanic populations possess the ancestral allele that all Africans possess, and these people are black, these are what the ancestors of non Africans looked like and the color they were.
A few factors you blatantly ignore:
I clearly state that while Bisa Sandawe are lighter, they survived in Tanzania, and they do not have any genetic mutation in their skin color that would make them a new skin color. They are within the range of variation of MCR1. Meaning they are lighter but not light enough not to be able to survive in Equatorial Africa. We have no idea how dark or light Horn of Africans were when they migrated out of Africa. Sorry bub, if lighter populations can survive to this day smack on the equator, then they could have survived there, and there are lighter skinned Ethiopians.


quote:
In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.
You have yet to prove that all Horn of Africans are Dark, Or even that modern Horn of Africans represent the color of Ancient Horners
 -

quote:
Originally posted by akoben:
If there were "pure KhoiSan" how can they be classified as "coloured"? Isn't colored category for "mixed races"? And if the Khoisan were indeed classified as such this is obviously a political move by the regime, another divide and rule tactic. Dividing Africans as "black" and "not black" is a common colonial practice from Rwanda to South Africa. It doesnt mean one group is more (or less) "black" or African than the other.

Less African, of course not. But they never identified as Black. And the San saw the Bantu as foreigners to their land as well
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
According to what scale are they described as anything but "dark complexion". What?

Just do a search through old literature.
The Physical Characters of the Sandawe, J. C. Trevor, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1947), pp. 61-78

quote:
The original Sandawe were lighter in skin colour than are those of today
quote:
quote:

In the 1950s they were classified as coloured by the Apartheid authorities.

http://www.come2capetown.com/thecity/people_language/Khoi_San.asp
What legal document from the Apartheid State said Khoisans, who are not mixed with non-African groups, are anything but in the same camp as "black Africans"? Your link doesn't provide this.
quote:

Read below I quote the names of the acts involved.

We do know the belief in the area was that the San and Khoi were "Already mixed with Hamitic Whites". In other words their look marked them as not Black and not White, so the Boers rationalized that they were already mixed.

 -

It may have been political as well:
quote:

Nama and San people know that the suppression of their identities and languages was required to assert the ideology of apartheid and justify the seizure of lands. According to one Nama speaker, Sacharias Christiaan, the apartheid government forced Nama people to register as coloured so as to invalidate their status as aboriginal people. If the Khoe and San people ceased to exist, no claims could be made to original occupation of land. This was in sharp contrast to the Bantustan policy which had brought to the fore the legal concept of separate territoriality for different linguistic groups. By declaring Nama people to be of mixed race and Afrikaans-speaking, the government was able to suppress any argument for a Nama state, or Nama cultural and linguistic rights.

Language is not the only apartheid rubric that has survived the transition to democracy. The Central Statistics Service (CSS) continues to use the terms African, white, coloured and Asian to describe the racial-ethnic variation in the country. There are two problems with this. Firstly, the majority of three million so-called coloured South Africans are of direct Khoe and San descent, with over one hundred thousand still referring to themselves as Griqua, Nama, Bushman or Koranna. Though some South Africans may comfortably identify themselves as "coloured," the term has been rejected by others. For it is a myth that still holds some force that "coloured" people are of "mixed race," with settler origins. In fact, the majority of so-called "coloured" South Africans are at least as indigenous as so called "Africans."

The flip side of this mythology is that Bantu-language speaking South Africans may claim a special authenticity and indigenous status and assert that they are not of "mixed race." These assumptions are rooted firmly in colonial and apartheid policies. In the building of colonial and then apartheid hegemony, the settler regime promoted distinctions between South Africans whose languages, cultures and genetic material were in fact interwoven. The racial terminology, "Native", "Bantu" and later the nine ethno-linguistic African groups, carried forth the fiction that most South Africans are not of mixed race, whereas historical research clearly shows much intermarriage between Khoe, San, Nguni and Sotho speaking peoples. Arguably, in the new era this racial mythology has been recycled and conveniently creates a mythological original and authentic status for the dominant "Black" "African" "Nguni-Sotho" elite which is contrasted with other less authentic identities: white, coloured and Asian.

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3803
It is quite obvious though that the Nama, the Khoe, the San, etc were seen as aboriginal, or mixed, but never as Black. And even when seen as aboriginal, they were forced in the same status as the Griqua, Coloured. In fact, if you ooked like a stereotypical Black (Read Bantu) you were just classified as Black. But if you were mixed or one of the lighter skinned KhoiSan you were classified as Colored regardless
 -
In fact, Colored basically came to mean anyone not seen as White or Bantu (Black), whether they were mixed or not.[b]
 -
[b]What is even worse, the Colored people where removed fo their rightful as First Peoples of the region

quote:
In South Africa the social construction of the mixed person passed through various phases, at times containing some of the elements of the Brazilian racial continuum and at times approaching the dichotomous American version of racial purity. One experiences considerable cognitive dissonance as one moves (as I have) among the three systems. The South African classification of "coloured" is somewhat analogous to the US notion of "black," while the South African classification of "black" is closer to the North American concept of the "Indian" or "Native American."
The irony is that although the Bantus are immigrants just as the Boers, they have been given indigenous status, while the KhoiSan/Colored populations have been given an ambiguous status as not belonging to the land. Effectively a displaced people, much like the African American people.

quote:
The existence of ambiguously "raced" people ( i.e.,"coloureds" ) was a "wild card" (the Joker) in the system and ideology of strict race segregation on which modern South African apartheid was built. The origins of the popular view of "coloureds" as a residual or "left over" category is inscribed in the apartheid laws which defined South African citizenship in terms of a system of racist population classifications (see Ridd 1981 and West 1988 from which the following is summarized). Apartheid was implemented through the hated Population Registration Act of 1950 (which was amended no less than 15 times between 1956 and 1986).

The Population and Registration Act (in Section 1) identified three basic classifications of South Africans: black, coloured, and white. A black (previously a Native or a Bantu) was defined as "a person who is, or is generally accepted as, a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa." A white person was defined (in extremely hedged language) as: "a person who (a) in appearance obviously is a White person, and who is not generally accepted as a Colored person; or (b) is generally accepted as a White person and is not in appearance obviously not a White person. Finally, "white person" excludes those who voluntarily confess that they are "by descent a Black or a Colored person, unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact." The definition of a "coloured" is what remains: "a Colored is a person who is not a White person or a Black."

Note that the Khoi, San, Nama, and othe rKhoiSanid populations weren't allowed the identity of being an aboriginal tribe, so they were seen as mixed race, Colored, not Black

quote:
Because they stand in-between what was arguably an essentially a bi-polar race model (black/ white), South African "coloureds" are social "liminals," the half-way mark between "whites" and "blacks."
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/publications/hongkong/scheper.htm
The KhoiSanid populations, wether mixed or not, where never seen as Black. and in a bi-polar racial model, they could only be mixed or Colored
 -
If you think that the various KhoiSan peoples were seen as Black, think again. Read this blog by a Nama:
http://bikerpat.blogspot.com/2008/07/going-back-to-my-nama-roots.html
quote:
Under the oppressive laws of apartheid, Khoe and South African people were forced to register and adopt and identity as coloured people.
[b]Nope, Not Black
quote:
The apartheid system in South Africa required that every individual within the society be classified and segregated according to four major racial categories, i.e., White, Black, Coloured, and Indian. The category “Coloured” became the most arbitrary racial category in that it functioned as a way of disguising the cultural heterogeneity of people who possessed African, European, Khoe, San, Indian, and Malay backgrounds. Indigenous groups were especially likely to accept this categorization due to the severely derogatory connotations associated with “Bushmen” during the apartheid years. It is not until recently that the gains made by emerging indigenous rights movements have encouraged people to reclaim and take pride in African, San, and Khoe ancestry.
http://www.conquest.org.za/documents/!Xu%20and%20Khwe%20profile%202.pdf

quote:
Under the racial administrative system of Apartheid(1949 – 1993), all indigenous peoples were forced to be registered as other racial groups, with most being classified as “Coloured” or mixed race.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001464/146436e.pdf
Now please don't tell me the UNESCO doesn't know what it's talking about.
quote:
This scale doesn't even make sense; what is it suppose to relay; that the higher the score, the lighter? What is the source?
Uh Yeah!?!?
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf
quote:
You realize that you evaded what you cited above, don't you?

QUOTE]You can't read; the study you are looking at, was from actual geneticists. It's their word. Nobody said anything about Jablonski.

No, you can't read. Kittles was not the primary source If you knew how to read, you would know Kittles paper is making that claim citing Jablonski's paper. Try again.

quote:
If the Khoisans were also classified as "coloreds", then why would they need the term "Griquas" for the other "coloreds" also of Khoisan descent; why?
[b]There is a difference between auto classification, and official classification by law.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Furthermore...
[QUOTE]Until 1991, South African law divided the population into four major racial categories: (1.) The Black Africans, of which the Nguni and Sotho groups account for 90% of the Black population. Black population accounts 75% of the South Africa's entire population. (2.) The Whites who account for about 13% of the population. (3.) The Indians who account for around 3 % and (4.) the Coloreds who are mixed White and Black descent and account for 9% of the population. Although the South African law of racial categories has been abolished, many South Africans still view themselves according to these categories.
The black population consists of several groups: Khoi-San, Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele, Sotho, Shangaan and Venda, just to name a few. The biggest groups are Zulus (21 %), Xhosas (17 %) and the Sotho (15%). Next smaller minorities are the Tswana, Venda, Ndebele, Swasi, and Pedi, among others. The Khoi-Sans are originally hunter-gatherers who have inhabited the land for a long time. Many political leaders, Nelson Mandela among them, come from the Xhosa. Most of the Blacks used to live in the countryside following a traditional way of life, but a class of progressive farmers also formed. Many of these became Christians and had some education from Missionaries. In the towns many Blacks worked as labourers. A small class of professional newspaper editors, lawyers and teachers emerged.

The apartheid regime over-emphasised the differences among the various ethnic group, mainly between whites and non-whites, but also between black groups (i.e. Xhosas and Zulus), and turned them against each other rather than against the government. The policy of racial segregation favoured the political and economic power for the white minority. Until today, South Africa has to deal with the consequences of this disastrous policy. Large part of the fast growing black majority lives in oppressive poverty in the outer districts of the cities lacking sufficient sanitation, electricity and water. Many of the residents are illiterate. The enormous poverty problem in South Africa is the major reason for the high crime rates.

Source: http://www.jyu.fi/viesti/verkkotuotanto/kp/sa/peop_ethnicgrps.shtml
And you don't think the Black majority today aren't imposing their own racial dichotomies today? LMAO. You sure are Naive. In Today's South Africa, to be Colored is to be homeless. The unoficial state policy is for KhoiSan to identify as Black or else not participate in all indigenous rights programs, which are geared toward the Black majority. Many KhoiSan have been fighting against this, as I quoted one already. Go read him again.

quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
According to the data..... If the higher the score, lighter the skin. So South African Bantus are lighter than Sandawe, meanwhile Bantus supposedly mixed with Sandawe to make them darker? Sandawe seem like one of the darker observed populations.

Boy are you dense. South African Bantus have also been mixing with San. And Sandawe were never as light as San.

Compare South African Bantus to other Bantus:
South African (S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5
Namibia (Okavango Bantu, M’bukushu at Bagani, Kuangali) 22.92


quote:
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
LOL, Those pictures of Kio-San look like faded airline clips from the Early 90's. The San Bushmen do not represent the Africans that evolved in East Africa...they represent a people adapted to the envioment where they migrated to.(South Africa)
Plus your posting of the Kiaosan as some sort of validity to your argument is rather weak, The said people are black Africans..

Oh the stupidity. Those pictures are not faded. Deal with it. And they are not dark skinned, and obviously Afrikaners did not see them as Black.
 -
LOL. Those are Namibians or Botswanan, no from South Africa, but from the Kalahari desert and they have a bright background. You obviously know nothing of photography. Go look up Backlight.
 -
 -
The Bushmen up there have a lot more admixture with Bantu than the San of South Africa[b]

quote:
compared to white people the San are clearly Black Africans...The people in your selected faded pics are not a representation of the San people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c246fZ-7z1w

[b]Obviously not, as the Boers considered them mixed from the get go. And these are Namibian Bushmen, again not the San of South Africa.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW, what study of uniparental paternal and maternal markers suggest that the Khoisans in Botswana are more "mixed" with "exotic" groups than those in South Africa?

Look at Cavalli-Sforza's work I posted.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
akoben
Member
Member # 15244

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for akoben     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The irony is that although the Bantus are immigrants just as the Boers
This confirms you're a jackass racist. An undercover apartheid apologist.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QB] Follow along nincompoop
quote:
Originally posted by MindlessMatter78:
[QUOTE]By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).

Bisa Sandawe didn't have a mutation[b](speaking about the mutation specifically mentioned by Rogers0[b], weren't killed off by the intense sun and were lighter.
Oh man, you dumb piece of sh*t. Lighter doesn't mean anything, as they retained a melanin level like all Africans, even the lightest indigenous San does, that is/was able to prevent UV damage. Sorry but your little argument that Sandawe were once lighter and now are 20 shades darker because they mixed with Bantu is rubbish, on top of that, your use of this supposedly ligterskinned population(that would still be considered black, would've rode at the back of the bus in America, during civil rights era) to somehow argue that Early humans were lightskinned, I.e, not black is ridiculous. Albinos don't live long in Africa, which tells you pale melaninless skin is not for Africa.

 -

This man above is black in the sense that he is an Indigenous African retaining melanin, and would be considered black, and would've rode at the back of the bus in America. Plain and simple. Don't tell me the crackas would've said, no look he's a lil lighter let him sit up front with us, never would've happened. You're dichotomy between Africans, is seriously a sign of divide and conquer, you nazi coward. Trying to split Africans. You should be ashamed.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
In equatorial East Africa, where modern humans evolved, where dark skinned populations are seen in today's tropical East Africa, is how dark modern humans who left Africa were. This is all you have to worry about. That single population who left Africa. Not the San in South Africa or any other African population. Ancestors of modern non Africans migrated from equatorial East Africa, not South Africa or West Africa, so the complexion of the San has nothing to do with the original humans who left Africa to become non Africans who were indeed dark skinned as today's equatorial East Africans.
You have yet to prove that all Horn of Africans are Dark, Or even that modern Horn of Africans represent the color of Ancient Horners
 -

That man is an indigenous African, and hence black, what the fu*k is wrong with you? Stop trying to split up Africans. You seriously need to go and check your eyes out. In America there are lightskinned African Americans, just like the Khoisan or even lighter, and they are considered black, nothing else. so don't play the fucking seperatism color game you dumb sh*t.
 -

 -

^^^All equally black !!!


That modern horn Africans represent ancient horn Africans? I don't even understand how you say your some kind of intellectual, and we should take you seriously, yet you make stupid strawman statements like that.

In tropical climates humans would have to be darkskinned to protect themselves from harmful UV rays. There is no guessing about this. To deny it just sows tat you're an idiot, to say that Khoisan are somehow not darkskinned when compared to a cracka such as yourself is also ridiculous. Even Southern Indians, and also Moroccans are lighter than the San.

While the aboriginal representatives of OOA are much darker than the San, and there is absolutely NO evidence that selected for these Oceanic's to become darker. In fact these people also carry the ancestral alleles, from Africa.

India (Southern) 46.7

Mali (Dogon) 34.1

Spain (Basque - Basque and non-Basques) 65.7

Australia (Darwin - Aborigines) 19.3

PNG (Karker - Karker Islanders) 32

Morocco 54.85

Netherlands (Dutch (mainly resident in Utrecht)) 67.37

South African (S. A. Negroes (73% Tswana and Xhosa), Bantu (96% Xhosa)) 42.5

Tanzania (Sandawe) 28.9

Nigeria (Ibo) 28.2

Sudan 35.5

Ireland (Ballinlough) 65.2

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of extreme importance is the fact that original Island Melanesian samples showed relatively higher frequency levels than that of CEPH Island Melanesian populations.

quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:

The discordance between our Fst-based divergence values and allele frequencies in the Melanesian CEPH populations at ASIP largely stem from the relatively low frequency of the ancestral allele in the 2 CEPH Island Melanesian populations relative to our original Island Melanesian sample. These discrepancies make it difficult to determine if ASIP truly underlies broad pigmentation differences between darkly and lightly pigmented populations or instead inter-population variation at this locus can largely be explained by differences between Africans and non-Africans. The discordance between the frequencies of the ASIP ancestral allele in our original Island Melanesian sample and the Melanesian samples from the CEPH panel may be indicative of both the complex demographic history of Island Melanesia (involving several migratory events (Spriggs 1997) and probable extensive genetic drift (Friendlaender 1975, 1987) as well as the importance of multiple loci in determining pigmentation phenotype - Norton, Kittles et al.

Note that the sample of the "original Island Melanesians" showed up relatively greater frequencies of the ancestral state of the allele in question than the "CEPH Island Melanesians".


Whether the derived state has much of a "lightening" effect amongst sections of Melanesians or not, is trivial to the point that the ancestral state is predominantly found in equatorial Africans. [/QB]

Also, is that Khoisan seem to possess high frequencies of the allele in a derived state.


quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:

quote:
And indeed, they'd have to have ancestral alleles, because after all, that is what's keeping them "dark complexioned". In the meantime,...

The lightly pigmented hunter-gatherer San populations of Southern Africa is exceptional in having a high frequency of the derived allele relative to geographically proximate and more darkly pigmented African populations (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000), further supporting the importance of OCA2 in regulating normal variation in pigmentation. The widespread distribution of the derived allele in the CEPH-Diversity Panel suggests that it is not necessarily a new mutation, nor has it been restricted to a specific geographic area. - Norton et al.

Note that while it is said that the allele in question is suggestive of not being a new one, it is recognized as being in the "derived" state.

[/QB]
and of course the fact that every study on pigmentation confirms that darkskin is the ancestral state in humans, and lightskin in East Asians and Europeans are not only independent of eachother, but are also of recent origin.....

Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]

The original human population would have been very dark , similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]


quote:

Signatures of Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120118254/abstract

ABSTRACT

Phenotypic variation between human populations in skin pigmentation correlates with latitude at the continental level. A large number of hypotheses involving genetic adaptation have been proposed to explain human variation in skin colour, but only limited genetic evidence for positive selection has been presented. To shed light on the evolutionary genetic history of human variation in skin colour we inspected 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation in the Perlegen dataset, studying single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and analyzed 55 genes in detail. We identified eight genes that are associated with the melanin pathway (SLC45A2, OCA2, TYRP1, DCT, KITLG, EGFR, DRD2 and PPARD) and presented significant differences in genetic variation between Europeans, Africans and Asians. In six of these genes we detected, by means of the EHH test, variability patterns that are compatible with the hypothesis of local positive selection in Europeans (OCA2, TYRP1 and KITLG) and in Asians (OCA2, DCT, KITLG, EGFR and DRD2), whereas signals were scarce in Africans (DCT, EGFR and DRD2). Furthermore, a statistically significant correlation between genotypic variation in four pigmentation candidate genes and phenotypic variation of skin colour in 51 worldwide human populations was revealed. Overall, our data also suggest that light skin colour is the derived state and is of independent origin in Europeans and Asians, whereas **dark skin** color seems of unique origin, **reflecting the ancestral state in humans**.


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)
Member
Member # 15400

Icon 1 posted      Profile for AGÜEYBANÁ II (Mind718)     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Furthermore, the derived allele and ancestral allele does seem to show a correlation with lighter and darker skinned populations, and it seems the frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate
populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%). What does this tell you Chimu?


Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
East Asians
Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles


quote:
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter
pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).


Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Yes! If Chimp-poo is gonna spew his nonsense, it's best to keep in one thread!

LOL @ seeing the coo-coo Creole squirm when FACTS are presented to him. Notice all he does is desperately cling to Khoisan!

First of all Khoisan are still considered 'black' even though they are not as dark as typical Bantus. This especially should be the case when there are African Americans with their complexion that are still considered 'black' despite their mixed ancestry, but Khoisan are Africans pure and through!

And second of all Khoisan have NOTHING to do with the earliest humans who left Africa from equatorial East Africa! In fact it is likely that the Khoisan complexion evolved afterward and that their ancestors were much darker when they first settled subtropical Southern Africa.

This was explained to him numerous times before, but of course the deranged dogmatist doesn't care for such facts.

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Whatbox
Member
Member # 10819

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Whatbox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chimu, before you post, please read the bolded below until you can grasp it:

Phenetic variation in the Khoisan population derives directly from their Equatorial East African ancestors -- and not vice-versa.

quote:
Djehuti wrote: it is likely that the Khoisan complexion evolved afterward and that their ancestors were much darker when they first settled subtropical Southern Africa.
San are an exception-to-the-rule in sub-Saharan Africa in that they have a high occurence of derived alleles, where as other groups generally have a high occurence of the ancestral allele.

accept it.

cherrish it.

What itches you about that fact, Chimu?

Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3