posted
This would be a guest post that SOY Keita wrote for Sally-Ann Ashton's "Kemet Expert" blog. As you can imagine, he's not a fan of racializing the Kushite conquerors of Egypt as the "Black Pharaohs".
quote:The National Geographic film feature on the 25th Dynasty deserves to be reviewed critically due to the ongoing interest in Egypt. It is important to say at the outset that it is not clear whether the producers/programmers or the academics had the most to do with final production. Nor is it clear what role PBS played in content decisions, or which outside scholars were invited to make comments before release. The ultimate responsibility in a public academic project like this belongs to both the contributors and producers. One would hope that there would have been more diversity in those involved in the production, diversity in representatives from a number of fields that have something to say about historiography—including the philosophy of science. Diversity would have been beneficial from fields that have something to say about concepts of identity as well and the flaws in reading back into the past certain kinds of attitudes and perspectives by giving ancient peoples the voices of the living. Posted here will be some initial comments about the program that will be followed at various times in the future by posts that tie various issues together. (National Geographic also published an issue of its magazine with “Black Pharaohs” as the cover story. The magazine piece has not been reviewed sufficiently by the range of anthropologists and critical scholars in various fields, and many of the comments made here would apply to that piece.)
The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry. The issue is not whether Petrie (and others) were right or wrong, but whether or not the film’s authors/producers have ignored the variation in Egyptological opinion about what some would call the “racial” “make-up” of the Egyptians—a northern Nilotic people. We can ask what or whose concept of “race” is being used? And we can most certainly say that one notion of race has to do with the social reaction to phenotype, be it in statuary, wall paintings, or folks standing in front of you. Some populations—and families– are highly variable in the phenotypic traits that we react to so much. Egyptological opinion aside the authors did not consider the variation in anthropological and anatomical reports in anthropological studies over the last 100 years. These reports when read critically and cross-checked against each other and current understanding of variability and models of evolution are quite interesting. The producers cannot get around the fact that they have done something that ignores the data that indicates that the notion of race does not apply to modern humans. They have imposed some ideas onto the past in a particular way. When one critically examines the linguistic, archaeological and biological data from numerous sources in a form of meta-analysis, the emergence of the ancient Egyptians in northeastern Africa becomes clear.
The authors have done something else, something that is clearly problematic. They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.) They have psychologized the ancient Egyptian attitude as seeing all Nubians (and by extension all dark-skinned folk, including some Egyptian individuals and communities) as obligatorily separate from themselves—like certain elements in western societies today. It cannot be shown that there was a term in Egyptian that could be judged commensurate with that phrase literally or in concept. It cannot be shown, according to reputable Egyptologists, that the Egyptians described human variation in terms of color terminology. Various wall paintings that depict various peoples and color ranges in Egyptians—when these are reliable–are doing just that and should not be alleged to be presenting an Egyptian visual textbook on “race” in anticipation of being discovered by later people. The authors have imposed onto the Egyptians what is clearly a “White” Western mindset replete with a particular racialist background. They have projected a “white” mentality back into a world that had no background for the sociocultural notion of race propounded by Westerners, and did not have in their science something commensurate with the Western science that produced “races” and racialism.
History will not justify their statements, nor will the attitudes of modern Egyptians towards Nubians or Sudanese to the degree that these are negative—presentism in this context would be so ahistorical. What would the authors state as evidence for their claim of Egyptian shame? The authors might point to the “damnatio memoria”—the erasure of the 25th Dynasty or some of it being remembered via the chiseling out of names. However, the Egyptians did this to Akhenaton, other Amarna elites and Hatshepsut—who were not Kushites. The historical specifics of this are likely relatable to a certain 26th delta based king who felt bereaved against the Kushites because of how they had treated his father. Perhaps it was about legitimacy—erase the memory of the previous kings. It would be inappropriate to commit the logical error of affirming the consequent and generalize to all Egyptians. It would be illogical to suggest that the Egyptians as a nation and culture had this attitude towards all dark-skinned Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites, or had it built into their culture and laws such that they would be ashamed. The authors might also claim that the Kushites were resented due to their ascendancy in Thebes—an ascendancy that some might want to read as naked brutal conquest, for which there is no evidence. The Thebans allied themselves with the Kushites. Piankhi’s campaign of 727 BC was the put down of rebellion in the delta region some 20 years or so after his coronation as King of Upper and Lower Egypt—which clearly had Egyptian support. Is there evidence that the Kushites had no core Egyptian support because of their average darker colour? Is there evidence of guerilla warfare against the Kushite dynasty by mass numbers of Egyptians or the elites in general? Is there any evidence that the Kushites were viewed as appropriating Egyptian culture with which it shared some deep roots at some level?
The imposition of certain western identities as reified with notions of whiteness with correlated assumptions onto the ancient Egyptians can be seen in various interpretations of how the Egyptians behaved towards Nubians and others. One example is that the Egyptians colonists in Nubia withdrew from border regions after the Kushites gained ascendancy at the end of the New Kingdom. Archaeology and history clearly would seem to be best interpreted as indicating that the colony separated from Egypt and wanted to be affiliated with Kush. There was an entanglement of cultures and peoples, even as there had been in the earliest days of Egyptian origins in what David Wengrow calls the “primary pastoral community” an endogenous phenomenon that includes the Badarian predynastic culture, whose identity is rooted in an African agency, synthesis and emergence irrespective of the ultimate source of some its elements. Later developments at Hierakonpolis, Naqada and Abydos emerged from this source, as did likely the language that would be the basis of dynastic Egyptian if Satzinger is correct.
Of course none of this to say that the Egyptians never had conflicts with or attitudes about some fellow Nilotic and other neighbors—especially those deemed to be rivals, but what was its cause? Was it “racial” in all that this means in the social history of the US and the West? Was it constructed around a notion of color? Does a careful reading of various sources perhaps suggest that there were various groups of more southern Nilotics and Saharans some of whom had better relations with Egyptians.
An opportunity was lost with this particular National Geographic project, an opportunity to examine the 25th Dynasty from different levels of analysis, to see Egyptian history from different perspectives, and to examine ideas about how current notions of identity mixed up with ancestry and physical traits in the context of racism should not be imposed upon the past. There are so many more interesting things about the 25th Dynasty and the Nilotic world that could have been used to anchor the PBS offering than the title “Black Pharaohs”… From the perspective of micro-history they could have attempted to contrast a perspective of the world through the eyes of not only the 25th, but other dynasties that were foreign. For example how many of the other dynasties took on the role of revivalists to any serious degree (as did the 25th)?
In their defense maybe the authors thought they needed to say “Black Pharaohs” in order to get an audience, and maybe PBS just went along—even if this were so they could have used the piece to argue against their own title—assuming that what they seemingly conveyed is just an error.
quote:They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)
Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
I want to hear Keita's thoughts on the Abusir findings from last year. Given what he already knows about late dynastic northern Egyptians, he probably has less criticism of the findings themselves than how people have interpreted them. I also want to see what he has to say about your theory about African population structure and how it relates to Egyptians and Nubians. If he is still active, he might have something to say on those topics very soon.
posted
Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. That is wrong,the issue is in how learning these thing contribute to humanity or your group because the growth and accumulation of knowledge is good when used for positive purposes and bad when used inappropriately.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] This would be a guest post that SOY Keita wrote for Sally-Ann Ashton's "Kemet Expert" blog. As you can imagine, he's not a fan of racializing the Kushite conquerors of Egypt as the "Black Pharaohs".
Brief Report: Carthaginian Affinities with Ancient and Recent Maghreban and Levantine Groups: Craniometric Analyses Using Distance and Discrimination
Authors Authors and affiliations S. O. Y. KeitaEmail author S. O. Y. Keita1Email author 1.AnthropologySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA Research Report First Online: 28 February 2018
Abstract
Carthage was founded in northwestern Africa (in present-day Tunisia), by Phoenician settler colonists from the Levant in the first millennium BCE, and conquered by Rome in the second century BCE. This region had an indigenous population and was not terra nullius. Textual evidence suggests Carthaginians throughout their history ascribed prestige to Phoenician ancestry, which might suggest a predisposition to endogamy, although there is textual and archaeological evidence for interaction with the indigenous people. This brief report explores the relative craniometric affinities of a small pre-Roman Carthaginian series to ancient and modern ones from these two regions (the Levant and the Maghreb) using distance and discriminant analyses. The results indicate a craniometric pattern intermediate to the two ancient series (one Phoenician, the other Maghreban), but slightly closer to the one from the ancient Maghreb.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)
Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
White colonists, racists and nationalists created Egyptology as a tool to appropriate the history and culture of Egypt as part of their geopolitical and colonial white supremacist project. Therefore the idea of the "blackness" or "whiteness" of Egypt comes out of THAT racial and political agenda and nothing more or less. That same agenda needs Egypt to be tied to the Bible. It is part of the same political, social and scientific agenda behind Eugenics. It is the same agenda that created slavery. It is the same agenda that created the "Middle East" or "Near East" as a geopolitical construct to serve the interests of colonial powers and so forth. Therefore, anybody who looks at this science and the writing and telling of "history" as objective or about truth and facts is a failure at and no student of history.
And the point of all of this is to show that no matter how "scientific" and "objective" Keita is as a scientist and how much trust and faith he has in the "scientific method", it has no bearing on how the system is going to package and promote Egypt to the world. It is the most telling example of how this has absolutely nothing to do with science, facts, objectivity, rationalism or rigorous analysis. Anybody who still believes this and still pushes this has an agenda and is not living in reality or dealing with reality. There is no lack of evidence and facts showing that the Kushites were not the first blacks to rule in Egypt. Keita knows it and everybody knows it. And everybody SHOULD know that the reason why National Geographic produced this show has nothing to do with those facts.
And certainly "Afrocentrists" haven't spent the last 500 years going around the world destroying cultures, stealing artifacts, promoting black supremacy, altering artifacts and promoting fake history to support it. But of course don't let those facts get in the way of some folks ignoring the institutions, people and organizations that HAVE done this in order to promote a fantasy of "objective" science that does not exist. Legitimizing lies, deception and propaganda does not make you a historian.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This is a generation that doesn't realize the struggle is continuous. This is a generation that has no idea of JimCrow/Apartheid/political colonialism. This is a generation that doesn't believe the world can revert to the way it was before 1984.
Science is a creation of humankind. Scientists are human beings. Science is affected by individual scientist notions of nationalism and racial pride.
Anthropology is a science born specifically from nationalism and racial pride.
Genetics started as eugenics. Eugenics is highly concerned with white European caucasian hierarchy.
Of course we've all mostly been raised to adore science the same as previously generations really believed religion was infallible.
Anything made by humanity is stained with humanity's flaws.
I and many here are subject to be marketplace items should we foolishly venture into Libya. Will Trump pull a Wilson and institute racism in government? Conservative nationalism and its mate racism are on the rise in the West (including Israel).
I know its hard facing realities of black life (my life can be snuffed out at the whim of an American policeman for no criminal reason and nobody can do a thing to redress it). But retreating to a DreamLand of science free from racist influence is not a viable option.
Better to address social reality everywhere it impacts anything relating to me.
Back to Keita. In this vein read his • Race:confusion about zoological and social taxonomies and their places in science. AJHG 2001 • Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Social Divergence. AA 1997
Nat'l Geo black Pharaohs special issue and DVD? Maybe those threads weren't axed out the archive. Would make interesting rereading in light of this thread.
Black people can't afford to swallow swill about science is pure and objective
posted
Keita saw the writing on the wall a while back I suspect, don't forget he was warning afrocentrics from painting some Pan-African black utopia on Ancient Egypt and that many of the types present in modern Egypt would have been present in Ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
I want to hear Keita's thoughts on the Abusir findings from last year. Given what he already knows about late dynastic northern Egyptians, he probably has less criticism of the findings themselves than how people have interpreted them. I also want to see what he has to say about your theory about African population structure and how it relates to Egyptians and Nubians. If he is still active, he might have something to say on those topics very soon.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Keita saw the writing on the wall a while back I suspect, don't forget he was warning afrocentrics from painting some Pan-African black utopia on Ancient Egypt and that many of the types present in modern Egypt would have been present in Ancient Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
I want to hear Keita's thoughts on the Abusir findings from last year. Given what he already knows about late dynastic northern Egyptians, he probably has less criticism of the findings themselves than how people have interpreted them. I also want to see what he has to say about your theory about African population structure and how it relates to Egyptians and Nubians. If he is still active, he might have something to say on those topics very soon.
Did he see the writing on the wall that no matter how you phrase it, how you package it or how you present it in attempts to being "objective" that these peoples and institutions don't care about the facts and have an agenda and purpose which has nothing to do with promoting true history?
I don't see how "Afrocentrists" have anything to do with it. And if AE was a black Utopia so what? If the facts support it how is that a problem? Was China as an Asian utiopia a problem?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.
Actually it goes back to the predynastic. But yes numerous times "Southerners" or "Nehesi" from the South openly came to rule in AE sometime even with the name "Nehesi" on the throne. But more importantly legitimacy on the throne came through Southern Queens which has been a recurring theme since day one.
To tell the truth though being "objective" means pointing out lies, distortion and propaganda no matter where it comes from. That is the most honest definition of it. It means not taking a side and just following the facts. Unfortunately for a lot of people being "objective" means turning a blind eye to the institutitions of science as a source of deception. And a lot of scientists who know the facts will gladly go along with the party line to get their paychecks.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Bona fide Afrocentrics see Egypt neither as all Black African up to the Ptolemys nor as an utopia.
Can you get more Afrocentric than Kawaida philosophy? Can you get more Afrocentric than Chicago's Institute of Positive Education? Can you get more Afrocentric than Third World Press? Can you get more Afrocentric than Chancellor Williams?
He taught us in 1974 that political Ancient Egypt started black, subjected others, mixed blacks and others together, the mixed brood took over Egy ID, 'Asiatics' creeping in for millennia finally wrested control of all the Lower Nile Valley.
And we did see the black border officially redrawn once again, this time at South Sudan a decade ago. Its only the latest stand our ground on our continent reaction to visitors who not only didn't come in peace but took over the house, indoctrinated the children, and tell us shut up talking about what they did.
Affrican resistance to 'Asian' Nile Valley intrusion and control.
‘Scientific’ eugenics is on the rise, and grabbing a foothold in respected journals. The claim that these theories are a credible part of a general discussion should worry us all Students in Vermont last year turned their backs on Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve
Mon 22 Jan 2018 13.35 EST Last modified on Wed 14 Feb 2018 16.18 EST
View more sharing options In the fallout from Toby Young’s resignation from the Office for Students this month, it emerged that University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia.
Researchers with extreme views on race number relatively few but, having languished on the margins of their fields for many years, they are now managing to push their ideas into the mainstream, including into respectable scientific journals.
Yale psychologist John Bargh: ‘Politicians want us to be fearful. They’re manipulating us for their own interest'
Over the past year I have been investigating this tight, well-connected cabal of people, who nowadays call themselves “race realists”, reflecting their view that the scientific evidence is on their side. Their work is routinely published by Mankind Quarterly, a marginal journal operating since the 1960s, when it was founded by a group of scientists disgruntled with the fact that mainstream journals were unwilling to publish their controversial ideas.
Its earliest editions argued against desegregation in the United States, and warned that inter-racial conflict was the byproduct of natural selection. Many of its writers became sources for the notorious 1994 book The Bell Curve, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, which drew links between race and IQ scores. More recent contributors to the journal include Jared Taylor, founder of the white nationalist magazine, American Renaissance.
Mankind Quarterly’s editor-in-chief, Gerhard Meisenberg, told me last month that there were likely to be biological differences in intelligence between racial groups, which he believes will eventually be discovered by genetics. He referred to “low-IQ countries”, including Pakistan. Meisenberg, a professor at the Ross University School of Medicine, based in Dominica, says: “The question of whether there are genetic ability differences between people in different countries is perhaps the most fundamental question in development economics.”
Views such as this, unsupported by evidence, generally receive little to no attention from within the everyday scientific community. What is worrying, though, is that people such as Meisenberg and Mankind Quarterly’s assistant editor, Richard Lynn, have managed to penetrate more mainstream scientific circles.
Lynn sits on the editorial advisory board of Personality and Individual Differences, produced by Elsevier – one of the world’s largest scientific publishers, whose titles include the highly respected journals the Lancet and Cell. Among his papers was The Intelligence of American Jews (2004), arguing that “Jews have a higher average level of verbal intelligence than non-Jewish whites”.
‘Throwing people off an editorial board for expressing an opinion really kind of puts us in dicey area' Richard J Haier, editor-in-chief of Intelligence Both Meisenberg and Lynn also serve on the editorial board of Intelligence, a psychology journal also published by Elsevier. Meisenberg has authored at least eight articles for it over the years, including one in 2010 on the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans, and another in 2013 on the relationship between “national intelligence” and economic success.
While journals are free to publish whatever they deem worthy, subject to peer review, the choice of who to appoint to an editorial board is important because these members help shape its policy and scope. According to Elsevier’s own guidance for editors, they “should be appointed from key research institutes”. Lynn is listed on Intelligence’s board with no affiliation whatsoever.
The editor-in-chief of Intelligence is Richard J Haier, an emeritus professor in the medical school at the University of California, Irvine. When I asked him how he felt about having Mankind Quarterly editors on the board of his journal, he told me, “I consulted several people about this. I decided that it’s better to deal with these things with sunlight and by inclusion.” He continued: “The area of the relationship between intelligence and group differences is probably the most incendiary area in the whole of psychology. And some of the people who work in that area have said incendiary things … I have read some quotes, indirect quotes, that disturb me, but throwing people off an editorial board for expressing an opinion really kind of puts us in a dicey area. I prefer to let the papers and the data speak for themselves.”
Haier also told me that he had defended the late Arthur Jensen, a professor of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, who in 1969 mooted in the Harvard Educational Review that gaps in intelligence test results between black and white students might be down to genetics. It remains one of the most controversial papers published in psychology. “Scientific intelligence research has laboured under this cloud for 50 years, and it is my stated goal as editor to help bring intelligence research back into the mainstream,” he added.
It's time to take the 'great' white men of science off their pedestals | Yarden Katz
An Elsevier spokesperson says editorial board members are not involved in making decisions about which articles will be published: “Their role is focused on reflecting the academic debate that takes place within the communities’ domain that the journal serves.” The implication is that the kind of papers written by Meisenberg and Lynn must be a part of mainstream discussion.
But the steady creep of extreme views from the fringes of academia to the everyday should worry us all. Academic freedom is an honourable ideal, and one worth defending, because we trust that the system works. Through careful checks and peer review, only the most reliable, well-evidenced ideas, and most trustworthy researchers, should pass through.
But in practice the system does fail. Poor papers do get published, weak research can pass through the net, and people’s prejudices can sometimes taint the process. This is what those at the disreputable edges of academia are counting on.
The scientific community needs to be more vigilant. The system broke down over eugenics research in the early 20th century, with catastrophic consequences. We have to ensure this never happens again.
• Angela Saini is the author of Inferior, and is researching a book on science and race to be published in 2019
2018 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
posted
Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.
What does this even mean?^^^^^?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time for feigned ignorance. See how well Afrocentrism has withstood the test of aDNA. You seen the aDNA results, right? I'm sure you can put the pieces together and see how what I just said relates to racial politics.
quote:In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.
What does this even mean?^^^^^?
I dunno.
Does it mean there was no Nazi Germany? Does it mean all documentation of scientific racism is an invention of cry baby blacks, you know, like in those memes some whites post?
Science is just a tool the mechanic can put to either good or bad use.
posted
Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017
Is this a rebuttal to Abusir paper? Lol! It disputes Abusir?
----- Authors summary This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day Nilotes likely inhabited a larger area of northeast Africa prior to the migration from the Middle East as their ancestry component can still be found in a large area. Our findings reveal the genetic history of Sudanese and South Sudanese people, broaden our knowledge on demographic history of humans, and quantify the impact of large-scale historic migration events in northeast Africa.
also Quote: The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan. They are traditionally strongly endogamic which could account for low levels of admixture. In terms of specific Nilotic populations, the f3 test showed no significant signal of gene flow with external populations for the Nuer and Baria (Fig 3A), however, we detected indications of external
------------
For those who did not get it. Notice the groups to identified. Remember I said the Abusir mummies are Kenyans, Tanzanians, Sudanese and my man's...Horners..
Quote:"The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan"
I love being right!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.
Also, the 11th dynasty. There was a paper on royal women of the 11th dynasty and as a whole they were unusually African in appearance (compared to dynastic Egyptian standards). But from what I recall the paper was steeped in racism and graphic details. I would love to see someone redo the analysis from the POV of population affinity only.
This is the paper, if you don't mind plowing through all that to get the relevant information
posted
I doubt there will be any sincere attempt to perform DNA analysis on early Dynastic Southern Egyptians; everything will continue to be geared toward Northern Egyptians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did he see the writing on the wall that no matter how you phrase it, how you package it or how you present it in attempts to being "objective" that these peoples and institutions don't care about the facts and have an agenda and purpose which has nothing to do with promoting true history?
Most of these people and institutions have nothing to do with history but population genetics. Again Doug how is any of this information so upsetting to you? At the end of the day modern Egyptians and even Northern Sudanese are majority African(North African) and Egypt is still African, with majority of its culture stemming from the South.
Id say the people with an Agenda are the Egyptologists who ignore and outright don't care about places in Africa that might harbor Egypt's origins like Nabta Playa, abu ballas, etc
quote:I don't see how "Afrocentrists" have anything to do with it. And if AE was a black Utopia so what? If the facts support it how is that a problem? Was China as an Asian utiopia a problem?
Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role. And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.
Actually it goes back to the predynastic. But yes numerous times "Southerners" or "Nehesi" from the South openly came to rule in AE sometime even with the name "Nehesi" on the throne. But more importantly legitimacy on the throne came through Southern Queens which has been a recurring theme since day one.
To tell the truth though being "objective" means pointing out lies, distortion and propaganda no matter where it comes from. That is the most honest definition of it. It means not taking a side and just following the facts. Unfortunately for a lot of people being "objective" means turning a blind eye to the institutitions of science as a source of deception. And a lot of scientists who know the facts will gladly go along with the party line to get their paychecks. [/qb]
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me when the "leaked" footage of King Tut came out showing he was R1b. The Afrocentrics were throwing their hands in the air crying. Making all of excuses why he could be R1b-M269 but still African. We later found out it was a hoax. I said then and I saying now. King Tut was never R1b-M269. It is impossible. I was proven correct. Two AEians were released Rameses III and ManE were yDNA E1b1a. And I am saying the same thing here. It is impossible for the Abusir or any AEians to be related to modern Europeans. It is impossible.
The only way to confirm and resolved this is
1. STR Pop Affli analysis- like the Amarnas, on the Abusir and all AEians 2. A deep analysis of the uniparental markers. Because U5 and all the "released" Haplogroups are found deep in West/East Sub-Saharan Africa eg ie Nilotes.
It is impossible to correlate SNP/AIM with geographic origin based upon frequency. The entire genome has to be involved NOT selective samples from a few chromosomes or genes. Ie supervised.
Africans need to get their hands on these tools and do independent analysis and get their hands on African DNA databases which are owned by Europeans. Unfortunately Lucas Martin is no longer with us and DNA Consultants have coped out the game.
As I said. It is impossible for the AEians to be anything but indigenous Africans. Time will tell. Geography don't lie.
It is impossible for the Amarnas to be sub-saharan African while a few hundred miles away and a later period the Abusir to be "European". It is impossible.
It is called data manipulation within the Abusir. They know that!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the problem with Keita. I was never fully convinced on him. Another Obama?. "Europoid" types has always been in Africa. Malawi_Hora 8100Bop was described as Mediterraneanoid/ "Europoid". Lol!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
When STR or something similar is used we get this.......
I did not write this. Honest.
----- Human population dispersal ‘‘Out of Africa’’ estimated from linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies of SNPs - Brian P. McEvoy,
We use the empirically observed genetic correlation structure (or linkage disequilibrium) between 242,000 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 17 global populations to reconstruct two key parameters of human evolution: effective population size (Ne) and population divergence times (T).
Estimates of divergence times between European–African and East Asian–African populations are inconsistent with its simplest manifestation: a single dispersal from the continent followed by a split into Western and Eastern Eurasian branches. Rather, population divergence times are consistent with substantial ancient gene flow to the proto-European population AFTER its divergence with proto-East Asians, suggesting distinct, early dispersals of modern H. sapiens from Africa. We use simulated genetic polymorphism data to demonstrate the validity of our conclusionsAGAINST alternative population demographic scenarios.
We explored human **LD patterns** using approximately 242,000 SNPs across the genome in 17 population samples from across the globe. We used these to reconstruct two key parameters of human evolution: effective population size (Ne) and population divergence times (T), and through these track the emergence and dispersal of our species ‘‘Out of Africa’’ and beyond. In addition, we used simulated genetic data to evaluate the performance of parameter estimators across a range of population demographic models.
However, there is evidence for a small increase in the West African Yorubans (YRI) ;8 KYA, coinciding with declines in the East African Maasai (MKK) and Lubya (LKK) populations at the same time (Figs. 2, 3B). From ;25 KYA, all non-African populations start to expand, and distinct growth trajectories become apparent moving toward the present, reflecting the emergence of each population as a separate entity (Fig. 2).
This provides a clear picture of the historical relationship between populations with three broad groupings apparent: Africans, East Asians, and Europeans. Early human dispersal patterns can be inferred through estimates of T between these three main groups. The average TF estimate between these African and European populations is ;36 KYA, ;44 KYA for Africans and East Asians, and ;20 KYA between East Asians and Europeans
Under this scenario, the divergence times of these two groups relative to Africa would be expected to be similar. Both TF and TLD, two T estimators calculated by different means from the same data, ***consistently*** demonstrate a **significantly**more recent relationship between Europe and Africa than between East Asia and Africa. Using simulated populations, we show that under the single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model,
While the exact bias is difficult to estimate (Sved et al. 2008), it appears that post-divergence migration rates from Africa to Europe would need to be approximately CONSTANT because we observe consistent ratios of TF and TLD at different genetic distances. Thus, the observations are suggestive that GREATER MIGRATION TO EUROPE FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PHENOMENON. Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages are generally highly differentiated between continents, making them powerful genetic markers of intercontinental migration. Most of the lineages that are characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa are absent in Europe (and vice versa) (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003; Underhill and Kivisild 2007). However, the coalescent time and geographic distribution of the Y-chromosome E3b (E-M215) haplogroup points to a late Pleistocene migration from Eastern Africa to Western Eurasia via the Nile Valley and Sinai Peninsula ;20–25 KYA (Cruciani et al. 2004, 2007; Luis et al. 2004).
However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative to East Asia and Africa are still readily apparent across each individual northern European sample population (Supplemental Table 2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an even earlier and more pervasive origin, being established prior to the appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups.!!!!!!!!!!!!
which look at divergence times in West and East Eurasian populations simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario. Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating An appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for East Eurasia. Secondly, they support further early gene flow to the remaining proto-West Eurasian population from Africa after Eurasian divergence, perhaps as a second smaller dispersal (Mellars 2006a). ------
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
posted
Henn also used LD to confirm it was always a South to North migration.
ie LD is similar to STR. That is how we knew the Amarnas' were SSA regardless of the uniparental markers....which to date was never released. I would asume they were mtDNA U5b also ...SSA STR but "Eurasian" Haplgroups.
eg Senegalese carrying U5b but SSA STR.
Oh! But wait! Luxmanda carried Eurasian ancestry but African mtDNA L2a...wait! How does that work again(sic)?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Modeling 3D facial shape from DNA. - Claes P
Abstract Human facial diversity is substantial, complex, and largely scientifically unexplained. 5We used spatially dense quasi-landmarks to measure face shape in population samples with mixed West African and European ancestry from three locations (United States, Brazil, and Cape Verde). Using bootstrapped response-based imputation modeling (BRIM), we uncover the relationships between facial variation and the effects of sex, genomic ancestry, and a subset of craniofacial candidate genes. The facial effects of these variables are summarized as response-based imputed predictor (RIP) variables, 5which are validated using self-reported sex, genomic ancestry, and observer-based facial ratings (femininity and proportional ancestry) and judgments (sex and population group). By jointly modeling sex, genomic ancestry, and genotype, the independent effects of particular alleles on facial features can be uncovered. Results on a set of 20 genes showing significant effects on facial features provide support for this approach as a novel means to identify genes affecting normal-range facial features and for approximating the appearance of a face from genetic markers.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Henn also used LD to confirm it was always a South to North migration.
ie LD is similar to STR. That is how we knew the Amarnas' were SSA regardless of the uniparental markers....which to date was never released. I would asume they were mtDNA U5b also ...SSA STR but "Eurasian" Haplgroups.
eg Senegalese carrying U5b but SSA STR.
Oh! But wait! Luxmanda carried Eurasian ancestry but African mtDNA L2a...wait! How does that work again(sic)?
Download Wordpad and veiw these two files.... Being that you know all about genetics and LD and all that Jaz you can figure out what's going on... If you have trouble for some reason (or if you're talking out the side of your neck), just scroll all the way down and look at results... If you still can't interpret it, feel free to pm me.
You'll probably glitch, time out, 404 crash when you do figure out what's going on though. But I'll give you leeway for a redemption arc. Hopefully you learn, so you can do the honors of breaking down whats going on here publicly for ES.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Certainly, protoscience, scientific achievements and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned .
No, just no.... tribalism/ethnocentrism, nationalism predate everything, it is the base human need for self interest and survival.
There is no where you would find "science" void of context and culture.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I doubt there will be any sincere attempt to perform DNA analysis on early Dynastic Southern Egyptians; everything will continue to be geared toward Northern Egyptians.
No wonder you lost half the Nile Valley with that defeatist attitude. Just lay the right bread on them ie Hotep and they will test who you wan't them to test. Lay even righter bread on them and they will give you the results you wan't.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)
Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
The concept there is the priority of black people should be social justice first science second, that the light skinned majority has created a skin color system biased toward themselves and that has to be undone first on a cultural level
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned.
No, just no.... tribalism/ethnocentrism, nationalism predate everything, it is the base human need for self interest and survival.
What, and the science implied in making nature work for you to make tools, medicine and hunting weapons is not a base human need for survival?
quote:There is no where you would find "science" void of context and culture.
Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! My man, You know you are slipping? Explain to the readers why Natufians NOW have Sub-saharan ancestry when it was not observed in prior studies. As I said back then it is impossible for Natufians NOT to be of African origin. Euros got the power(and information which they keep hidden) but Africans has always had the smarts and innovation ie Neolithics. Only a matter of time. This may probably go over the head of many but here goes....
---------------------- Quote: Ancestry Estimation and Correction for Population Stratification in Molecular Epidemiologic Association Studies -Jill S
If AIMs are used instead of random markers, more falsepositive associations will result simply because the AIMs show large population differences in allele frequencies and there will be a tendency towards overcorrection (62). Genomic control, in general, is a relatively computationally easy method to implement and interpret.
We also discuss how to choose the appropriate genomic markers for ancestry estimation.
AIMs and Ancestry Estimation Estimation of genetic ancestry can be achieved by genotyping AIMs. As defined above, AIMs are** unlinked** markers found throughout the genome that show large allele frequency differences (denoted d) between the relevant ancestral populations (21, 38-40). The two most commonly used methods for ancestry estimation from AIMs are maximum likelihood estimation (73, 74) and structured association clustering techniques as implemented in STRUCTURE (45, 51-53) and ADMIXMAP (46-50). These methods have been shown to be comparable in terms of accuracy (50, 52, 75), but their** validity is dependent** on the informativeness of the panel of AIMs being used as well as the availability of allele and genotype frequency data (76).
There are currently several existing AIMs panels that can be implemented in genetic association studies (Table 1). Most of these panels consist of SNPs, although some include **microsatellites**. The choice of markers depends on the marker’s ancestry informativeness, which depends on the value of d (38, 39, 81, 82). The choice can also depend on other population variables 79), such as the relative ancestral proportional contributions from each of the parental populations (77) and how many ancestral populations have mixed. A practical understanding of the history of the immigration and migration history of the study population is critical to accurately select an appropriate panel of AIMs. Knowledge of this history is also critical to establish the analytical models that require knowledge of how many and which of the ancestral parental populations should be considered for robust ancestry estimation. Not all AIM panels are equivalent. For example, an AIMs panel assembled for Mexican Americans might be inappropriate for use in a Puerto Rican sample, because the level of African ancestry differs between these populations. Thus, estimation of ancestral proportions is highly dependent on (a) -----------------------
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Henn also used LD to confirm it was always a South to North migration.
ie LD is similar to STR. That is how we knew the Amarnas' were SSA regardless of the uniparental markers....which to date was never released. I would asume they were mtDNA U5b also ...SSA STR but "Eurasian" Haplgroups.
eg Senegalese carrying U5b but SSA STR.
Oh! But wait! Luxmanda carried Eurasian ancestry but African mtDNA L2a...wait! How does that work again(sic)?
Download Wordpad and veiw these two files.... Being that you know all about genetics and LD and all that Jaz you can figure out what's going on... If you have trouble for some reason (or if you're talking out the side of your neck), just scroll all the way down and look at results... If you still can't interpret it, feel free to pm me.
You'll probably glitch, time out, 404 crash when you do figure out what's going on though. But I'll give you leeway for a redemption arc. Hopefully you learn, so you can do the honors of breaking down whats going on here publicly for ES.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^To those who can follow. As I stated in the past and showed through many cited studies. Individual AIM/SNP markers(random) can NOT determine population relationship. It has to be linked ie STR, microsatellite, LD. Etc. or non-supervised It is political game played by these researchers feeding the beast using frequency of supervised SNP. Many researchers know this but the lay-man falls into that trap of believing the lies. There are few researchers that are vocal enough to openly say what is right and the truth. If you do and don't yield your career may be at stake. In addition as shown with the now presence of SSA ancestry Natufians the reference panel used helps shape the result. The games Europeans play on the ignorant.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)
Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.
The concept there is the priority of black people should be social justice first science second, that the light skinned majority has created a skin color system biased toward themselves and that has to be undone first on a cultural level
Okay. That is what activism and politics is for. Don't try to bring politics in science is what I'm saying. And what I mean with that is some people are just in science to wait with their hand out until they get their crumb. But in the meantime they ignore everything in science that invalidates their politics. Those people have no interest in science, let's just face it and call it what it is.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I repeat ....it is impossible for the Abusir or any AEians to be related to modern European and to be anything but indigenous Geographic Africans. The migratory , chronological and geographic events make it impossible.
Time again will prove me right just as all the other times. But wait didn't we have this study.(sic)?
Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian (Turkish)migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! My man, You know you are slipping? Explain to the readers why Natufians NOW have Sub-saharan ancestry when it was not observed in prior studies. As I said back then it is impossible for Natufians NOT to be of African origin. Euros got the power(and information which they keep hidden) but Africans has always had the smarts and innovation ie Neolithics. Only a matter of time. This may probably go over the head of many but here goes....
I'm not slipping... you're just getting desperate.
Read the files Xyyman.
And don't even bother with the misdirection or strawmen... I was postulating Natufian SSA affinity/Admixture since I read Lazaradis' preprint, hints towards it were there. You're offering no new revelation or perspectives here. Though I bet you still can't explain the generally large genetic distance between Natufians and SSA's can you?
Anyways, lets not detract from Keitas comments... in the meantime you can read the files Xyyman.Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is time you brothas ...and sistas start downloading and processing the data yourself. Keita is not going to do it. DNATribes threw us a bone. Time we start doing this ourselves.
Get the correct reference panels. Get Samples from Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. Compile a database. We cannot rely on the few honest Europeans do do this for us.
I just don't have the time.......
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said when done properly Europeans are sub-set of Africans with the mouth Great Lakes being the epicenter for origin of the Neolithics. ALL DATA WHEN PROPERLY/UNBIASLY TESTED SHOWS THIS! ALL!!!
I know I am 1000% correct!!!!!! Give it time. The Anthropological evidence shows that, the archeological evidence, and the genetic evidence.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned.
No, just no.... tribalism/ethnocentrism, nationalism predate everything, it is the base human need for self interest and survival.
What, and the science implied in making nature work for you to make tools, medicine and hunting weapons is not a base human need for survival?
quote:There is no where you would find "science" void of context and culture.
Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.
Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what this is about. Europeans are now in control of the globe, patting themselves on the back and therefore refusing to acknowledge they are NOT the originators of modern civilization. They will lie, cheat, steal other people's history, include themselves in the past to satisfy their ego and mania of a European origin of modern civilization when obviously that is NOT the case. They are lying about the AEians to the Vikings who were not blonde blue-eyed Norse men. All lie!
Quote:" Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.
Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization
Lol. You're saying that to me as if I need a reality check on the central role of Africa or as if I'm against teaching the important role of Africa in world history. But that is not really politics. That is just a part of education. That doesn't come from a place of where you've already decided on what you want to believe about where your people and others fit in the world and then waiting patiently for the science to fall in place.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have admitted in the past, I originally came to this whole AE debate wanting to rebut white supremacist narratives of native African inferiority and inability to build complex civilizations. But I wonder if some of these "Afrocentric" activists want something more than that when they make the arguments they do. It isn't enough for them for ancient Egypt to be an indigenous African civilization on a basic level (and it's not like it was the only one out there). Instead, they seem to want this one kingdom to be exclusively the work of people who would be biologically coextensive with modern West/Central Africans. I wonder if there is a black separatist/nationalist undercurrent to some of these arguments. AE starting off as African people who mixed with Eurasians over time must seem less palatable if you're a black separatist who sees interracial relationships as somehow threatening or undesirable.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role. And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.
It was an African centered individual (Tukuler) who analysed data the media suppressed and objectively demonstrated the relationship with modern Egyptians and Europeans before Abusir. Just compare the media promotion of Abusir to Tut and Nefertiti's ancestry test.
The 'extreme' argument is mostly correct. Its usually someone like Sara Suten Seti calling pale arabs/turks or Europeans invaders. Arabians invaded Egypt at least twice with Turks once. They changed the name of the country, the religion, language, phenotypes and arguably were the people who shot up the Sphinx and recently threatened to cover the pyramids in wax. Its not just a strawman its a weak strawman.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.
Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization
Lol. You're saying that to me as if I need a reality check on the central role of Africa or as if I'm against teaching the important role of Africa in world history. But that is not really politics. That is just a part of education. That doesn't come from a place of where you've already decided on what you want to believe about where your people and others fit in the world and then waiting patiently for the science to fall in place.
I strongly disagree
There was a time not long ago when very old human skulls had not been found and there wasn't technology to date them. So no one had strong evidence suggestive where humanity began. a) OOA is still a theory. Some Chinese finds have also challenged aspects of the theory b)The idea that Egypt was the first civilization not Sumer or elsewhere is also a theory. c)to what extent Egypt was an indigenous African culture is also debated d) to what extent Greek civilization used ideas from Egyptian civilization is also debated
A scientific point of view is that all of the above is indefinite and the jury is still out to varying degrees for each of these
So you can take a position on these issue from an attempt to be as objectively scientific as possible, probably with a certain amount of uncertainty(mummies from a wide diversity of burial site locations have not yet been tested) And you can also debate people you think have tainted their view with politics
Or you can decide all of these based on a political agenda and express minimal uncertainty. This point of view sees the politics are more important to one's own survival than a detached scientific analysis.
Those indeed are the main premises that are discussed in this forum. You can decided to attempt to look at it scientifically or culturally depending on what your priorities are a scientific narrative or a political history and stance with some science mentioned in that context
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic