Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Originally posted by akoben:
Can't have a "hybrid" resulting from two black popualtions, unless you are a Jamie type fool...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Hopefully this would lead to progress, since NatGeo is an organization no one would accuse of Afrocentrism.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
The fact that this is posted on NatGeo is also noteworthy.
quote:Uh .. yeah! lol.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
The fact that this is posted on NatGeo is also noteworthy.
quote:lol
Originally posted by T. Rex:
Hopefully this would lead to progress, since NatGeo is an organization no one would accuse of Afrocentrism.
quote:The real question is why are some racist, anti-Black elements obsessed with removing the word "Black" from the word "African" yet feel comfortable associating the word "Asiatic" with "Afro" (when Black Africans and their language are not Asian)? Is because these certain elements feel that by removing the word "Black" from "African" it gets them closer to plagiarizing on Black African history? Or is it because these elements feel like their next in line after White/Jews and Arabs to plagiarize on Black African history? Which ever one it is, I'd like to make a statement which may cause further dismay to these certain anti-Black human elements. Dr. S. O. Y. Keita's use of the term "African" is well in line with a certain awareness of lexical compromise used within the Eurocentric dominated academic/scientific system. These kind of generalized term are used on a regular basis. I would assume Keita would like to be more explicit in this descriptions, but being aware of this lexical-compromise he opts for a mixture of terms instead; hence Keita's use of "indigenous Africans". For the rest of us, "indigenous Africans" translates to "Black Africans". So no matter how racist, anti-Black elements try to dissect and massage straight forward logic, logic always seems to get the best of them. With that, I conclude by saying, Ancient Kemetians were 100%, native born Black Africans from head to toe, and not different from Black Africans in West Africa and elsewhere today.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Keita's writings are as usual brilliant and insightful and only reaffirm what mainstream scholarship has been saying all along for the past several decades-- that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans.
The question now is how many idiots are still going dissociate this status with being black? i.e. the moronic argument made that they are indigenous Africans but not 'black' or 'Sub-Saharan'. LOL the same type of argument made by Hawass and his ilk.
quote:What are you talking about? Elaborate please...
Originally posted by astenb:
Still a little too soft. I havent been able to find out who comes from "EUROPE" in pre-history.
quote:The thing Keita is trying to get across is that Supra Saharan Africans have features that are seen in other Africans, Near Easterners and Europeans, but he's saying these features are indigenous. Keita uses the intermediate biological characteristics, which actually is gradients of differentiation, or environmental adaptation, instead of actual admixture(hybridization).
Originally posted by astenb:
Well Keita says it but i dont think he hammers it home to the lay persons.
Prime example
"Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans"
Which Europeans?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Originally posted by akoben:
Can't have a "hybrid" resulting from two black popualtions, unless you are a Jamie type fool...
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:The thing Keita is trying to get across is that Supra Saharan Africans have features that are seen in other Africans, Near Easterners and Europeans, but he's saying these features are indigenous.
Originally posted by astenb:
Well Keita says it but i dont think he hammers it home to the lay persons.
Prime example
"Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans"
Which Europeans?
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by akoben:
^ actually the "prehistoric Asians" from which they are derived and the "emmigrant Africans during the Neolithic" were both black.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Originally posted by akoben:
Can't have a "hybrid" resulting from two black popualtions, unless you are a Jamie type fool...
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ He means to say that by the time of the neolithic both groups were black. Of course by that time Europeans were not black but were likely of lighter complexion. But of course the ancestral paleolithic Asian population from which they were derived were black.
quote:^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
quote:Evergreen Writes;
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
quote:Well of course. Also what needs to be made clear about this is that pale skin, blond hair etc.. amongst Berber speakers is not what he is talking about. But cranio-facial structure, such as the imaginary "Caucasoid" morphology, which doesn't come from admixture with non Africans.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes;
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Modern Berber speakers similarities to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that post date early **differentiation**, probably from supra- Saharan sources.--Keita
This depends on which Berber groups,which Europeans and which similarities Keita is refering to.
quote:No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
quote:It does not help the argument that modern populations are distinct from ancient egyptions. Don't modern Egyptians have a very heavy Near Eastern influence based on mtdna? How then can the genetic profile of the modern population be similar to the ancient profile if ancient egyptians were supposedly more free of Near Eastern genetic influence?
The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences.
quote:You say the context (Keita quote re Bowcock) doesn't have to do with race yet you go right on to admit that Bowcock et al. did see the Asian and the African as two differentiated "races", which only confirms what I said re the context in which the word was used. You desperate Puerto Rican jackass. lol
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
The hybrids in this context was referenced to confirm that European have a hybrid (mixed) origin, between two genetically and morphologically differentiated populations Asians and Africans. Since Asia and Africa were considered alleged racial groups, therefore because of this hybrid(mixed)origin. Under a racial classification, if were validated, Europeans would be a secondary type or race.
quote:Wrong, whiteboy aka Wolofi aka gaykoben aka argyle et al.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:You say the context (Keita quote re Bowcock) doesn't have to do with race yet you go right on to admit that Bowcock et al. did see the Asian and the African as two differentiated "races", which only confirms what I said re the context in which the word was used. You desperate Puerto Rican jackass. lol
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:No, what you mean is not according to *your* context, since Europeans do not have to be products of alleged racial groups to be considered hybrids, this is your distortion and your wishful thinking, which is actually not what hybrid in this context or any context was used.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:^ not according to the context in which we are discussing, Bowcock (1991). Hybridization here is referring to product of two racial types: Asian (stereotypically defined) and African (stereotypically defined) producing a third (actually a secondary race) Caucasoid.
Actually you CAN as 'hybridization' has NOTHING to do with skin color, moron!!
Evergreen Writes:
This is correct also.
The hybrids in this context was referenced to confirm that European have a hybrid (mixed) origin, between two genetically and morphologically differentiated populations Asians and Africans. Since Asia and Africa were considered alleged racial groups, therefore because of this hybrid(mixed)origin. Under a racial classification, if were validated, Europeans would be a secondary type or race.
quote:
A Dravidian sample from Southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.-- Keita
The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by scholars --Keita
quote:I know I am, which is why you're so upset. So desperate to distort something in their methodology. I get it. So far you've only failed 1000 times and better trying to prove otherwise. Too bad.
Oh yeh, you're right,
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:quote:In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
quote:But you said they (Europeans) were the ones that mixed with the incoming Africans. They existed before they were created?
No matter how many twists, turns and flips you do Europeans will always be hybrids of Asians, and post OOA Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:quote:In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
quote:Yes I know it annoys you that your own (contradictory) words are being thrown back in your face. That's why I do it! lol
But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
^^^Lmao, look at what you're reduced to. You pathetic trolling cracka.
quote:[/QB]
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:quote:In other words, if gradients of differentiation did not explain supra Saharan Africans intermediate characteristics, but instead supra Saharan Africans received it through admixture or colonization by/with Near Easterners or Europeans, than supra Saharan Africans would be hybrids. Since Europeans are products of Asia and Africa, Europeans are therefore hybrids. Plain and simple
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
quote:Actually it's funny seeing as you're supposed to be some kind of intellectual, albeit, in all debates you're never sure on anything you're always distorting, and at the end, you're reduced to saying but but but but but but but.......
quote:Yes I know it annoys you
gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
quote:Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Originally posted by akoben:
^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Originally posted by akoben:
^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Also he could have just placed the Nail in the coffin and spoke about Genetics.
-Who are their genetic Ancestors?
-Who are their modern genetic brethren?
-When have the major genetic changes happened since downfall.
We all know what would have happened if he DID speak about the above: He wouldnt be on the Nat Geo Site.
quote:Link:
In answer to David Dugan, Joel Mokyr tries to answer the puzzle of why it was not in Africa, the home of humans, that the first advanced technologies emerged. Among the factors considered are tropical soils, disease and philosophies.
quote:Again its all vague and misleading. He does not mention Nubia as a precursor to Egypt, which is what Williams suggests. If by "southern Egypt" he meant "Nubia" why did he speak about Nubia separately? Instead when Nubia is mentioned it is in relation to Egypt in the form of cultural "interactions" or that "some evidence suggests" that they both had ties to early Saharan cultures. Or they "shared some insignia with Egypt" and finally it is in the stereotypical mode as a "rival" to Egypt. Is he saying the notion that Nubia as a precursor to Egypt is wrong?
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by astenb:
quote:Thank you, he saved face. Like I said it was pretty SOFT. Of course you guys know EXACTLY what Keita is talking about, but to the lay persons I think North Africa, Middle East, and Europe stand out compared to everything else in the article that SHOULD have been stressed: Ethiopia, Sudan, ANCIENT Sahara.
Originally posted by akoben:
^ Ok that's enough choking of the thread with your face saving bullshit. Back to the topic.
I think Hawass types will be very proud of Keita's more cautions and ambiguous statements, like the one Boofer identified. Isnt that what they have been saying all along, that the Arab republic of Egypt today is no different from ancient Egypt?
And Keita didn't even mention the Ta seti find when discussing the source of Egyptian civilisation. He simply left it vague and misleading again "the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt." Why couldn't he have said Nubia which is more accurate or correct. It shows that he is still willing to pander to the establishment. Whether this is a tactic or not it doesn't help truth or accuracy.
Those already misinformed about Egypt will come away vindicated.
Also he could have just placed the Nail in the coffin and spoke about Genetics.
-Who are their genetic Ancestors?
-Who are their modern genetic brethren?
-When have the major genetic changes happened since downfall.
We all know what would have happened if he DID speak about the above: He wouldnt be on the Nat Geo Site.
Much of the phenetic diversity now found in Africa, SW Asia and Europe derived during and post the Last Glacial Maximum. In fact, the post-LGM period is known as the 'Holocene' which literally means the recent epoch. The Sahara was depopulated during the LGM and human occupation in NE Africa was generally restricted to the area now known as "Nubia" (i.e., southern Egypt and northern Sudan). **ALL** of the crania from LGM era NE Africa have affinities with modern West Africans. We see consistency in the early holocene out-flow around the circum-Mediterranean basin with cranial affinities in early neolithic Anatolia, Greeece and the mesolithic Levant.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by astenb:
PRIME EXAMPLE : Even in educated circles.
I searched "Africa" on the Cambridge site where the Keita videos are listed.
Why did advanced material civilizations not first develop in Africa
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Sundjata:
This is the closest I've ever heard Keita come to basically saying yes, the ancient Egyptians were Black and not White.
quote:This is not true. Keita has expressed in a number of ways that 1. Northeast Africa is contiguous with the rest of Africa, and therefore its populations are continuous with other African populations. 2. The Egyptians populations show closer affinity to other Afrian populations especially in skeletal structure 3. Egyptians and other northeast Africans do share a resemblance to Europeans and peoples in the northeast, but that this resemblance is NOT due to either admixture or them being closer related to these peoples than to other Africans! Keita has pointed out how there are remains of peoples farther south in Sub-Sahara who shows these affinities as well. 4. Multidisciplinary research through linguistics, archaeology, etc. all show the Egyptian culture to be essentially African and NOT Near Eastern.
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
I don't like it.
This Keita who was taught by a European Geneticist still is beating around the bush.
He knows damn well the question is whether Egyptians were black. He fails to answer the question by saying they were North East African. The world believes North East Africa is not a home for blacks yet he stays ambiguous with his claims.
Also why did he say that Egyptians resembled people from Europe and Near East? What was that supposed to solve or address? That allows Europeans to infer that they were just "mixed" with Africans if they looked like two groups that aren't African.
Africa is a Geopolitical term and can easily be misconstrued with the biological term of Africa which is negligible to laymens.
Either he did a poor job or he has an agenda to mitigate the Eurocentric vs. Afrocentric debate about Egypt being ambiguously African without explaining in thorough detail what a biological African entails.
quote:Actually they not only have 'near eastern' influence in mtDNA but also y-chromosomes with the presence of J (there were Arab males colonists of course). But what Keita means that there is similar genetic profile to ancient is that there is STILL to this day a significant presence of African lineages:
Originally posted by Boofer:
This is confusing to me:
The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences.
It does not help the argument that modern populations are distinct from ancient egyptions. Don't modern Egyptians have a very heavy Near Eastern influence based on mtdna? How then can the genetic profile of the modern population be similar to the ancient profile if ancient egyptians were supposedly more free of Near Eastern genetic influence?
quote:Correct. Niether Bowcock, nor Keita, nor Sforza, nor any anthropologists says 'race' scientifically exists because it DOES NOT! Hybrids however DO exist, and the definition of hybrid does NOT have anything to do with 'race'.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Wrong, whiteboy aka Wolofi aka gaykoben aka argyle et al.
Keita, not Bowcock is the one who said Europe, Asia, Africa etc.. were alleged racial groups as currently defined by some scholars, therefore according to Bowcocks data Europeans would be a secondary type or race, due to them being mixed between two alleged racial groups. But since the alleged racial groups, are simply just alleged. Europeans are not a secondary type or race, but this doesn't take away from their mixed (hybrid) origin. You dumb cracka. Totally Asian and African derived.
Unrefuted in, truthfully, I'm not even sure how many attempts by you to distort it???
quote:^ do you know the implications of what you said for your idol Keita? If this is "the closest" he has come to calling a black people...well black, what does that say about his approach? Soft or candid?
Originally posted by Sundjata:
Thanx for the Cambrige lecture, Evergreen! Very interesting presentation.
Btw, for those saying that Keita comes off too soft, please listen to that entire lecture, notably near the end when Keita has a prolonged exchanged with some oblivious college student who has trouble digesting Keita's points of contention. This is the closest I've ever heard Keita come to basically saying yes, the ancient Egyptians were Black and not White.
quote:^ what do you mean by that statement child?
And YES Bowcock et al have to have racial groups if they're going to discern whether or not these entities are valid
quote:Nope. It is YOU who not only looks stupid but IS stupid since you can't get it through your f*cked up brain that Bowcock NEVER claimed any 'racial' divergence but rather a morphological and genetic one, nitwit!
assmate says:
You're as confused as clueless718. Because both of you are dumb enough to look stupid trying to validate Bowcock and their racial divergence theories.
quote:Yes, again Bowcock divides the groups into ALLEGED (he didn't say they were) racial groups! Why? Because Bowcock, like Keita, and others agree 'race' doesn't exist, but there was still morphological divergence as well as genetic!
You say Bowcock et al. doesn't see the groups in racial terms yet point to where "Keita cites Bowcock in dividing European and Asian into alleged which means supposed 'racial' groups out of old out-dated traditions"
^ do you know what you just said here? Of course not, you're an imbecile.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
quote:You poor child. It is Keita, not Bowcock et al., that used the word alleged because he doesn't agree with the notion/thinking that sees the continents along stereotypically racial lines. But Bowcock et al. however does see them as such, which is why their African "archetype" is stereotypically defined and their Asian "archetype" is stereotypically defined. Its Coonian.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Yes, again Bowcock divides the groups into ALLEGED (he didn't say they were) racial groups! Why? Because Bowcock, like Keita, and others agree 'race' doesn't exist, but there was still morphological divergence as well as genetic!
). He said this before in Persistence. He talks also about some studies based on "groups" that mix (there's that alleged racial "groups" again) as opposed to other studies based on affinities. But even here this not "full proof" to him either.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
He seems to be going more mainstream.....
quote:Interesting. Where do "horners" fit, as far as affinities are concerned? Do those types come from that outflow from around the mediterranean?
Originally posted by Evergreen:
Evergreen Writes:
Much of the phenetic diversity now found in Africa, SW Asia and Europe derived during and post the Last Glacial Maximum. In fact, the post-LGM period is known as the 'Holocene' which literally means the recent epoch. The Sahara was depopulated during the LGM and human occupation in NE Africa was generally restricted to the area now known as "Nubia" (i.e., southern Egypt and northern Sudan). **ALL** of the crania from LGM era NE Africa have affinities with modern West Africans. We see consistency in the early holocene out-flow around the circum-Mediterranean basin with cranial affinities in early neolithic Anatolia, Greeece and the mesolithic Levant. [/QB]
quote:I'm not a child; I'm a grown man. But I feel sorry for you since even the elementary school children who I tutor have better reading comprehension than YOUR dumbass. By 'type' Bowman means morphological type which is NOT the same as 'race', dilhole!
Originally posted by Assopen:
You poor child. It is Keita, not Bowcock et al., that used the word alleged because he doesn't agree with the notion/thinking that sees the continents along stereotypically racial lines. But Bowcock et al. however does see them as such, which is why their African "archetype" is stereotypically defined and their Asian "archetype" is stereotypically defined. Its Coonian.
quote:And again, morphological types and genotypes don't equate to 'race'. Which is why even though 'race' doesn't exist, Europeans are still hybrids!
In (pt. 2 18:00) we find Keita again going over what I have been drubbing into some thick skulls here on ES: race models, assumptions that there are "racial types" (there's that word "type" again) or well defined anatomical complexes sets of physical straights, and any variation is explained by admixture between "two extremes" (where do we find this term "two extremes" again?
quote:I've already read the stuff. Not my fault you can't understand it. The S&M pic is suppose to represent YOU or your assmate! Get your head outta his ass!
Go read and stop trolling S&M pics, you learn more that way.
quote:Go and see here!
Originally posted by Boofer:
Interesting. Where do "horners" fit, as far as affinities are concerned? Do those types come from that outflow from around the mediterranean?
quote:I disagree. As a scientist, I believe that he's simply trying to be as accurate as humanly possible.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
You know Akoben, I really see where you're from coming from..in the "Cambridge" videos I watched of Keita he does seem to be beating around the bush alot and using all this politically correct BS vocabulary
quote:You may have a point my man, you may have a point. Ive read Keitas papers across the years and in the early years, when he first entered the business (so to speak) he seemed like your typical strong-minded, African scholar, look at his earliest paper:
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
I don't like it.
This Keita who was taught by a European Geneticist still is beating around the bush.
He knows damn well the question is whether Egyptians were black. He fails to answer the question by saying they were North East African. The world believes North East Africa is not a home for blacks yet he stays ambiguous with his claims.
Also why did he say that Egyptians resembled people from Europe and Near East? What was that supposed to solve or address? That allows Europeans to infer that they were just "mixed" with Africans if they looked like two groups that aren't African.
Africa is a Geopolitical term and can easily be misconstrued with the biological term of Africa which is negligible to laymens.
Either he did a poor job or he has an agenda to mitigate the Eurocentric vs. Afrocentric debate about Egypt being ambiguously African without explaining in thorough detail what a biological African entails.
quote:See even Djehuti agrees with me!
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ True, but it would help to say that YES the Egyptians were or would be considered 'black'. He knows this but is hesitant to say it unless he would be labeled as 'afrocentric', which is hilarious considering that Egypt IS in Africa!
quote:Well, since 1981 a lot has changed; as a researcher, Keita has to take into consideration whatever new finds modify about what was known prior. That is how science works -- it doesn't stay still; at any moment, we might have to change what we thought we knew upon new tangible evidence that suggests something different. Recent finds at Abydos tombs [see Dreyer for example] do in fact suggest that there was a centrally-governed complex in that region running concurrently with the so-called A-group complex. No researcher in good conscious can ignore that. Don't know if this has modified anything Keita might have said in one or the other of his papers, but its certainly possible that it has.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
I guess hes gone soft in recent years?
But anyways, in the Cambridge meetings, he says that the kingdoms of Nubia and Egypt were both the same age (neither one was older than the other) and they both have the same cultural source. Hmmm I wonder??
quote:Word.....Wooooooord
Originally posted by JMT:
S.O.Y. Keita may very well be a brilliant scientist. But what amazes me is the extent to which people develop a complex to rationalize Keita's actions. Keita's reluctance to simply say "yes, I believe the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans" is rather troubling. If Keita believes the Ancient Egyptians were undoubtedly black (I've read on this forum there's little to no evidence which contradicts the hard evidence of the black Egyptian premise presented by Keita) then he should explicitly use the word BLACK. See how easy that was.
There are methods for Keita to be diplomatic in his approach while conveying his true feelings based on the grounds of his own scientific examinations without sidestepping the issue for the sake of appeasement for those who sign his checks. I understand everyone has bills to pay. But I don't understand why some choose to compromise their character or beliefs to coddle a dichotomy which isn't interested in the truth.
Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
You put it in better words than I did!!
quote:If you are indeed an adult your reading and comprehension skills have definitely been stunted.
Originally posted by Mary:
I'm not a child; I'm a grown man. But I feel sorry for you since even the elementary school children who I tutor have better reading comprehension than YOUR dumbass. By 'type' Bowman means morphological type which is NOT the same as 'race', dilhole!
quote:Still makes no sense, as usual. Same as Mary, don't reply.
ako: I rephrased the two bolded words
quote:AssOpen, what you call an apologia is a simple question; do you have the intellectual power to deliver the answer? If so, well then, let's have it. Crying about a simple question isn't going to do you any good, now is it?
Originally posted by akoben:
^ Look, stop clouding the issue with your pathetic apologia.
quote:^tru dat.
Originally posted by JMT:
Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
quote:It is possible. Your post is what I wanted to articulate in response
Originally posted by The Explorer:
In this day and age, do geneticists and bio-anthropologists use terms like "black Africans" or "white Europeans", and so forth, aside from using them only in cases wherein they are placed in quotation marks as socio-ethnic references by a given specific society under study or when the researchers are going by what sample candidates themselves go by *socially*? If there isn't much of those sort of studies out there, in recent times, then is it not possible that this explains Keita's reluctance to use them as well?
quote:^to this!
Originally posted by JMT:
Keita's reluctance to simply say "yes, I believe the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans" is rather troubling.
quote:This is like saying in a rebellion: "they didn't let us use pistols and jump out in the open like we're in some gotdayum cowboy flick before, and they do it and get shot down, why not Keita, our leading pilot? (in dogfight kills to the colatteral wherewithal withwhich Eurocentric bias is alloud to seep into "scientific" writings)"
Originally posted by akoben:
We all know the politics of history and academia and the attempt by the white establishment, and their allies, to control the domain of discourse especially when it comes to certain words or terms in relation to certain subjects, this case AE.
quote:...
Whites have long resisted calling AE a black civilisation, it has nothing to do with "this day and age".
quote:Silly Jewish kid, I already disagreed with your opinion. Go home now.
AssOpen, what you call an apologia is a simple question; do you have the intellectual power to deliver the answer? If so, well then, let's have it. Crying about a simple question isn't going to do you any good, now is it?
quote:Oh yeh that's right. Whites don't control the discourse anymore this is why mainstream institutions like National Geographic regularly admits AE was a black civilisation.
what I DO know is that assopen's comment about whites controlling the discourse is BULLSHit.
quote:Adultspeak please.
This is like saying in a rebellion: "they didn't let us use pistols and jump out in the open like we're in some gotdayum cowboy flick before, and they do it and get shot down, why not Keita, our leading pilot? (in dogfight kills to the colatteral wherewithal withwhich Eurocentric bias is alloud to seep into "scientific" writings)"
Hol' up.
quote:What I objected to was rasolowitz definition of black as simply "dark skinned" and as a literal definition. Black is a ethno socio-political term. Its accurate in context, but it is not literal, there is no literal black skin, and I quoted Diop to that effect. Sorry kid, your reading and comprehension skills failed you again.
Naw dawg, wasn't it YOU, charlatan, who was so opposed to "black" you called us "color weirdos" or something?
quote:First off, dark implies relativity, so NO one said there was a litteral black skin as in *absolute black* reflecting no light at all. That straw came from outcha own ass.
Originally posted by akoben:
What I objected to was rasolowitz definition of black as simply "dark skinned" and as a literal definition.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:^ Black is accurate as a description of skin color, which is why it is a familiar ethnic label to begin with.
Debunked writes: Of course 'familiar ethnic labels' (like Black) are not accurate to describe heavily mixed populations.
Black is also a reference to genetic trait, and a morphology which is referenced in science:-> a person with dark pigmentation of the "melanoderm".
The scientific term for the condition of having dark skin is the same as the ethnic definition of - person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin
Black is not a race, or sub-species, there are no races, and the notion of 'pure' or 'mixed' races is thereby irrelevant.
"African of course, entails Black, though Black does not entail African" - CL Brace.
Ethiopians and New Guineans are of course both Blacks, and are direct descendants of the original Black African populations.
quote:[...]
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:This is as stupid a defense of the term as is "debunk's" dismissal of it. In reality there is no "black" skin. And if Black is accurate as a description of skin color are you then saying blacks like Khoisan aren’t black like Jamie does?
^ Black is accurate as a description of skin color, which is why it is a familiar ethnic label to begin with.
quote:This is what happens when you use these whites as much as you do to validate your points. Does Brace see the term "black" as useful?
terms like caucasian are worse than meaningless - CL Brace states.
There's that f**k again.
quote:Bottom line:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:translation: You mistakenly presumed the following was from Diop's book, which you haven't read at any rate.
your link is not the only place to find Egyptian hieroglyphic references for KMT etc, its can be found in Diops book. Argument done.
But it's not, so you not only are you wrong, but you are caught lying...pretending that you have read books, that you in fact have never read, and in wouldn't understand even if you had.
Disagree?
Produce the
[...]
quote:^ Only to and illiterate whiny baby such as yourself.
akoben: It's a national adective
Normal people who can read would perceive that many of the terms above are -ethnic-, not national. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
All Blacks vary in skin colorquote:Yes really.
Originally posted by akoben:
Oh really?!
quote:Which debunks you.
You still present Webster's Negro definition
Blacks - any of a number of populations having dark skin.
^ Nothing about negro or lack of variation.
Strawman distractions can't save you, sorry.
Oh I almost forgot, your 'debate tactic' is to be as stupidly illiterate as possible, and feign inability to understand anything.
You're just a desparate defeated dunce, playing dumb because you have no other recourse.
"Oh really" you ask....
ANSWER: Yes, really.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:translation: You mistakenly presumed the following was from Diop's book, which you haven't read at any rate.
your link is not the only place to find Egyptian hieroglyphic references for KMT etc, its can be found in Diops book. Argument done.
But it's not, so you not only are you wrong, but you are caught lying...pretending that you have read books, that you in fact have never read, and in wouldn't understand even if you had.
Disagree?
Produce the citations from Diop for the following mdw ntr terms....
quote:
All of these words can be found in "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary" by E. A. Wallis Budge, Dover, NY
Used as an adjective
kem;kemem;kemom - black
kemu - black (m)
keme.t - black (f)
hime.t keme.t - "black woman"
himu.t keme.t - "black women"
Used as a noun
keme.t - any black person, place, or thing
A determinative is then used to be more specific:
keme.t (woman) - "the Black woman"; ie, 'divine woman'
keme.t (cow) - "a Black cow" - ie, a 'sacred cow'
Keme.t (nation) - "the Black nation"
kem - a black one (m)
keme.t - a black one (f)
kemu - black ones (m)
kemu.t - black ones (f)
kemeti - two black ones
Used for Nationality
Sa Kemet - a man of Black (an Egyptian male)
Sa.t Kemet - a woman of Black (an Egyptian female)
Rome.t Kemet - the people of Black (Egyptians)
Kemetou - Blacks (ie, 'citizens')
Kememou - Black people (of the Black nation)
Other usages
Sa Kem - "Black man", a god, and son of
Sa.t Kem.t - "Black woman", a goddess (page 589b)
kem (papyrus) - to end, complete
kem.t (papyrus) - the end, completion
kemi - finished products
kem khet (stick) - jet black
...
kemwer - any Egyptian person, place or thing ('to be black' + 'to be great')
Kemwer - "The Great Black" - a title of Osiris - the Ancestor of the race
Kemwer (body of water) - "the Great Black sea" - the Red sea
Kemwer (body of water + river bank) - a lake in the Duat (the OtherWorld)
Kemwer Nteri - "the sacred great Black bulls"
kemwer (fortress) - a fort or town
Kemwer (water) - the god of the great Black lake
Kem Amut - a black animal goddess
Kemi.t-Weri.t - "the great Black woman", a goddess
Kem-Neb-Mesen.t - a lion god
Kem ho - "black face", a title of the crocodile Rerek
kem; kemu (shield) - buckler, shield
kem (wood) - black wood
kem.t (stone) - black stone or powder
kem.tt (plant) - a plant
kemu (seed) - seeds or fruit of the kem plant
kemti - "black image", sacred image or statue
Using the causative "S"
S_kemi - white haired, grey-headed man (ie, to have lost blackness)
S_kemkem - to destroy, overthrow, annihilate
S_kemem - to blacken, to defile
Antonyms
S_desher - to redden, make ruddy
S_desheru - red things, bloody wounds
Some interesting Homonyms (pages 770 > )
qem - to behave in a seemly manner
Qemi - the south, Upper Egypt
qem.t - reed, papyrus
qemaa - to throw a boomerang
qem_au - to overthrow
qemam.t - mother, parent
qemamu - workers (in metal, wood)
qemqem - tambourines
qemd - to weep
qemati - statue, image - same as kemti
qema - to create
qemaiu - created beings
Qemau;Qemamu - The Creator
Deshret - the opposite of Kemet
deshr.t - any red (ie, non-Black) person, place, or thing
...
deshr.t (woman) - "the Red woman"; ie, 'evil woman'
deshr.t (cow) - "a Red cow" - ie, the 'devil's cow'
deshr - a red one (m)
deshr.t - a red one (f)
deshru - red ones (m)
deshru.t - red ones (f) -- White or light-skinned people; devils
deshreti - two red onesquote:^ Only to and illiterate whiny baby such as yourself.
akoben: It's a national adective
Normal people who can read would perceive that many of the terms above are -ethnic-, not national.
quote:
rasol posted:
Bottom line:
^ Black - and ethnic reference to dark skinned peoples - in Ancient Egyptian and in Merriam Websters dictionary.
Baby akoben, can't address this, he can't deny it, he can only 'protest' against it.
quote:But they already know the answer to this, Alive; IMPERIALIST and CONQUERS. And I'm certain Keita is aware how and where they fit in.
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:^tru dat.
Originally posted by JMT:
[qb]Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
I think they just need to see where they fit in with Africans through different time periods.
quote:^Agreed.
Originally posted by JMT:
quote:But they already know the answer to this, Alive; CONQUERS. And I'm certain Keita is aware how and where they fit in.
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:^tru dat.
Originally posted by JMT:
[qb]Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
I think they just need to see where they fit in with Africans through different time periods.
quote:Yea like I said before, Keita just beats around the bush, and that really gets on people's nerves (especially me, I hate political correctness like a mofo lmao). It's like hes trying to take a middle ground to satisfy both parties, and going soft on his answers. And now that you mentioned it my man, Keita was kinda implying that white-skinned Berbers are truly native to Africa. How can light skinned people be native to Africa? It's too damn hot! Lol...
Originally posted by Keins:
I just watched S.O.Y. Keita's second Ancient Egypt workshop on AE origins and I must say that he did a horrible job explaining the Berbers in terms of phenotype and geneology. He absolutely needed to tell the full story about berbers lineage- maternal and paternal. As a group, they paternally cluster genetically with Africans and maternally they cluster with some Europreans. The fair skin that some of them have are from their European ancentory and pale skin is NOT aboriginal (in terms of population) to anywhere in Africa nor the original human state! I think he left the door wide open for eurocentric phallacy about "whites"/Europeans are somehow indiginous to Africa.
I also felt that he kinda did not get into enough details about specifics, but I guess he did not want the lecture to go over the listeners' head. Aren't they all ivy league highly educated people with an interest in Egyptology and anthropology anyway?
However he did a good job at letting the information and data speak for itself. He showed what the mainstream school of thought was on issues, the archaic/fringe school of thought and and how the evidence supports the prior.
Overall I think he could have been alot clearer, crisper and more concise on various points!
quote:
Originally posted by White Nord:
The Ancient and Modern Egyptians are considered to have the same ethnic break down-65% Arab Semitic White, 30% Black(mostly Nubian,some Nilotic), Black/Arab mix-King Tut and Anwar Sadat-see the following link to see what King Tut may have looked like TODAY, taken from life statues of him: http://naturescorner.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/where-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/
-the Berbers and Moors are essentially Arabs with 8-15% Black heritage, the remaining 5 %, all other ethnicities.Afro centrists often attempt to portray the Black Nubians/Sudanese/people of Kemet as Ancient Egyptians.
Here is a link showing the Ancient and Modern Egyptians wer mostly Arab Semitic White genetically by DNA(haploid testing and the Y-chromosome: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.pdf
Bottom line, the Ancient and Modern Egyptians were Semitic White with much Black Nubian admixture and a small amount of all other ethnicities.
The Ancient Egyptians, dark brown in skin color, saw themselves as DIFFERENT than the Black Nubians, black skin color, in the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Gates from a mural on Seti I's tomb-see the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Gates
quote:Yes, I agree. After watching the vid, I was a bit dissatisfied. When the guy asked him specifically when did people like Cleopatra(Elizabeth Taylor) come into Egypt. When Keita answered there's always been a lightskin population and people like that always lived in Africa was appalling. Keita knew exactly what the question was, and he failed miserably to answer it clearly. This gives people like Chimu room to argue that these ligtskinnned genetically non African influenced people were always in Africa. Which is false. Truthfully I think he should've been even more clear and confirm that pale skin is actually a recent adaptation and occurred outside of Africa, some 6kya.
Originally posted by Keins:
The fair skin that some of them have are from their European ancentory and pale skin is NOT aboriginal (in terms of population) to anywhere in Africa nor the original human state! I think he left the door wide open for eurocentric phallacy about "whites"/Europeans are somehow indiginous to Africa.
quote:My sentiments exactly!
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Yes, I agree. After watching the vid, I was a bit dissatisfied. When the guy asked him specifically when did people like Cleopatra(Elizabeth Taylor) come into Egypt. When Keita answered there's always been a lightskin population and people like that always lived in Africa was appalling. Keita knew exactly what the question was, and he failed miserably to answer it clearly. This gives people like Chimu room to argue that these ligtskinnned genetically non African influenced people were always in Africa. Which is false. Truthfully I think he should've been even more clear and confirm that pale skin is actually a recent adaptation and occurred outside of Africa, some 6kya.
Originally posted by Keins:
The fair skin that some of them have are from their European ancentory and pale skin is NOT aboriginal (in terms of population) to anywhere in Africa nor the original human state! I think he left the door wide open for eurocentric phallacy about "whites"/Europeans are somehow indiginous to Africa.
quote:Like Arabs and Jews, Berbers are not a monolithic group, there are black Berbers and "white" Berbers. Which one is the majority fraction and how ancient are the white ones is the real question. Actually there was a debate in the book The Golden Age of the Moor between Chandler and Reynolds about the exact racial make up of North Africa and in particular Lybia with the light skinned (or supposed light skinned) tamahu. Although the evidence points to the fact that north Africa from ancient times was largely black, there seemed to have been other elements as well, even if over emphasized by Chandler.
Originally posted by Keins:
I just watched S.O.Y. Keita's second Ancient Egypt workshop on AE origins and I must say that he did a horrible job explaining the Berbers in terms of phenotype and geneology. He absolutely needed to tell the full story about berbers lineage- maternal and paternal. As a group, they paternally cluster genetically with Africans and maternally they cluster with some Europreans. The fair skin that some of them have are from their European ancentory and pale skin is NOT aboriginal (in terms of population) to anywhere in Africa nor the original human state! I think he left the door wide open for eurocentric phallacy about "whites"/Europeans are somehow indiginous to Africa.
I also felt that he kinda did not get into enough details about specifics, but I guess he did not want the lecture to go over the listeners' head. Aren't they all ivy league highly educated people with an interest in Egyptology and anthropology anyway?
However he did a good job at letting the information and data speak for itself. He showed what the mainstream school of thought was on issues, the archaic/fringe school of thought and and how the evidence supports the prior.
Overall I think he could have been alot clearer, crisper and more concise on various points!
quote:I can agree, but:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Yes, I agree. After watching the vid, I was a bit dissatisfied. When the guy asked him specifically when did people like Cleopatra(Elizabeth Taylor) come into Egypt. When Keita answered there's always been a lightskin population and people like that always lived in Africa was appalling. Keita knew exactly what the question was, and he failed miserably to answer it clearly. This gives people like Chimu room to argue that these ligtskinnned genetically non African influenced people were always in Africa. Which is false. Truthfully I think he should've been even more clear and confirm that pale skin is actually a recent adaptation and occurred outside of Africa, some 6kya.
Originally posted by Keins:
The fair skin that some of them have are from their European ancentory and pale skin is NOT aboriginal (in terms of population) to anywhere in Africa nor the original human state! I think he left the door wide open for eurocentric phallacy about "whites"/Europeans are somehow indiginous to Africa.
quote:What do you conclude from the following?
Originally posted by Alive:
Are we to say people across and throughout Africa who posess genes (that code for skin color) with derived alleles all descended from non-Africans? Of coarse this is highly unlikely.
Consider that these genes are very old. Also, all studies that I've read of find that the highest within-population diversity in terms of skin color is found in sub-Saharan African (they take North Africa out of the equation for obvious historical migration-related reasons).
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%).
quote:^What I already knew.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
What do you conclude from the following?
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%).
very strongly selected AGAINST in Africa -- especially equatorial Africa where the human race began.
quote:^Nonesense, this arguement wouldn't even make sense.
This gives people like Chimu room to argue that these ligtskinnned genetically non African influenced people were always in Africa.
Think about it .. "genetically non African "influenced" people .. always in Africa".quote:I agree.
Truthfully I think he should've been even more clear and confirm that pale skin is actually a recent adaptation and occurred outside of Africa, some 6kya.
quote:Btw I've read the article, but will listen to the lecture later on -- so no, this is not me "denying that Keita can make mistakes". I have only been responding to specific comments on Keita's lecture and article and going on what you guys have quoted and what I have read. I give people the benefit of the doubt too often, that's all.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Sundjata:
This is the closest I've ever heard Keita come to basically saying yes, the ancient Egyptians were Black and not White.
Yet, Keita could be more explicit. While there is no such thing as a biological "Race" there are social "Races" that people generally recognize. To obscure the fact that the Ancient Egyptians looked like modern indigenous Black Africans is misleading.
quote:LMAO
Originally posted by JMT:
quote:and this?
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:^What I already knew.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
What do you conclude from the following?
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%).
I've read the study months to maybe even a year ago. A certain gene (OCA2?) in it's derived state is likely very old and commonly regulates melanin levels in populations across the globe. Certain melanin regulating genes are common in Europeans, others in East Asians. This means that two seperate depigmenting adaptations occured in Northern Eurasia after Europeans' ancestors split with East Asians'. Also, Melanesians and sub-Sahara Africans have high frequencies of the ancestral genes (a very powerful fact), and the San are a notable exception to the trend.
There are still individual outliers and this need not be because of European in fluence.
Key fact: light skin is of course, contrary to and regardless what mustafa/legeona/chipu thinks of our collective equatorial ancestors,
quote:Ancient Egyptians were NOT a Semitic speaking people, and 'Arabs' as an ethnicitiy didn't even exist during pharaonic times! Also, Semitic is a language group that's part of the Afrasian language phylum which originates in Africa. As such, the earliest Semitic speakers were black and there are black populations aboriginal not only to Arabia but to other parts of Southwest Asia. By the way, you are only lying to yourself if you actually say King Tut looks 'Arab-mixed'. I'm sure you won't say that about any black person with his complexion and features.
Originally posted by White Nord:
The Ancient and Modern Egyptians are considered to have the same ethnic break down-65% Arab Semitic White, 30% Black(mostly Nubian,some Nilotic), Black/Arab mix-King Tut and Anwar Sadat-see the following link to see what King Tut may have looked like TODAY, taken from life statues of him: http://naturescorner.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/where-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/
quote:Moors are black people also, as the name Moor is derived from the Greek word 'Maure' meaning black, and Europeans since Medieval times have made every effort to show this. Look here. 'Berber' is also a language group that's part of Afrasian and most Berber speakers (not just the Mediterranean coastal ones) are indeed black.
-the Berbers and Moors are essentially Arabs with 8-15% Black heritage, the remaining 5 %, all other ethnicities.Afro centrists often attempt to portray the Black Nubians/Sudanese/people of Kemet as Ancient Egyptians.
quote:We discuss DNA halpotypes here all the time and we already know that modern Egyptians predominantly carry African lineages such as E3b Y-chromosome lineages. Southwest Asians like 'Arabs' unsurprisingly (since their right next to Africa) also share such lineages.
Here is a link showing the Ancient and Modern Egyptians wer mostly Arab Semitic White genetically by DNA(haploid testing and the Y-chromosome: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.pdf
quote:Your claims all mooted above.
Bottom line, the Ancient and Modern Egyptians were Semitic White with much Black Nubian admixture and a small amount of all other ethnicities.
quote:LOL That picture has been refuted here many times before with an Egyptian who was shown just as dark. Besides, you are not gonna tell me dark brown as in milk-chocolate dark is not black because it's not ebony dark!
The Ancient Egyptians, dark brown in skin color, saw themselves as DIFFERENT than the Black Nubians, black skin color, in the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Gates from a mural on Seti I's tomb-see the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Gates
quote:^WOW -- can't believe I didn't write on that (the main thing I wanted to clarify my views on).
MindoverMatter718:
and this?
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%).
quote:Source: Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians, by Rick Kittles et al. , 2006.
"In contrast, the SLC24 A5 11*A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu.
1)The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations."
quote:That's why I posted it, lol
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:^WOW -- can't believe I didn't write on that (the main thing I wanted to clarify my views on).
MindoverMatter718:
and this?
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%).
quote:Well, AssOpen, if you don't have the balls to follow up on the simple questions that made you cry, then should you not be the one going home? You have left the task you started undone; there's nothing else left for you here.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Silly Jewish kid, I already disagreed with your opinion. Go home now.
AssOpen, what you call an apologia is a simple question; do you have the intellectual power to deliver the answer? If so, well then, let's have it. Crying about a simple question isn't going to do you any good, now is it?
quote:There's no evidence that U6 emerged outside of Africa.
Originally posted by Alive:
[*]U6 derived in a population carrying U which at the time, even if not in Africa, was not far from it [temporally; they had only been out of Africa for a short time].
quote:Have you heard of this study?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
There's no evidence that U6 emerged outside of Africa.
quote:
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.
quote:Follow up on this Black skin defined.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Well, AssOpen, if you don't have the balls to follow up on the simple questions that made you cry, then should you not be the one going home? You have left the task you started undone; there's nothing else left for you here.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Silly Jewish kid, I already disagreed with your opinion. Go home now.
AssOpen, what you call an apologia is a simple question; do you have the intellectual power to deliver the answer? If so, well then, let's have it. Crying about a simple question isn't going to do you any good, now is it?
quote:Yes, and believe I've mentioned them in my response to Gonzalez et al. They haven't provided any evidence of U6 markers older than the ones in North Africa. Those in the so-called Near East, are all sub-types of the North African examples. If they've shown otherwise, I'll be happy to examine it.
Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Have you heard of this study?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
There's no evidence that U6 emerged outside of Africa. [/qb]
quote:
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.
quote:
The mtDNA Legacy of the Levantine Early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa
Anna Olivieri,1 Alessandro Achilli,1 Maria Pala,1 Vincenza Battaglia,1 Simona Fornarino,1 Nadia Al-Zahery,1,2 Rosaria Scozzari,3 Fulvio Cruciani,3 Doron M. Behar,4 Jean-Michel Dugoujon,5 Clotilde Coudray,5 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Ornella Semino,1 Hans-Jürgen Bandelt,6 Antonio Torroni1*
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.
1 Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
2 Department of Biotechnology, College of Science, University of Baghdad, Iraq.
3 diDipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Molecolare, Università "La Sapienza," Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy.
4 Molecular Medicine Laboratory, Rambam Health Care Campus, Efron 9 Street, Bat Galim, 31096 Haifa, Israel.
5 Centre d'Anthropologie, FRE 2960 CNRS, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse III, 37, Allées Jules Guesde, 31073 Toulouse Cedex, France.
6 Department of Mathematics, University of Hamburg, Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: torroni@ipvgen.unipv.it
An "out of Africa" dispersal of modern humans is now widely accepted, together with a model postulating a single "southern route" dispersal from the Horn of Africa to the Persian/Arabian Gulf and further along the tropical coast of the Indian Ocean to Southeast Asia and Australasia (1–3). Within this model, however, the delayed settlement of most parts of West Eurasia needs an explanation. In contrast with South Asians, East Asians, and Australasians, West Eurasians have only a moderate amount of haplogroup-level diversity within mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups N and R (the early derivative of N) but lack almost completely haplogroup M, which is otherwise dominant in Asia (Fig. 1). The colonization of West Eurasia is thought to have been the result of an offshoot of the colonization along the southern route, followed by a lengthy pause, perhaps at the Persian/Arabian Gulf, until the climate improved and the ancestors of West Eurasians were able to enter first the Levant and then Europe (2, 4, 5). Paleoenvironmental evidence is crucial to this argument, suggesting that an earlier migration toward the north >50 thousand years ago (ka) would have been impossible given the climate of the time, with desert extending from North Africa to Central Asia (6).
In contrast, a clade of M, referred to as M1, is present at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa and appears to be predominantly African-specific (Fig. 1 and table S1). This raises the possibility that M could have arisen in East Africa before the out of Africa exit (7, 8), or M1 might represent a back-migration into East Africa (9–11).
The scenario of a back-migration into Africa is supported by another feature of the mtDNA phylogeny. Haplogroup M's Eurasian sister clade, haplogroup N, which has a very similar age to M and no indication of an African origin, includes R, which in turn embraces haplogroup U (Fig. 1). Haplogroup U is subdivided into numerous clades (U1 to U9) and is characterized by an extremely broad geographical distribution ranging from Europe to India and Central Asia (12). However, one of its clades—U6—is mainly found in northern Africans (13, 14) but is also observed in eastern Africans (11), a situation that parallels that of M1, with the only difference being that M1 is more common in East Africa than in North Africa.
The hypothesis of a back-migration from Asia to Africa is also strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macrohaplogroup K, have been observed at high frequencies only in Africa (15, 16). However, because of the relatively low molecular resolution of the Y chromosome phylogeny as compared to that of the mtDNA, it was impossible to come to a firm conclusion about the precise timing of this dispersal (15, 16).
To shed some light on haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa, we sequenced mtDNA genomes belonging to M1 (n = 51) and U6 (n = 30) from populations distributed over the geographical range of the two haplogroups. The phylogenies of the M1 and U6 sequences are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
The average sequence divergence [± standard error computed as in (17)] of the 51 M1 coding-region sequences from the root of haplogroup M1 is 7.16 ± 1.38 substitutions (disregarding indels and pathological mutations), which corresponds to a coalescence time estimate of 36.8 ± 7.1 thousand years (ky) for the entire haplogroup M1 (18). The M1 tree shows an initial deep split into two sister subclades, M1a and M1b, each containing several independent basal branches, at least seven within M1a and two within M1b (Fig. 2). The M1a branch shows a coalescence time of 28.8 ± 4.9 ky (5.60 ± 0.96 substitutions). The other major branch of the tree, M1b, is also ancient, with an estimated coalescence time of 23.4 ± 5.6 ky (4.55 ± 1.08 substitutions), but in contrast to M1a, which encompasses the entire geographical range of M1, M1b is present only in the Mediterranean area (fig. S1).
Haplogroup U6 is characterized by an overall coalescence time estimate of 45.1 ± 6.9 ky (8.77 ± 1.34 substitutions) (Fig. 3), and U6a (the most represented of its clades) has a coalescence time of 37.5 ± 4.3 ky (7.29 ± 0.83 substitutions). It is worth emphasizing that U6 is a sister clade of the European haplogroup U5 (Fig. 1), which is dated 41.4 ± 9.2 ka (12) and was most likely carried by the first European settlers (19).
The overall coalescence age estimates for M1 ( 37 ky) and U6 ( 45 ky) are largely overlapping when standard errors are considered. This supports the scenario that M1 and U6 could have been involved in the same population expansion and dispersal events. Given that the origin of haplogroup U is West Asia and that the presence of U6 in Africa is due to gene flow from that area, the phylogeographic similarities between the two haplogroups indicate that M1 (or its molecular ancestor) is also of western Asian ancestry. This suggests that there was a migration event about 40 to 45 ka that concomitantly affected both haplogroups. An ancient arrival of M1 in Africa (or in its close proximity) is supported by the fact that none of the numerous M haplogroups in Asia (20, 21) harbors any of the distinguishing M1 root mutations, and by the lack of Asian-specific clades within M1 (and U6), as might be expected in the case of a more recent arrival. The arrival of M1 and U6 in Africa 40 to 45 ka would temporally overlap with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans.
This raises the possibility that the population(s) harboring M1, U6, and U5 (or their close molecular ancestors) were all living in the same broad geographic area of southwestern Asia, possibly in separate regional enclaves, and that they all were affected by an event that led to their expansion and relocation. It has been proposed that a change in climate conditions, fragmenting and reducing the desert areas (6), allowed humans to enter first the Levant and then Europe (4). However, such a climatic change would also render North Africa equally accessible from the Levant. Thus, while populations bearing U5 took part in the colonization of Europe, populations with M1 and U6 entered North Africa. Such a scenario implies that the population(s) harboring M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the out of Africa exit but from the Mediterranean area. The Greenland Interstadial 12, from 44 to 48 ka (22, 23), could have been the main period of dispersal into the Levant and subsequently into North Africa.
Furthermore, the distribution of M1b and most of the U6 clades only in Mediterranean regions indicates that both M1 and U6 differentiated into their major subclades while they were in the Mediterranean area, and only later some subsets of M1a (including its derivatives M1a1 and M1a2), U6a2, and U6d diffused to East Africa, possibly along the Nile Valley. It cannot be excluded that a further late dispersal of M1 and U6 within North and East Africa might have been associated with the diffusion, after the Last Glacial Maximum, of the emerging Afro-Asiatic language family. Indeed, M1 and U6 in Africa are mostly restricted to Afro-Asiatic–speaking areas.
In the Holocene, some of the M1 and U6 clades were involved in subsequent migration and colonization events. For instance, M1a1b1 is found only in Sardinia (Fig. 2), where it is also fairly frequent (1.8%). Its estimated coalescence age of 7.7 ± 3.1 ky suggests that the founding M1a1b mtDNA was brought to Sardinia by the first modern humans that arrived to the island. A similar scenario can be envisioned for U6b1, which was typical of the Guanches (24), the ancestral population of the Canary Islands.
Our phylogeographic studies of mtDNA haplogroups reinforce the scenario that the first Upper Paleolithic cultures in North Africa (Dabban) and Europe (Aurignacian) had a common source in the Levant (14, 25, 26) and in fact spread by migration from some core area in the Levantine Corridor. The dispersal of Levantine people to Europe and North Africa was then marked by the mtDNA haplogroups U5 and U6/M1, respectively
quote:LOL, should have caught that one!
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Indeed, M1 and U6 in Africa are mostly restricted to Afro-Asiatic–speaking areas.
Why is that? Where did the Afrisan super language phylum emerge?
quote:My mistake! I meant to refer to U, not U6.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:There's no evidence that U6 emerged outside of Africa.
Originally posted by Alive:
[*]U6 derived in a population carrying U which at the time, even if not in Africa, was not far from it [temporally; they had only been out of Africa for a short time].
quote:Alive, I thought we discussed this yesterday? Well, there are no uniparentals associated with light skin, however, there is a an allele SLC24A5 111*A which is European, those with this marker outside of Europe are due to gene flow from Europe, as evidenced from the following. Such as geographically proximate populations in North Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan.... Which also means there were no pale people in these said areas before Europeans turned pale, according to genetic data 6kya.
Originally posted by Alive:
As seen in real life and on the net, many North Africans are Leucoderm or have skin tones approaching.
Have any markers been proposed to correlate with these skin tones?
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
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%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Alive, I thought we discussed this yesterday?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was refering to uniparental markers.quote:Thanks for your answer.
there are no uniparentals associated with light skin
quote:Are you referring to the same study I am?
an allele SLC24A5 111*A which is European, those with this marker outside of Europe are due to gene flow from Europe
quote:Not nit picking here. At any rate their genes derive from African genes.
the SLC24 A5 11*A-derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandinka and Yoruba, the Southern African San, and South West Bantu.
The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
...
the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations.
...
Alternatively, the derived allele may have lost in the ancestors of modern East Asians but retained in the ancestral European populations. The allele then rose to high frequency in Europeans following the divergence of Europeans and East Asian ancestral groups.
quote:
polymorphisms in ASIP and OCA2 and regulate melanin levels in populations throughout the globe. SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
there are no uniparentals associated with light skin
quote:Thanks for your opinion as well.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course there are no uniparental markers associated with skin color
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Alive:
[QUOTE]Just like 100% E3a Fulanis have indigenous facial traits as do the BaTutsi of Rwanda.
Just for you information I'm listening throught more of it but so far I agree with most everyone's general ... "it could have been stronger" sentiment.
quote:Yep, thats what we all say, Keita's kinda Pussied up (excuse my french) in the past years in voicing his views and scholarships, plus he says some things in the video that are just proposterous, like white Berbers being native to Africa! arrrgh
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:Actually, U6 is a branch on its own, independent from other U groups, and proto-U6 has not been located to date.
Originally posted by Alive:
quote:My mistake! I meant to refer to U, not U6.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:There's no evidence that U6 emerged outside of Africa.
Originally posted by Alive:
[*]U6 derived in a population carrying U which at the time, even if not in Africa, was not far from it [temporally; they had only been out of Africa for a short time].
U6 is definitely North African but a U macrohaplogroup - which U6 *may* derive from - may have originated outside of Africa.
U6 has a TRMCA of 52 - 38.2 kya -- and the above authors accordingly go with the mid-to-late route "45,000 to 40,000" to give their bearers as much time as possible to differentiate outside of Africa.
U has an estimated TRMCA of 65.6 - 52 kya -- a time-frame that overlaps the earliest successful 'out of Africa' migrations.
I was typing fast and meant to type that U derived from populations not far temporally from Africa (meaning not having long been in Asia), if not in Africa.
In addition to that, the Levant's climate at the time shouldn't have been too different from Africa's, U may not even be ancestral to U6, and none of the Y chromosomes that are even possible representatives of "Eurasian"/Eurasian back-migrations correlate with U6 to my knowledge.
quote:Well, "white" Berbers are native to Africa; they are not found anywhere else. Their skin hue though, has been influenced by non-African gene flow into native African populations. While gene flow from "exotic" groups has certainly modified phenotypes [like the contribution of "tan" or "Medium" complexion] of sections of coastal North Africans, this condition does not make them non-native. Now if someone were to say "white skin" is native to Africa, then that would be a different story.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
...plus he says some things in the video that are just proposterous, like white Berbers being native to Africa! arrrgh
quote:Actually, this thread is not about Keita's lectures. Please check the (my) parent post to discern the difference. The NatGeo link to Keita's article DOES indeed discuss genetics. Besides Obelisk, you should lighten up on Keita a bit. You keep reemphasizing how much of a "p*ussy" he is yet irrationally so. Anyone who spends most of his adult life challenging the false premses and ideals that drive the Eurocentric discourse in concern to African history cannot by definition be considered a "p*ussy", coward and the like. He answered the call of Diop appropriately:
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Jesus Christ people! Can we stop talking about genetics and get back to the topic at hand? Keita's lectures!
Thank you
quote:-Cheikh Anta Diop
"The African historian who evades the problem of Egypt is neither modest or objective, nor unruffled, he is ignorant, cowardly, and neurotic."
quote:Politics is BS, which is why he wisely tries to avoid politics at every turn. Alot of it at the deepest level is little more than an ineffectual blame game or whiny b*tching. So IMO it doesn't matter whether something falls into the category of "political correctness" or what's really politically proper.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
I hate political correctness
quote:I took this piece from my blog, and alluded to it here earlier...
Originally posted by Alive:
What about Central Northern Eurasia? They split off from East Asians correct?
Or are they possesing derived OCA2 genes too?
quote:^That's exactly what I had in mind.
Supercar wrote:One might recall that the Native American OCA2-derived allele frequency was said to be comparatively lower than that of East Asians
quote:^damn straight.
Well, "white" Berbers are native to Africa
quote:^This was Keita's part of Keita's response where he asks if it's possible and says "it's possible".
Originally posted by me:
People "possibly" entered North Africa?
quote:This is a contradiction. Their skin hue is what makes them "white Berbers", yet you say it is due to foreign influence. How then can they be "native"?
Well, "white" Berbers are native to Africa; they are not found anywhere else. Their skin hue though, has been influenced by non-African gene flow into native African populations.
quote:How is it a contradiction?
Originally posted by akoben:
This is a contradiction. Their skin hue is what makes them "white Berbers", yet you say it is due to foreign influence. How then can they be "native"?
quote:Not talking about anyone specifically
Originally posted by a JackedAss:
If there was no foreign "gene flow" would there still be "white Berbers"?
And is that a picture of you leading a tour group Alive-girl? lol
but who thinks the above is funny but a homosexual nazi from Europe? Seriously?
quote:No, there would be no "white Berbers" if whites didn't come in and mixed with the native black ones. Unless you are saying their hue is native...
there would be no "white Berbers" if there was no native Berbers to begin with, now would there?
quote:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Well, "white" Berbers are native to Africa; they are not found anywhere else. Their skin hue though, has been influenced by non-African gene flow into native African populations. While gene flow from "exotic" groups has certainly modified phenotypes [like the contribution of "tan" or "Medium" complexion] of sections of coastal North Africans, this condition does not make them non-native. Now if someone were to say "white skin" is native to Africa, then that would be a different story. [/QB]
quote:Exactly, jackass. There is tinny *a straw* of hope for you after all.
Originally posted by akoben:
No, there would be no "white Berbers" if whites didn't come in and mixed with the native black ones.
quote:This is the evidence that you lack comprehension in English.
Unless you are saying their hue is native...
quote:Hey, you make a charge, you'll be questioned on it. Get use to it, kid.
and as usual you answer a question with a question.
quote:Black skin defined.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Hey Jackass, if a figment of imagination rocks your boat, then so be it; power to Ganja! Can I get an 'Amen", kiddo.
quote:My n%%ga! My N%%ga! You're fluent in sarcasm my friend..we'd make like best buddies lmao..
Originally posted by akoben:
He answered the call of Diop appropriately by evading the questions pointing to the "blackness" of Egypt? Yeh, Diop would be proud...
quote:Yo Akoben and Explorer..stop the beef..stop the beef!!!
Originally posted by akoben:
**sigh** Maybe what you meant to say was that the cultural group known as Berbers are native, but they have incorporated foreigners, whether by cultural adaption or gene flow into their midst, hence the "white Berbers" today. This is different from saying white Berbers are native to Africa. Yes?
quote:Don't know; I haven't listened to the speech in question; was he saying something different?
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Explorer I understamd that you're saying that white berbers are the result of indigenoous black berbers intermixing with white invaders and immigrants..but is keita necessarily saying this?
quote:No my man he's leaning toward that white skin is native to Africa. strange position to take..but hell just watch the video.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
^Actually, AssOpen is the one with the beef; so much so, that he just can't resist following me around virtually everywhere in a queer sort of way.
quote:Don't know; I haven't listened to the speech in question; was he saying something different?
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
Explorer I understamd that you're saying that white berbers are the result of indigenoous black berbers intermixing with white invaders and immigrants..but is keita necessarily saying this?
quote:To anyone who knows any better, then NO, Keita was not implying that *white skin* is indigenous to Africa, however he did imply that lighterskinned people have been in Africa for a long time, by not clarifying and actually saying that white skin is *NOT* what he meant by lightskin, then to any laymen listening to the video might get the idea that Keita *WAS IMPLYING* that people such as Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor as the man asking the question put it) were always in Africa. This is the thing that Keita, in my point of view, should have been more clear about.
Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
No my man he's leaning toward that white skin is native to Africa. strange position to take..but hell just watch the video.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
After watching the vid, I was a bit dissatisfied. When the guy asked him specifically when did people like Cleopatra(Elizabeth Taylor) come into Egypt. When Keita answered there's always been a lightskin population and people like that always lived in Africa was appalling. Keita knew exactly what the question was, and he failed miserably to answer it clearly. This gives people like Chimu room to argue that these ligtskinnned genetically non African influenced people were always in Africa. Which is false. Truthfully I think he should've been even more clear and confirm that pale skin is actually a recent adaptation and occurred outside of Africa, some 6kya.
quote:The word "Black" is clearly a very powerful word. The Black Africans of Ancient Kemet had symbolized the word Black with incredibly powerful meaning and upon discovering these meanings, it has been a primary priority for Euro-Western specialists to pervert, bastardized and completely destroy almost all positive associations to the word "Black". White/Jewish/Arabs have attempted to negate all positive meanings and elements associated with the word "Black" at mountainous levels.
Originally posted by JMT:
S.O.Y. Keita may very well be a brilliant scientist. But what amazes me is the extent to which people develop a complex to rationalize Keita's actions. Keita's reluctance to simply say "yes, I believe the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans" is rather troubling. If Keita believes the Ancient Egyptians were undoubtedly black (I've read on this forum there's little to no evidence which contradicts the hard evidence of the black Egyptian premise presented by Keita) then he should explicitly use the word BLACK. See how easy that was.
There are methods for Keita to be diplomatic in his approach while conveying his true feelings based on the grounds of his own scientific examinations without sidestepping the issue for the sake of appeasement for those who sign his checks. I understand everyone has bills to pay. But I don't understand why some choose to compromise their character or beliefs to coddle a dichotomy which isn't interested in the truth.
Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
I can identify. and the furthest one to the right is the real "one way or the other" one. quote:I nominate you to take Keita's place, KemsonReloaded. (smile)
Originally posted by KemsonReloaded:
quote:The word "Black" is clearly a very powerful word. The Black Africans of Ancient Kemet had symbolized the word Black with incredibly powerful meaning and upon discovering these meanings, it has been a primary priority for Euro-Western specialists to pervert, bastardized and completely destroy almost all positive associations to the word "Black". White/Jewish/Arabs have attempted to negate all positive meanings and elements associated with the word "Black" at mountainous levels.
Originally posted by JMT:
S.O.Y. Keita may very well be a brilliant scientist. But what amazes me is the extent to which people develop a complex to rationalize Keita's actions. Keita's reluctance to simply say "yes, I believe the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans" is rather troubling. If Keita believes the Ancient Egyptians were undoubtedly black (I've read on this forum there's little to no evidence which contradicts the hard evidence of the black Egyptian premise presented by Keita) then he should explicitly use the word BLACK. See how easy that was.
There are methods for Keita to be diplomatic in his approach while conveying his true feelings based on the grounds of his own scientific examinations without sidestepping the issue for the sake of appeasement for those who sign his checks. I understand everyone has bills to pay. But I don't understand why some choose to compromise their character or beliefs to coddle a dichotomy which isn't interested in the truth.
Everything people do is political. But there comes a time when you just have to stand up and throw that political BS out the window and go with your instinct.
We can see a start of institutionalized attack on the word "Black" by Euro-Western specialists simply by looking at the definition of the word "Black" in the dictionary (paper dictionary or dictionary.com). In this case, for the sake of convenience, I used dictionary.com. Dictionary.com defines the word "Black" in its first two sections as follows:
1. lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it.
2. characterized by absence of light; enveloped in darkness: a black night.
"a black night"? are there any other nights of different color we don't know of? Unfortunately, #2 undoes some valid meanings in #1. Black represent the absorption of all light therefore, it is the total presence of all light in there most intensive state. In fact, what we perceive as light can only be seen only if Black color or Black-element exists as foundation. How can light be seen in light? Light can only be seen in the dark (Black). Meaning "Black" is actually light or a light matter allowing all other lights to be seen. Yes, Black light is real!
Next Dictionary.com goes on the define the word Black in more negative ways:
"
5. gloomy; pessimistic; dismal: a black outlook.
6. deliberately; harmful; inexcusable: a black lie.
7. boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening: black words; black looks.
...
9. without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked: His black heart has concocted yet another black deed.
10. indicating censure, disgrace, or liability to punishment: a black mark on one's record.
11. marked by disaster or misfortune: black areas of drought; Black Friday.
15. illegal or underground: The black economy pays no taxes.
17. deliberately false or intentionally misleading: black propaganda.
"
The above are all direct and continuous efforts to remove almost all positive symbolism and meaning of the word "Black" by Euro-Western specialist. For instance, there is no such thing as a "black lies", if so "white lies" would be worst than any "black lie" considering the amount of resources exerted for centuries now hiding, perverting, destroying and scattering the foundational roles of Black Africans in human history. Words like "illegal", "disgrace", "misfortune", "disaster", "drought", "harmful", "hostile", "threatening" being associated with the "Black" have absolutely nothing to do with "Black", yet, they are attempts by Euro-Western specialists to destroy positive associations of the word "Black". Furthermore, dictionary.com describes "Black" as follows:
"9. without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked: His black heart has concocted yet another black deed."
These were nothing more than attempts reverse the spiritual symbolical meaning of what Black actually means and alway meant before the coming to Whites/Jews and/or Arabs; "Black" was always symbolized as: sacred, holy, powerful, goodwill, reborn, resurrection...and so on.
People like S.O.Y. Keita are in a struggle attempting not to make White people feel bad. It is clear that Ancient Kemetians were 100% Black Africans from head to toe and the very presence of the word "Black" along with the word "African" is of such power that it gives an effect similar to having mountain sized lies come crashing down. Even the worst derogatory terms directed at Black people begin to loose their negative effects. Suddenly, the centuries of resources spent towards the great White/Jewish causes in destroying all things positive associated with "Black" is reduced to nothingness. This of cause becomes a big blow to White/Jewish dogma of Black African history. For the White, Jewish and Arabs elites and specialists, as well as their greater populations to acknowledge the undeniable positivity and foundational roles "Black African" have played throughout human evolution, history and civilization, Black African peoples must continue to research, study, document and publish Black African history no matter who else does it. Black African people must also use Black whenever it is appropriate to do so. The late, great Pharaoh of intellect, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop directly attributed Black African accomplishments to Black Africans (Negroes) whenever it was appropriate without resorting tricky terms to satisfy racist White or Jewish persons.
In many of S.O.Y. Keita, when dealing with direct genetic research (blood and dna), as well as scientific markings of these specialized areas, classification by skin color/skin tone/features are mostly inappropriate because of the massive varieties humans possess. On the social level, because of the damages cause flawed and racist Eurocentric system of teaching, which has conditioned many individual to visualize Black people and the word "Black" as negative by default, it imperative that good willed scholars directly and explicitly cite and use "Black African(s)" when attributing credits of accomplishments in regards ancient African histories and civilizations.
S.O.Y. Keita reluctance to utilize the word "Black", or "Negro" or even "Negroid" in his work when dealing with the laymen masses is the ensure his checks keep coming. Maybe Black scientist and specialists had to be a bit more creative and work a bit harder for revealing and maintaining the truth, but Cheikh Anta Diop's check kept coming, as was Ivan Van Sertima's, John Clark's and many others. Maybe one day even Keita will find a way to actually say "yes, Ancient Kemet were 100% indigenous Black Africans and all genetic findings support it." Until then, the rest of us will continue to build on the great works of Keita and other intellectual giants and by that time, Keita needn't be pressured into using the proper term "Black African" because everyone else around him will be using it.
quote:Hello Europa/mathilda still talking the same garbage?
Originally posted by Boofer:
I was under the impression that the first North Africans came from a group of Eurasians from Western Asia (the levant) over 40,000 years ago.
I've also heard that North Africans can somehow be distinguished from Sub-Saharan Africans as well as Europeans, probably because of this exodus from the Levant so long ago. A person from another forum, who is apparently a sholar and supporter of the "no-race" notion, has said that North Africans show both Sub-Saharan and European influence. Sub-Saharan influence at about twice that of European, but both relatively small (8% vs. 4%). I'll see if I can find the study he was referring to.
quote:
82,000-year-old shell beads from North Africa
and implications for the origins of modern
human behavior
Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, Nick Barton, Marian Vanhaeren, Francesco d’Errico, Simon Collcutt, Tom Higham,
Edward Hodge, Simon Parfitt, Edward Rhodes, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Chris Stringer, Elaine Turner,
Steven Wardo, Abdelkrim Moutmir, and Abdelhamid Stambouli
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/9964.full.pdf+html?sid=589898f8-22a8-4c35-b282-7d8dbf6ad2fb
The first appearance of explicitly symbolic objects in the archaeological record marks a fundamental stage in the emergence of modern social behavior in Homo. Ornaments such as shell beads represent some of the earliest objects of this kind. We report on examples of perforated Nassarius gibbosulus shell beads from Grotte des Pigeons (Taforalt, Morocco), North Africa. These marine shells come from archaeological levels dated by luminescence and uranium-series techniques to 82,000 years ago. They confirm
evidence of similar ornaments from other less well dated sites in North Africa and adjacent areas of southwest Asia. The shells are of the same genus as shell beads from slightly younger levels at Blombos Cave in South Africa. Wear patterns on the shells imply that some of them were suspended, and, as at Blombos, they were
covered in red ochre. These findings imply an early distribution of bead-making in Africa and southwest Asia at least 40 millennia
before the appearance of similar cultural manifestations in Europe.
quote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112104129.htm
Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull (Hofmeyr) from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
quote:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7367.full.pdf+html?sid=4fe8c6d0-a57b-49c0-ac09-a5f3a6e6b88f
European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*
"The skull is large and robust. The maximum
estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in
comparison to recent African crania in a number
of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately
thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall,
flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of
the maxilla; and comparatively large molar
crowns.
quote:Why'd you bold the word "evade" as if to apply Diop's critique to Shomarka Keita. That's obviously a distortion. He said anyone who "evades the problem of Egypt", which Keita has tackled head on. The fact that an objective scientist in 2009 doesn't reduce himself to political baggage or concern himself with the rants of a few insatiable black militants doesn't say very much, really.
Originally posted by akoben:
He answered the call of Diop appropriately by evading the questions pointing to the "blackness" of Egypt? Yeh, Diop would be proud...
Sarcasm aside though, using terms like Black and White only give fuel for others to criticize him. His arguments are more powerful without resorting to such socio-political labels that are restricted MOSTLY to western attitudes and ideas.. Of course the AE were Black. Of course indigenous Africans are Black. Stop looking for Keita to force feed you what is otherwise overtly apparent. Draw your own conclusion from his expert analysis. You don't need him to conclude for you what your mind is capable of understanding. If the data tells you they're Black, then why does Keita have to say it verbatim for you in order for it to be true?
quote:Mathilda's claim to fame lately is her so-called "evidence" of Eurasian migrations into North Africa 35,000 years ago. She tries hard to support this ideas with research and studies from other scholars, by distorting their work in most cases, including the work of Keita. But the fundamental joke about all of this is that there is no single example of a Eurasian white skeleton anywhere on the planet 35,000 years ago. Not only that but the earliest skeletons from Europe are only 35,000-40,000 years old and have traits which are not close to modern white Europeans or Asians. But she clings to this nonsense of a back migration into North Africa of "Eurasians" 40,000 years ago, based on supposed DNA evidence, implying that they were white people, even as no examples of white Eurasian skeletons have ever been found from 35,000 years ago anywhere on the planet. And the studies she posts on her site most often contradict her base argument and it is hilarious to hear her distortions, especially the idea that ancient "Nubians" are closer to Europeans than Africans. Someone like that has more than a few screws loose, but unfortunately, many people still fall for that nonsense, possibly because they have a white is right mentality and don't know it.
Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Hello Europa/mathilda still talking the same garbage?
Originally posted by Boofer:
I was under the impression that the first North Africans came from a group of Eurasians from Western Asia (the levant) over 40,000 years ago.
I've also heard that North Africans can somehow be distinguished from Sub-Saharan Africans as well as Europeans, probably because of this exodus from the Levant so long ago. A person from another forum, who is apparently a sholar and supporter of the "no-race" notion, has said that North Africans show both Sub-Saharan and European influence. Sub-Saharan influence at about twice that of European, but both relatively small (8% vs. 4%). I'll see if I can find the study he was referring to.
quote:As if spics were ever intellectuals lol
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Actually it's funny seeing as you're supposed to be some kind of intellectual, albeit, in all debates you're never sure on anything you're always distorting, and at the end, you're reduced to saying but but but but but but but.......
quote:Yes I know it annoys you
gaykoben whines: But you said this, but you said that, but didn't you say this, but didn't you say that....
Bwahahahahahahahaahaaaa
quote:
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi a.k.a akoben:
quote:You are missing the point Sundjata; look I don't believe Ancient Egyptians were black, but for the sake of this argument I will assume that they were.
Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Why'd you bold the word "evade" as if to apply Diop's critique to Shomarka Keita. That's obviously a distortion. He said anyone who "evades the problem of Egypt", which Keita has tackled head on. The fact that an objective scientist in 2009 doesn't reduce himself to political baggage or concern himself with the rants of a few insatiable black militants doesn't say very much, really.
Originally posted by akoben:
He answered the call of Diop appropriately by evading the questions pointing to the "blackness" of Egypt? Yeh, Diop would be proud...
quote:^^Typical spic humor and mentality LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL *I am really laughing by the way*
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
LOLOL Great job Keita you make the white liberal man very proud as do most Western negro shills smh
quote:You're mistaken young man. I'm not looking for Keita to tell me anything courageous black scholars such as Dr. Ben or Diop didn't tell me already. I mean, Dr. Ben got fired from many white institutions for telling the truth and many of our scholars caught hell otherwise, yet this Keita can't find the balls to say Of course the AE were Black?
Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Why'd you bold the word "evade" as if to apply Diop's critique to Shomarka Keita. That's obviously a distortion. He said anyone who "evades the problem of Egypt", which Keita has tackled head on. The fact that an objective scientist in 2009 doesn't reduce himself to political baggage or concern himself with the rants of a few insatiable black militants doesn't say very much, really.
Originally posted by akoben:
He answered the call of Diop appropriately by evading the questions pointing to the "blackness" of Egypt? Yeh, Diop would be proud...
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Wolofi aka woof woof weef weef wee aka vida (the white boy with pink blisters on his penis) wrote:
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
This is Wolofi's thang with ointment.
--------
--------
This is Wolofi's thang without ointment.
--------
@ @ @
@ @ @
--------
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:Sit boo boo sit and stop all that barking Kunta.
Originally posted by argyle104:
Oh yeah, Oh yeah Woof Woof Weef Weef Wee
I forgot. Here's some scholarship.
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
But am I wrong about the ointment?
FYI everyone: The above poster goes around flashing women and children with an erection that has pink blisters on it.
He has darn near an unlimited craving for calamine ointment for obvious reasons.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Hey Woof Woof Weef Weef Wee aka Wolofi (the white boy) aka vida,
Walmart is having a sale on ointment!!
(woof woof weef weef wee is running to his car)
<SCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRCH>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
quote:The ditz even referred to himself as an African American "you're wrong about us
Originally sobbed by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Look dude I am the only that actually laughs at your jokes you better stop trying to make an enemy you need me you sociopath lol.
Originally posted by argyle104:
DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi aka vida (the white boy) wrote:
Stop the gay innuendo thats you Afro Americans that are gay not Africans argyle.
" responding to criticism on African Americans right before posting the above. "His" name tells you he's in an identity crisis.
quote:^
Originally posted by Alive:
weeee poooo umm ummm ummm
quote:^^^ I don't understand any of the spamming you are doing child. Just address what the issue is and stop clowning around. If you want people to take the Anthropology war between Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics serious then take it serious.
Originally posted by Alive:
Even the other trolls regard you as a joke
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Wolofi aka woof woof weef weef wee aka vida (the white boy with pink blisters on his penis) wrote:
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
This is Wolofi's thang with ointment.
--------
--------
This is Wolofi's thang without ointment.
--------
@ @ @
@ @ @
--------
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!quote:
Originally posted by Wolofi:
quote:Sit boo boo sit and stop all that barking Kunta.
Originally posted by argyle104:
Oh yeah, Oh yeah Woof Woof Weef Weef Wee
I forgot. Here's some scholarship.quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
But am I wrong about the ointment?
FYI everyone: The above poster goes around flashing women and children with an erection that has pink blisters on it.
He has darn near an unlimited craving for calamine ointment for obvious reasons.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Hey Woof Woof Weef Weef Wee aka Wolofi (the white boy) aka vida,
Walmart is having a sale on ointment!!
(woof woof weef weef wee is running to his car)
<SCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRCH>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAquote:The ditz even referred to an African American "you're wrong about us
Originally sobbed by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Look dude I am the only that actually laughs at your jokes you better stop trying to make an enemy you need me you sociopath lol.
Originally posted by argyle104:
DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi aka vida (the white boy) wrote:
Stop the gay innuendo thats you Afro Americans that are gay not Africans argyle.
quote:^ Is this a pic of your dreamboy?
assopen crapped:
quote:Damn, that Puerto Rican spic Dr. BEN-Jochannan, Yosef Alfredo Antonio got fired for telling those crackas the truth........? Damn spics!!
Originally posted by akoben:
courageous black scholars such as Dr. Ben or Diop didn't tell me already. I mean, Dr. Ben got fired from many white institutions for telling the truth and many of our scholars caught hell otherwise, yet this Keita can't find the balls to say Of course the AE were Black?
quote:....and damn that Puerto Rican spic Arthur Schomburg why'd he have to influence Dr Clarke? Damn spics huh? They were never intellects....
Dr. Yosef A. A. Ben-Jochannan, affectionately known as "Dr. Ben" was born December 31, 1918, to a Puerto Rican mother and an Ethiopian father in what is known as the "Falasha" Hebrew community in Gondar, Ethiopia.
Dr. Ben's formal education began in Puerto Rico. His early education continued in The Virgin Islands and in Brazil, where he attended elementary and secondary school. Dr. Ben earned a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering at the university of Puerto Rico, and a Master's degree in Architectural Engineering from the University of Havana, Cuba. He received doctorial degrees in Cultural Anthropology and Moorish History, from the University of Havana and the University of Barcelona Spain.
quote:^^Better tell Dr. Clarke stop teaching them spics history.....
Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
In the infamous words of self described Afro-Borucua (Afro-Puerto Rican) Arturo Schomburg to Dr. Clarke....
quote:
In an interview with Civil Rights Journal, Clarke described his first encounter with the man who "opened up my eyes to the fact that I came from a old people, older than slavery, older than the people who oppressed us."
"He was holding down the desk. I was a teenager then. So I wanted to know the whole history of my people all over the world, henceforth, in the hour þ his lunch hour!
"'Sit down, son,' he said. 'What you're calling African history, Negro history, are the missing pages of World history. Read the history of the people who took you out of history, and you will find out why they were so insecure they had to take you out of history, why they could not stand for your history to compete with theirs'
"Once I began to have some background in European history, I could bring African history into proper focus. But Arthur Schomburg, more than any other single human being, set me in motion in the pursuit of a career as a teacher of history," says the 80-year old Dr. Clarke, Professor Emeritus of African and World History at Hunter College's Department of **Black and Puerto Rican** Studies.
quote:
There were always people in Northern Africa that were lighter skinned and had straight hair from 60,000 years ago -S.O.Y Keita
Skin color can flip back around every 15,000 years -S.O.Y Keita
LOL, so much for R underived being a "black" haplogroup.
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_02/vv,-2/Itemid,26
fast forward to 40 minutes
LOL okie dokie, yep this guy is a Eurocentric shill.
The black guy in the audience is just like me, he is asking valid questions about the limits of phenotype and where it starts and where it end and Keita is saying there isn't one. He and I are just as baffled as to how you classify someone without definite measures smh.
So the answer to "are Egyptians black, White, Arab, Mixed" is "They are human" [Roll Eyes] LOLOL Great job Keita you make the white liberal man very proud as do most Western negro shills smh
quote:CHOP CHOP Egyptsearch anthropologists this needs to be addressed MWHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_02/vv,-2/Itemid,26
49:00
Re-acquisitions of tropical traits?!?!?!?
WOW!!!!! LOL Man oh Man You nigs have A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO!!!!!!
WHEW!!!!
WAITING............btw it sure got quiet in here *tisk* *tisk*
quote:Dr. Ben is Ethiopian and you can keep Schomburg. As for Clarke, I thought he was commie influenced? Oh well. lol
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Damn, that Puerto Rican spic Dr. BEN-Jochannan, Yosef Alfredo Antonio got fired for telling those crackas the truth........? Damn spics!!
Originally posted by akoben:
courageous black scholars such as Dr. Ben or Diop didn't tell me already. I mean, Dr. Ben got fired from many white institutions for telling the truth and many of our scholars caught hell otherwise, yet this Keita can't find the balls to say Of course the AE were Black?
quote:....and damn that Puerto Rican spic Arthur Schomburg why'd he have to influence Dr Clarke? Damn spics huh? They were never intellects....
Dr. Yosef A. A. Ben-Jochannan, affectionately known as "Dr. Ben" was born December 31, 1918, to a Puerto Rican mother and an Ethiopian father in what is known as the "Falasha" Hebrew community in Gondar, Ethiopia.
Dr. Ben's formal education began in Puerto Rico. His early education continued in The Virgin Islands and in Brazil, where he attended elementary and secondary school. Dr. Ben earned a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering at the university of Puerto Rico, and a Master's degree in Architectural Engineering from the University of Havana, Cuba. He received doctorial degrees in Cultural Anthropology and Moorish History, from the University of Havana and the University of Barcelona Spain.
quote:^^Better tell Dr. Clarke stop teaching them spics history.....
Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
In the infamous words of self described Afro-Borucua (Afro-Puerto Rican) Arturo Schomburg to Dr. Clarke....
quote:
In an interview with Civil Rights Journal, Clarke described his first encounter with the man who "opened up my eyes to the fact that I came from a old people, older than slavery, older than the people who oppressed us."
"He was holding down the desk. I was a teenager then. So I wanted to know the whole history of my people all over the world, henceforth, in the hour þ his lunch hour!
"'Sit down, son,' he said. 'What you're calling African history, Negro history, are the missing pages of World history. Read the history of the people who took you out of history, and you will find out why they were so insecure they had to take you out of history, why they could not stand for your history to compete with theirs'
"Once I began to have some background in European history, I could bring African history into proper focus. But Arthur Schomburg, more than any other single human being, set me in motion in the pursuit of a career as a teacher of history," says the 80-year old Dr. Clarke, Professor Emeritus of African and World History at Hunter College's Department of **Black and Puerto Rican** Studies.
quote:I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa
Originally posted by gaykoben:
I apologise.
quote:Actually King is right, it makes no sense to argue over Afro Puerto Rico versus African just because I disagree with you on certain things. It doesn't matter where Dr. Ben was educated or who influenced Clarke; playing this game I could very well say Garvey's influence on black leaders and the struggle in general was far more "superior" to Schomburg's. But again, that wouldn't prove being "Jamaican" is any more superior than being "Puerto Rican".
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa
Originally posted by gaykoben:
I apologise.
quote:Well, arguing over it, to me, is another form of separatism a.k.a divide and conquer. This is a technique promoted by Europeans, gee, I wonder why you adhere to it....
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Actually King is right, it makes no sense to argue over Afro Puerto Rico versus African just because I disagree with you on certain things. It doesn't matter where Dr. Ben was educated or who influenced Clarke; playing this game I could very well say Garvey's influence on black leaders and the struggle in general was far more "superior" to Schomburg's. But again, that wouldn't prove being "Jamaican" is any more superior than being "Puerto Rican".
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:I thought so. Akoben has chumped out, considering I was about to administer an intellectual thrashing towards him.... Bwahahahahahahahahaa
Originally posted by gaykoben:
I apologise.
Btw, what do you disagree with me on?
quote:are we to go over your bowcock beatdown again?
what do you disagree with me on?
quote:Oh gtfoh with that. You were intellectually thrashed, and left to die originally by rasol. I just felt like taking out the trash
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:are we to go over your bowcock beatdown again?
what do you disagree with me on?
quote:Which is why the jackass cant get-over-it.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Oh gtfoh with that. You were intellectually thrashed, and left to die originally by rasol. I just felt like taking out the trash
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:are we to go over your bowcock beatdown again?
what do you disagree with me on?
quote:This is the first time I have 100 percent agreed wtih you all you have to do is look at the lecture and see how he is running and I mean RUNNING from answering a very simple trivial question. It does not surprise me that the only two African students in the class were asking the most logical questions that the European sycophant Keita wants to run from to keep a pay check and to stay friendly with the Eurocentrics with his ambiguous, arbitrary and nebulous explanation of Ancient Egyptian and African phenotypes and the differences of non Africans.
Originally posted by Doug M:
My only comment on Keita is that he is being OVERLY ambiguous. For example, if Negroid is not valid and he doesn't use it, how does that mesh with the current scientist that DO use it and other studies which speak of typologies like Caucasoid and negroid? If he is not going to use Negroid he should explain more fully what the typology of Negroid means and why it isn't valid. Just NOT using the term and NOT addressing the CORE issue behind WHY it isn't valid is to miss the point. If you are dispelling myths then you have to ADDRESS those myths and typologies which propose dividing people up into typological conventions like negroid and Caucasoid. If you do not address this, especially since many people STILL DO use this typology in their research, you are not dispelling anything. A word is a word and using black is no less meaningful as saying dark. What does dark mean? Using dark doesn't help explain anything and does not make the term black as a similar description of the same thing "dark skin" any less valid.
quote:Richard Poe consulted Keita for his insights on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and summarized his research in more laymen friendly lingo:
...Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial construct and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of a hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "elongated African", and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic. In spite of this, even modern biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that all "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific characteristic, for instance notable prognathism.....
....This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies, demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occured, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers.
Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-tropical variants.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:Now as far as pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians are concerned I'm still not clear on what Keita believes they looked like. He clearly implied in the video that he believes some light-skinned populations in North Africa evolved within North Africa. And I am aware that people from the Maghreb have East African derived Y-Chromosomes and Southern European mtDNA lineages but I'm not clear on when these Southern Euros arrived in North Africa and whether or not the light-skin of many North African populations is an exclusive trait of Eurasians.
Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Source: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? page. 471
quote:The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
quote:^Agreed.
Originally posted by Morpheus:
Keita's lecture is consistent with the writing in his articles. The way I see it NatGeo is taking advantage of the scientific jargon in Keita's speeches because laymen have trouble comprehending what he is saying. You have to understand that Keita is a Biological Anthropologist. He speaks in hard scientific terms and dismisses typological concepts because they are misleading. There is nothing Eurocentric about his comments and accusing him of being a shill is offensive.
quote:I don't think Keita is reluctant to discuss the issues for worry that he might offend his audience at all.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
This coupled with his reluctance to discuss the pictures of Egyptians showing them as black people, choosing instead to dismiss them in typical Eurocentric fashion by bringing up the are-they-symbolic line, is deeply disturbing. He also dodges the question on common bonds and identities between ancient Egyptians and Nubians/Sudanese preferring instead to talk about contemporary bonds such as common "Arabic identity" and instances of contemparary Pan African shared identities. This I suspect is due to the fact that the former it might lead to an obvious discussion on the "racial" or "ethnic" identity and bonds between the two peoples, thus offending his audience. The latter is more kosher.
He has no problems stating Sudan means land of the blacks, no doubt because Sudan/Nubia is not in contention in the Eurocentric world. Why then couldn't he have spoken equally on the "blacks" and Egypt?
There's a convergence of evidence here. What does it say for Keita?
That quote and Keita's presentation before this largely white Cambridge audience shows that he is either a shill or a bit schizophrenic. Lots of black academics suffer from schizophrenia because they have to (or think they have to) appease whites yet deep down inside they do know the truth. Some blacks don't know how to handle this existential dichotomy. Keita is obviously one of them.
quote:Why do you HATE Keita and Kettles, robot?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I too agree, as well as the fact that Keita is all too apeasing to the Eurocents. Welcome back Musa, by the way.
quote:First of all,
Originally posted by Grumman:
Well in response just a couple of days ago two posters mentioned Mr. Keita needs a job too. The man is skirting a fine line between what he knows to be true and what the establishment will let him get away with. And the video showed how he has to maneuver within that line.
Mr. Keita did make an unusual comment, in my opinion, considering he may be a methodological naturalist. He stated, depending on how one views the origins of humans, that God, if this be the case, and evolution, if this be the case, both work in mysterious ways. Now, how is there room for both? It's easy to say this means nothing more than an acknowledgement to the opposing camp, the God factor. Yet the God factor is fundamentally opposed to evolution as it stands considering the former factor requires no proof and the latter claims it does.
Considering the limited number of people in the conference room and the small size of it I would think time constraints would be a bit more agreeable considering this type of topic. The woman from Brazil at the table seemed petrified if they went over the limit. Now I say this knowing full well the conference room could have been rented out to someone else. On the other hand maybe the guy that locks the building had to go home and watch his favorite show on television.
At any rate I don't envy the man having to stand in front of people knowing he will be asked difficult questions and have to measure his responses within the framework of the establishment. But that's his position in academia.
quote:If you're referring to the belief that Europeans are descended from exiled Albino Africans or that pale-skin is exclusively product of albinism I don't believe that Keita prescribes to that theory.
Originally posted by meninarmer:
^ That is, the way it be when surrounded by the opposition. Don't make the mistake that brothers are free.
Keita agrees with the Albinism theory but there is no way he can say this without sacrificing a ton of green, as well as his rep.
quote:the same here
Originally posted by Morpheus:
Hello everyone.
This is Mansa Musa (I can't log into my original account).
quote:Take note of the excerpt I quoted from Richard Poe's book where he states that Keita rarely resorts to using racial labels. Now I agree that National Geographic is exercising hypocrisy when they are reluctant to talk about the appearance of the Ancient Egyptians but then talk about "Black" Nubian Pharaohs.
Originally posted by akoben:
One theme: all of a sudden "black" and "white" becomes ambiguous.
We all know damn well what these terms mean which is why "black" is only in contention when it comes to AE; it is not that controversial when we deal with, say, Nubia or Great Zimbabwe or the usual "West African kingdoms". Here there is no problem using "unscientific" terms such as "black" or "black Africans" to these places. And like I said he had no problem saying Sudan meant land of the blacks, so how is it all of a sudden "black" becomes problematic when it concerns AE? This is typical Eurocentric tactic!
quote:Now obviously this nihilistic mindset towards racial labels can be problematic when communicating with laymen and can be seen as making a rather simplistic view unnecessarily complicated. But Keita is far from being Eurocentric in his explanations. I should point out that even Mary Lefkowitz acknowledged that the Ancient Egyptians would be considered Black by American social standards (she cites Keita for her
There is little interest in this review in "social race," since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in American than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:Like I said earlier, I intend to ask him about the light-skin of some North Africans myself if I can find another way to contact him.
And as far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, what "evidence" do you think he was alluding to that somehow "shows" this. Are you saying he knows of such evidence and that's why it was necessary to be vague on this question? And who has called into question the historical support for extensive immigration?
quote:Now Keita has sought to support this hypothesis through DNA studies but he acknowledges that are done on modern populations and not ancient remains they are not entirely conclusive.
Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the
dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign
rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC–
AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative
system was maintained and traditional culture mostly
continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt
began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying
powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000).
To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the
native peoples is unknown. Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested
that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’
might have occurred immediately prior to and during this
period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants
(Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers
of government, were probably low. As such, indigenous
Egyptians may not have differed significantly from
their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples
from these two time-successive periods can help
gauge the amount of biological influence these outside
groups had on the local peoples.
Source: Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Joel D. Irish, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 129(4):529-43 (2006)
quote:It doesn't necessarily have to be those two periods. I think there was a study by two guys named Berry decades back that found that there was some change in craniofacial morphology during the New Kingdom. This would coincide with increased contact between Egypt and SW Asia; maybe that had a genetic impact?
Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
quote:I think youre referring to this guy (or individuals) Van Sertima talks about "This is a hasty misreading of the work of scholars like A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko who point out that there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity in this area for 5000 years. What a superficial reading of this fails to note is that the period ends with the close of the native dynasties BEFORE the invasions of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab foreigners" Reply to My Critics
I think there was a study by two guys named Berry decades back that found that there was some change in craniofacial morphology during the New Kingdom.
quote:But the point is that words are used for communication and as long as they are used in such a way were the communication is meaningful and the underlying concept is clear and unambiguous, then that is obviously what is best. Therefore, saying black is not a meaningful term in a biological context is fine. But that does not mean that the fact that humans have skin color that varies as a biological trait is something so complex that the fact of this biological trait being different from one population to the next in a historical context cannot be communicated clearly. That is not a social system that is scientific understanding of biological facts based on the available data. Keita has not addressed the concerns raised but avoided them. If he says he does not use terms of black or negroid, then fine, but what terms would he use to reflect the biological trait of skin color among ancient Africans in North Africa? Calling someone light skinned is a relative term that is no more meaningful than the term black or brown. So why take offense to one term as ambiguous and unscientific and then replace it with another that is equally unscientific and ambiguous?
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:I don't think Keita is reluctant to discuss the issues for worry that he might offend his audience at all.
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:The point many in here are making is that he did not state this more clearly in the Cambridge lecture. Thus giving the impression (through his ambiguity) that light skin (or pale skin) was always a feature in North Africa and down played the impact of foreign invasion on the modern Egyptian population. This is staple feature in Eurocentric misinformation about AE. He knew the issues yet avoided them intentionally and cowardly in my view.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt.
This coupled with his reluctance to discuss the pictures of Egyptians showing them as black people, choosing instead to dismiss them in typical Eurocentric fashion by bringing up the are-they-symbolic line, is deeply disturbing. He also dodges the question on common bonds and identities between ancient Egyptians and Nubians/Sudanese preferring instead to talk about contemporary bonds such as common "Arabic identity" and instances of contemparary Pan African shared identities. This I suspect is due to the fact that the former it might lead to an obvious discussion on the "racial" or "ethnic" identity and bonds between the two peoples, thus offending his audience. The latter is more kosher.
He has no problems stating Sudan means land of the blacks, no doubt because Sudan/Nubia is not in contention in the Eurocentric world. Why then couldn't he have spoken equally on the "blacks" and Egypt?
There's a convergence of evidence here. What does it say for Keita?
That quote and Keita's presentation before this largely white Cambridge audience shows that he is either a shill or a bit schizophrenic. Lots of black academics suffer from schizophrenia because they have to (or think they have to) appease whites yet deep down inside they do know the truth. Some blacks don't know how to handle this existential dichotomy. Keita is obviously one of them.
He had no problem questioning the genetic uniformity of Europeans. If you've ever debated Nordicists and Medicentrists you know all too well that the idea that they are not the lily White pure race they like to think they are drives them insane! Keita made it very clear that he approaches this discussion from the perspective of a critical scientist not an Afrocentrist or Eurocentrist.
He is willing to discuss modern ethnic identities and social perceptions however he stresses that it is important to put an ancient culture in its proper historical context and avoid misconceptions.
As far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, if that is what the evidence shows Keita is not going to hesitate to say so, nor do I believe should he. He made it very clear in that interview and past writings that people who migrated to the Nile Valley and founded Ancient Egyptian civilization were a dark-skinned people. The reason he is reluctant to talk about racial labels and what such people would be considered today is because that can lead to certain misconceptions.
We must remember that for instance the term Negro was traditionally used in anthropology to describe stereotypical features that were ascribed to what was believed to be the authentic African and thus limited the true variability of indigenious Africans. That is the very thing Keita has been fighting all of his professional life against.
So when he said he doesn't use that word he has good reason not to. This may cause confusion for the listener but his point is that if you don't LISTEN and try to comprehend the research you will continue to ask questions that will not provide you with useful info when answered.
He also avoids terms like Black and White even in a socio-political context because that context varies from region to region.
As for the artwork it is true that the Ancient Egyptians followed several artistic conventions when depicting people (different skintones for Gods, spiritual beings and sometimes genders etc.). That doesn't mean that none of their art reflected reality but it is a reason why modern anthropologists like Keita don't rely on artistic depictions to tell them about the biological affinities of ancient people.
In both the NatGeo video and the Cambridge lecture Keita says it is important to acknowledge the possibility that the various invasions of Egypt led to immigration and intermarriage with Europeans and Near Easterners. There is genetic evidence supporting this but the historical support for extensive immigration has been called into question. So Keita seems hesitant to make a definitive statement on that issue.
Overall I'd say that Keita has tried to be as objective as possible. His main points first and foremost are that Ancient Egypt was an African civilization, not only geographically but culturally and its people, while possessing a variety of anatomical traits, were biologically African as well.
If we want more forceful answers to the issues that concern us we need to ask the right questions.
quote:I'm not sure where else Keita proposed massive migration in either the pre-dynastic era [which he rejects based on evidence] or the dynastic period, other than perhaps raise the question of a "possible" impact [but not definitive] from the folks who were referred to as "Hyksos", and yes, gene flow from non-African groups during and from the Ptolemic era onwards, presumably in Greek and Roman settlement centers in the Nile Valley. I suspect this is what Joel Irish was referring to, when he said:
Originally posted by Morpheus:
The person I'm referring to about the immigrations
is Joel Irish who cited comments by Keita on the subject in one of his studies, then cited an essay from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt to call it into question:
quote:Now Keita has sought to support this hypothesis through DNA studies but he acknowledges that are done on modern populations and not ancient remains they are not entirely conclusive.
Lastly, following the relative cultural stability of the
dynastic, Egypt came to be wholly dominated by foreign
rulers during Ptolemaic (332–30 BC) and Roman (30 BC–
AD 395) times. In general, the Egyptian administrative
system was maintained and traditional culture mostly
continued throughout these periods; regardless, Egypt
began to accumulate characteristics of the occupying
powers (Watterson, 1997; Lloyd, 2000a,b; Peacock, 2000).
To what extent this influence involved gene flow into the
native peoples is unknown. Keita (1992, p. 251) suggested
that migrations resulting in a ‘‘major genetic impact’’
might have occurred immediately prior to and during this
period. However, the numbers of Greek and Roman immigrants
(Peacock, 2000), particularly outside the major centers
of government, were probably low. As such, indigenous
Egyptians may not have differed significantly from
their dynastic predecessors. Again, affinities among samples
from these two time-successive periods can help
gauge the amount of biological influence these outside
groups had on the local peoples.
Source: Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Joel D. Irish, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 129(4):529-43 (2006)
Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
quote:Who said I hated them or anyone??! Again, I'm not a robot but it's obvious that CPU you call your brain is malfunctioning as usual.
Minibrainer wrote:
Why do you HATE Keita and Kettles, robot?
quote:Both broad and elongated (the "Somali like" features) omit the modern day majority white Arab inhabitants and thus the perception (left unaddressed in the Cambridge lecture because of his ambiguity) that modern day inhabitants are not so different from the ancient inhabitants.
If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation has to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation (Broad to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted phenotype deemed to be the only "African."
quote:http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001153
Originally posted by The Explorer:
They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
quote:^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001153
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer:
They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture).
However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture
Clark Spencer Larsen
Department of Anthropology and Research Laboratories of Anthropology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120
Agriculture has long been regarded as an improvement in the human condition: Once Homo sapiens made the transition from foraging to farming in the Neolithic, health and nutrition improved, longevity increased, and work load declined. Recent study of archaeological human remains worldwide by biological anthropologists has shown this characterization of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture to be incorrect. Contrary to earlier models, the adoption of agriculture involved an overall decline in oral and general health. This decline is indicated by elevated prevalence of various skeletal and dental pathological conditions and alterations in skeletal and dental growth patterns in prehistoric farmers compared with foragers. In addition, changes in food composition and preparation technology contributed to craniofacial and dental alterations, and activity levels and mobility decline resulted in a general decrease in skeletal robusticity. These findings indicate that the shift from food collection to food production occasioned significant and widespread biological changes in human populations during the last 10,000 years.
------
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do. The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals. Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
quote:Do you think every white scholar is irrelevant to the study of Ancient Egypt? Has it ever occurred to you that objective white people do exist? There aren't a whole lot of them to be sure, but they do exist.
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
quote:Of course objective white scholars do exist, but others not so white do exist also. Tell this to mindless718 (who claims to be La-tino Africanst) who posts gringo Chris every chance he gets.
Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Do you think every white scholar is irrelevant to the study of Ancient Egypt? Has it ever occurred to you that objective white people do exist? There aren't a whole lot of them to be sure, but they do exist.
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
quote:Why would I post Chris Ehret on a biological issue?
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
quote:I dunno, maybe because he's your favorite gringo? At least he doesn't advocate racial divergence theories like your other favorite gringos, eh pedro!
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Why would I post Cris Ehret for a biological issue?
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
quote:Of course you don't know. Ehret is a linguist/historian which is why I wouldn't quote him on a biological issue. Keita quotes Ehret often, so what's your point? You don't like when I use your white people against you?
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:I dunno,
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Why would I post Cris Ehret for a biological issue?
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret.
quote:And notice it says *pre-dynastic* Egyptians were Africans(Africans not necessarily meaning black to the Eurocentric nor the laymen by the way) and not Dynastic which is what everyone cares about.
Originally posted by Morpheus:
Keita's lecture is consistent with the writing in his articles. The way I see it NatGeo is taking advantage of the scientific jargon in Keita's speeches because laymen have trouble comprehending what he is saying. You have to understand that Keita is a Biological Anthropologist. He speaks in hard scientific terms and dismisses typological concepts because they are misleading. There is nothing Eurocentric about his comments and accusing him of being a shill is offensive.
Take a look at these quotes from one of his articles. You're calling this the writings of a Eurocentrist?
quote:Richard Poe consulted Keita for his insights on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and summarized his research in more laymen friendly lingo:
...Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial construct and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of a hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "elongated African", and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic. In spite of this, even modern biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that all "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific characteristic, for instance notable prognathism.....
....This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies, demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occured, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers.
Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-tropical variants.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:Now as far as pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians are concerned I'm still not clear on what Keita believes they looked like. He clearly implied in the video that he believes some light-skinned populations in North Africa evolved within North Africa. And I am aware that people from the Maghreb have East African derived Y-Chromosomes and Southern European mtDNA lineages but I'm not clear on when these Southern Euros arrived in North Africa and whether or not the light-skin of many North African populations is an exclusive trait of Eurasians.
Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Source: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? page. 471
I tried to email Keita about these questions but his address has been deactivated.
quote:^ oh come on, "often" is different from every chance you get pedro.
Originally posted by MindlessgringoMatter718:
Keita quotes Ehret often, so what's your point? You don't like when I use your white people against you?
quote:He expects you to, because he is a jackass with an uncontrollable ass -- for uncontrolled passage of hot air.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Why would I post Chris Ehret on a biological issue?
Originally posted by akoben:
^ I'm surprised you didnt find some way to throw in your favorite white Christopher Ehret. [/qb]
quote:^HERE HERE Only when it comes to Ancient Egypt does black become controversial, but that wasn't the travesty. The travesty was when he wouldn't even answer whether or not the first damn HUMANS were black!!!
Originally posted by akoben:
It is interesting that some in here who have taken it upon themselves to apologize for Keita's shortcomings have lapsed into justifying (even if tacitly) Eurocentrism's most insidious themes. I mean I feel like I'm debating a Eurocentric!
One theme: all of a sudden "black" and "white" becomes ambiguous.
We all know damn well what these terms mean which is why "black" is only in contention when it comes to AE; it is not that controversial when we deal with, say, Nubia or Great Zimbabwe or the usual "West African kingdoms". Here there is no problem using "unscientific" terms such as "black" or "black Africans" to these places. And like I said he had no problem saying Sudan meant land of the blacks, so how is it all of a sudden "black" becomes problematic when it concerns AE? This is typical Eurocentric tactic!
No one is saying we rely only on artistic depictions to tell us about the biological affinities (or race) of ancient people. But it is one of the many evidence that they were indeed what we call today black! No different from Nubians. Or are we going to argue this point? I mean if some of us are going to go subtly Eurocentric then why not go all out? Say (like some "veterans" have suggested) that Nubians and Egyptians were different peoples phenotypically!
Also, why you do present Afrocentricity as if its some sort of mirror image of Eurocentrism? Who made you think this way? This is standard Eurocentric line meant to cut down the growing challenge to Eurocentrism.
And, the issue is not whether AE were "pure white races", even Eurocentrics don't argue this anymore. The issue is whether or not the AE looked like what we would call blacks today. You don't have to adhere to the "true negro" line to do this. This is another underhand argument that doesn't hold water. If you are willing to discuses modern ethnic identities in the same region why cant you (for clarity) apply these said identities, in proper context, to ancient times? Diop and others did it, why couldn't he? There seems to be a perception that you are more "scientific" when you tacitly conform to Eurocentric themes and deliberate ambiguities that serve not science but political agendas. So again they are "scientific"/rational while blacks are unscientific and irrational. Same nineteenth century racial essentialism being played out here.
Yes I agree the way in which the question was raised was inaccurate and quite stupid given the volumes of work done on the improper and misleading nature of the word "negro", but I think Keita knew exactly what the student was asking. In failing to clarify he did the guy a disservice.
And as far as pale-skin being native to Africa is concerned, what "evidence" do you think he was alluding to that somehow "shows" this. Are you saying he knows of such evidence and that's why it was necessary to be vague on this question? And who has called into question the historical support for extensive immigration?
I can guess who, but who are you referring here. And what evidence do they have that five non African (six if you argue that white Arabs also came in after founding of Islam) peoples invading didn't alter the "complexion" of the population that much?
quote:Correct Dark skinned is too ambiguous. Southern Europeans are *dark skinned* to Western Europeans. What is dark to whites is not dark to blacks(unless you are African American
Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:It doesn't necessarily have to be those two periods. I think there was a study by two guys named Berry decades back that found that there was some change in craniofacial morphology during the New Kingdom. This would coincide with increased contact between Egypt and SW Asia; maybe that had a genetic impact?
Are there any historical sources supporting massive immigrations during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods? I was recommended the book Egypt after the Pharaohs by Ausar. If anyone has info to share on that subject it would be appreciated.
BTW, I am actually a bit bothered by Keita's use of the word "dark-skinned". What precisely does he mean by that? Some people in his audience could consider "brown" populations such as Southwest Asians, Southeast Asians, Polynesians, or Native Americans "dark-skinned" even though most of us here would call them medium-toned instead of dark or black.
)quote:Not nearly as much as you pedro. Sorry.
Originally posted by MindlessgringoMatter718:
gaykoben are you retarded? Keita is who references Ehret to begin with.
quote:So what is the "racial" classifications for the Filipinos that you claim aren't black?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Who said I hated them or anyone??! Again, I'm not a robot but it's obvious that CPU you call your brain is malfunctioning as usual.
Minibrainer wrote:
Why do you HATE Keita and Kettles, robot?
Anyway, I agree that Keita is trying to be as scientific as possible by straying away from racial or ethnic labels. But using such labels may be necessary for clarification. He could just say plain and simple that by today's 'racial' standards YES the Egyptians were black and NO they were not an ethnically mixed group (as is the trend of belief among many liberals today) but rather as all my findings show them to be indigenous to the African continent and that there is no division between 'Sub-Sahara' and North Africa. Indigenous Africans whom we know as black range throughout the continent have vary in certain features and form and Egyptians are part of that continuity. There. Now isn't that simple? And didn't Keita himself point this out in so many other terms??
By the way, when he said lighter skin was indigenous to North Africa, the question is how light? Remember that lighter skin evolved in subtropical southern Africa as seen among Khoisan people, so similar complexions among subtropical Northern Africa? Did he really say the pale or 'white' skin exhibited by coastal Berbers like the Rif or Kabyle are indigenous??
quote:You're a member of a board in which Keita posts? Btw, how old are you....like 10?
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Not nearly as much as you pedro. Sorry.
Originally posted by MindlessgringoMatter718:
gaykoben are you retarded? Keita is who references Ehret to begin with.
quote:No, like you I read him online. And again, he doesnt rely on Ehret nearly as much as you Pedro. Unlike you, he actualy thinks others wrote on ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
You're a member of a board in which Keita posts?
quote:I agree that he could have done a better job clarifying his position on what he felt the general range of complexions was in Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Morpheus says:
''He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.''
Well then, in light of what you offered just now, what kind of response can come after this one from Doug M (below), and others here.
''There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.''
quote:
Do you think every white scholar is irrelevant to the study of Ancient Egypt?
quote:yep....or as jackass akoben would say -> "Oh Jesus"!
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ but you know assopen-- a pathetic white loser prentending to be a black Africanist-- all part of his cover in his crusade against 'those damn Jews'.
quote:But that would be a lie. All Black Africans don't look the same. It's about being technical.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Couldn't Mr. Keita have said ancient Egyptians looked nearly the same as himself,
quote:Like I said, I agree that he could have done a better job of explaining himself in a more straight forward manner. And it may frustrate some that he came off as too vague with his descriptions.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Morpheus says:
But what I am saying is that this has nothing to do with catering to Eurocentric attitudes about Ancient Egypt and everything to do with using the heavy scientific jargon of a modern anthropologist.'
Mr. Keita also was a layman at one time. With this reference why does it have to be heavy scientific jargon at the expense of clearly stating something to the layman, who, I might add, can be very intelligent themselves. Even scientists themselves while using that 'jargon' can appreciate a good ol' down home, straightforward assessment. This way it makes people pay more attention.
Couldn't Mr. Keita have said ancient Egyptians looked nearly the same as himself, even if some of them were a tad 'lighter' than himself. That to me would have been sufficient.
quote:Why are you referring to them as black Africans? I thought that such labelling were the preserve of a few "insatiable black militants" suffering from some sort of "political baggage". lol
Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:But that would be a lie. All Black Africans don't look the same. It's about being technical.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Couldn't Mr. Keita have said ancient Egyptians looked nearly the same as himself,
quote:I specifically highlighted the phrase "Black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) to make it clear that Keita is saying that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans.
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:And notice it says *pre-dynastic* Egyptians were Africans(Africans not necessarily meaning black to the Eurocentric nor the laymen by the way) and not Dynastic which is what everyone cares about.
Originally posted by Morpheus:
Keita's lecture is consistent with the writing in his articles. The way I see it NatGeo is taking advantage of the scientific jargon in Keita's speeches because laymen have trouble comprehending what he is saying. You have to understand that Keita is a Biological Anthropologist. He speaks in hard scientific terms and dismisses typological concepts because they are misleading. There is nothing Eurocentric about his comments and accusing him of being a shill is offensive.
Take a look at these quotes from one of his articles. You're calling this the writings of a Eurocentrist?
quote:Richard Poe consulted Keita for his insights on what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and summarized his research in more laymen friendly lingo:
...Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial construct and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of a hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "elongated African", and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic. In spite of this, even modern biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that all "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific characteristic, for instance notable prognathism.....
....This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies, demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occured, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers.
Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-tropical variants.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
quote:Now as far as pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians are concerned I'm still not clear on what Keita believes they looked like. He clearly implied in the video that he believes some light-skinned populations in North Africa evolved within North Africa. And I am aware that people from the Maghreb have East African derived Y-Chromosomes and Southern European mtDNA lineages but I'm not clear on when these Southern Euros arrived in North Africa and whether or not the light-skin of many North African populations is an exclusive trait of Eurasians.
Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Source: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? page. 471
I tried to email Keita about these questions but his address has been deactivated.
quote:Well, just saying all Africans don't look alike, is a bit too ambiguous to the laymen (as we can see from responses to Keita)
Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Why are you referring to them as black Africans?
Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:But that would be a lie. All Black Africans don't look the same. It's about being technical.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Couldn't Mr. Keita have said ancient Egyptians looked nearly the same as himself,
quote:Who cares about Egypt!!! The dude didn't even answer what the first humans out of Africa looked like. THATS WAY WORSE!!!
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:I agree that he could have done a better job clarifying his position on what he felt the general range of complexions was in Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Morpheus says:
''He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.''
Well then, in light of what you offered just now, what kind of response can come after this one from Doug M (below), and others here.
''There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.''
But what I am saying is that this has nothing to do with catering to Eurocentric attitudes about Ancient Egypt and everything to do with using the heavy scientific jargon of a modern anthropologist.
quote:Actually, Keita did say according to biologists, yes the first humans would've been darkskinned.
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Who cares about Egypt!!! The dude didn't even answer what the first humans out of Africa looked like. THATS WAY WORSE!!!
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:I agree that he could have done a better job clarifying his position on what he felt the general range of complexions was in Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Morpheus says:
''He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.''
Well then, in light of what you offered just now, what kind of response can come after this one from Doug M (below), and others here.
''There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.''
But what I am saying is that this has nothing to do with catering to Eurocentric attitudes about Ancient Egypt and everything to do with using the heavy scientific jargon of a modern anthropologist.
quote:Dark skin means nothing your spic azz is probably dark compared to Whites, but you are not Black.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Actually, Keita did say according to biologists, yes the first humans would've been darkskinned.
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Who cares about Egypt!!! The dude didn't even answer what the first humans out of Africa looked like. THATS WAY WORSE!!!
Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:I agree that he could have done a better job clarifying his position on what he felt the general range of complexions was in Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by Grumman:
Morpheus says:
''He does not depend on his lectures for income. He is a surgeon who works in Washington D.C. He has continually challenged the status quo when it comes to understanding the bio-history of Ancient Egypt. So he has the luxury of being able to speak freely on a subject that he is an authority on.''
Well then, in light of what you offered just now, what kind of response can come after this one from Doug M (below), and others here.
''There should be no reason why he cannot using any clear and concise language, address the actual biological trait of skin color as a objective scientific fact without resorting to weasel words and half truths.''
But what I am saying is that this has nothing to do with catering to Eurocentric attitudes about Ancient Egypt and everything to do with using the heavy scientific jargon of a modern anthropologist.
quote:I figured you weren't too bright and didn't understand all the articles you have been cutting and pasting since you got to this site 8 months or so ago. If you keep listening further you will see that he stated that their were no MODERN HUMANS IN EUROPE 60k years ago
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
fakeWolofi, when Keita put the slide explaining the skull found in Africa 60kya, which matched up closely to European upper paleolithic specimens, included in the graph was the closely related sub Saharan Africans which these UP specimens overlapped with. When Keita explained and asked
"since this African specimen from 60kya matches closely to European upper Paleolithic, does it mean humans came from Europe"
^^What do you think Keita was trying to clarify here??
That is the point he was making dufus lol. You are funny dude. quote:What is black? Everyone to you is dark, since you're transparent. I guess Obama and Ludacris aren't black. Obama having a white mother, Ludacris having two black African American parents, but Ludacris is lighter than Obama. Not much darker than your white aunt to to right, not to mention the man behind them...
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
Dark skin means nothing your spic azz is probably dark compared to Whites, but you are not Black. So the question is how DARK is DARK skin and what are the Dark skin gradients that equates being what we call BLACK.
quote:Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
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%).
quote:and you're a funny jackass, as I just explained that in the graph Keita projects, the skulls overlap with sub Saharan Africans, you're definitely illiterate to what's being discussed. This will tell you that both specimens are closest to modern SS Africans. But I forgot you're are the laymen we are talking about who doesn't understand in the first place.
quote:I figured you weren't too bright and didn't understand all the articles you have been cutting and pasting since you got to this site 8 months or so ago. If you keep listening further you will see that he stated that their were no MODERN HUMANS IN EUROPE 60k years ago
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[qb] fakeWolofi, when Keita put the slide explaining the skull found in Africa 60kya, which matched up closely to European upper paleolithic specimens, included in the graph was the closely related sub Saharan Africans which these UP specimens overlapped with. When Keita explained and asked
"since this African specimen from 60kya matches closely to European upper Paleolithic, does it mean humans came from Europe"
^^What do you think Keita was trying to clarify here??
quote:Who said Ludacris and Obama were black?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:What is black? Everyone to you is dark, since you're transparent. I guess Obama and Ludacris aren't black. Obama having a white mother, Ludacris having two black African American parents, but Ludacris is lighter than Obama. Not much darker than your white aunt to to right, not to mention the man behind them...
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
Dark skin means nothing your spic azz is probably dark compared to Whites, but you are not Black. So the question is how DARK is DARK skin and what are the Dark skin gradients that equates being what we call BLACK.
Island Melanesian and Sub-Saharan Africans carry the ancestral genes associated with **dark pigmentation** you dumb piece of sh*t. This is what we call black.
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and
East Asians
Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
quote:Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
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%).
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)
You're hopeless.
quote:If Obama and LUdacris grew up in Puerto Rico they would not be considered black and they would be oppressing blacks just like you are covertly doing on this site. I can read through you Afro Americans are just slow.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^^
quote:^^Lmao, I see you diverted to the only thing you know how to talk about which is the subjectivity in being black or white etc....
Originally posted by WhiteDevil_scared of Negro_fake_Wolofi:
........ heeeeeehaaaawwww
quote:The spic only wants to show spic looking Africans Doug please don't show any form of a black African on this board he will have a heart attack lol.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Speaking of Moroccan runners, I really liked this at the 2008 olympics:
Ethiopian, Moroccan, Kenyan:
quote:^ Everyone sees your predicament Gringo! You don't understand Bowcock, Sforza, Keita...maybe you want AE to look like Ehret too eh? lol
Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
I figured you weren't too bright and didn't understand all the articles you have been cutting and pasting since you got to this site 8 months or so ago.
quote:Oh don't be too hard on the poor little rich kid Grumman. He's just a little upset at his icon's presentation at Cambridge so he takes it out on others. Give him some time he'll get over it.
Originally posted by Grumman:
I said this initially:
Couldn't Mr. Keita have said ancient Egyptians looked nearly the same as himself, even if some of them were a tad 'lighter' than himself. That to me would have been sufficient.''
Sundjata responded by deleting the bolded portion of text which can't be separated from from context. Then he goes on to say ''All Black Africans don't look the same'' which had nothing to do with what I said. The subject was ancient Egyptians, not 'all Black Africans'.
quote:One thing that never changes about Egyptsearch is its consistent infestation of trolls.
Originally posted by argyle104:
------------------------------------
I mean come on Sundjata the clown said that he has two white great grandfathers and as soon as he said that I turned off the tape. So now all a white dude has to do is look at his reddish brown skin color and say well Egyptians could have been mixed because look at Keita smh.
------------------------------------
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
How can a man who tells old wives tales be trusted?
rasol? Ohhhh raaaasooooooooooool? : )
Hmmm, Keita seems to share the same mentality as the white racilists. I.E whites are the ones who fathered Africans and created their diversity.
Do you agree with Keita, rasol?
, this is the first time I'm hearing that one!
quote:http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita6.pdf
It is possible that the current VII and VIII
frequencies reflect, in the main, movements
during the Islamic period (vs. the Neolithic)
and the effects of polygamy (Salem et al.,
1996; Nebel et al., 2002), as well as some of
the impact of Near Easterners who settled in
the delta at various times in ancient Egypt
(Gardiner, 1961), and even more recently in
the colonial era due to political events.
Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely
to have a population representative of the
core indigenous population of the most
ancient times.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006329;p=1#000000
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).