...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: To Study Islamic History...is to Study Black History
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo: [qb]You're a dumbazz, you fvcking idiot. I have not contradicted myself; I am not talking in circles; What I said stand! Arabs are Asians period! They are not Africans. Don't try to twist this to a "what constitute being an African and being an Asian". Arabs always been in Asia and they are not Africans. The land of Arabia is ASIAN period! The indigenous people are Asian or Asiatic. Asiatic does not stand for those who only come from central Asia even though they are Asiatic too. But so are the original, indigenous Arabs. Next thing you are going to say is the indigenous, original phillipians are not Asian because Asian refer to the 'Mongol' type. Fvck off with this irrational bullshyt. The first Arabians were Asiatic because they DID come from Asia. Your azz is not making any sense and you are beginning to put your foot in your mouth. Your stupid example of what makes one Asiatic and what makes one African is the same damn example I gave you to explain why the indigenous, original Arabs are Asiatic. You just added fvcking hopes, dreams, and wishful thinking to explain your example. My was pure and truth, not opinion. You're a fvcking idiot. You can't dispute what I said and it is FACT that the original, indigenous Arabs are indeed Asian/Asiatic and not African! [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually all your sputtering and curses won't change the fact that you are contradicting yourself and not making any sense. Arabia is physically connected to Africa and right next to it. Arabia is not in Asia in any sense of the word. What it sounds like is you absolutely HATE the idea that the first Arabians came from Africa, which is the basis of all of this hate. But don't bring that nonsense to me because YOU have problems with it. Modern Arabians are diverse and nobody is trying to deny this. We are talking about the FIRST Arabians and there is NO DOUBT that these people came from Africa. So all your pissing and moaning only belies a hatred of Africa as opposed to any serious rebuttal of the facts. You still in insist that the first people of Arabia were Asiatics. But it means nothing, because nobody uses the term in a modern context. It has no anthropological meaning in any modern context. The FIRST people of Arabia were Africans and this is demonstrated by archaeology, anthropology and genetics. NONE of the first Arabians came from Asia, because there were no Asians in existence when African people first migrated out of Africa and settled Arabia. And not only that, but your nonsense contradicts almost ALL models of human dispersal from Africa. Not unless you believe that humans did not originate in Africa and therefore developed in separate places independently, which has been proven false by modern genetic research. Almost all current models of human migrations start with Africa with Arabia as an early exit point for modern humans. [QUOTE] Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East. Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world[15]. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 in Africa, only a small group of possibly 150 people crossed the Red Sea. This is because, of all the lineages present in Africa, only the daughters of one lineage, L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect more than one African lineage outside Africa. L3's daughters, the M and N lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa and appear to be recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and by the founder effect became the dominant haplogroups after the exodus from Africa. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly after the exodus from Africa. Other scientists have proposed a Multiple Dispersal Model, in which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea travelling along the coastal regions to India (the Coastal Route), which would be represented by Haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with Haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis attempts to explain why Haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why Haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[16][17] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both Haplogroup M and N could have lost Haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect). Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits the Red Sea is about 12 miles (20 kilometres) wide, but 50,000 years ago it was much narrower and sea levels were 70 meters lower. Though the straits were never completely closed, there may have been islands in between which could be reached using simple rafts. Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing. [/QUOTE]From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Red_Sea2.png[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE]I have not contradicted myself and you know that! Consistently stating "I contradicted myself will not make it true". You're a fvcking idiot. I know what fvcking Arabs we are discussing. How many time do I have to say the ORIGINAL, INDIGENOUS ARABS. Don't try to fvcking twist this you fvking idiot. The original, indigenous Arabs don't come from Africa, they come from Asia. They always been there! You are so fvcking STUPID! The word 'Asiatic' is an adjective; the word 'Asian' is a noun. The word Asiatic is indeed use in "modern" term. It is fvcking "modern" English. You are so fvcking stupid. Arabs ALWAYS been in Arabia and they did not migrate from no fvcking "Africa". Their original stocks is owe and belongs to Asiatic people. If one does not agree with you fvcking fanatics and your "Out of Africa" folklore doesn't mean that person is anti-African. Arabian stocks (Indigeous, Origianl) is strictly Asiatic and nothing else! You know in got damn well that I'm not speaking nonsense. You giving it your all to disapprove of what I said and I'm loving it! This shyt will not end until I have the last word. Take your fvcking science, hopes, dreams, wants, desires, yearnings, feelings, wishful thinking, fantasies, wonders, imaginations, mirages, hallucinations, delusions, illusions, perceptions, and pychopathological emotions and shove it! What I said Stands, and it will stay that way forever more. [/qb][/QUOTE]What is this a contest to see how many times you can say fVck? Why don't you simply address the issue, which is if AFRICANS were the first to settle Arabia then how were they Asiatics or Asians? I don't see much coming from you in terms of FACTS or EVIDENCE concerning the FIRST people of Arabia being anything OTHER than Africans. [/qb][/QUOTE]NO, this is a contest to prove that your "Out of Africa" folklore is wrong. I don't see anything from you or the article you posted that negate or debunk anything I said. The Original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian and they always been there. They owe their stock to Asiatic groups. Suppose I consider the stupid article you post to be true, it is just the same ole' same ole' that Humans came from Africa so we are all "African". Your belief about the Indigenous Arabs as African is no differently than Europeans as Africans, after all they did come from "Africa". I'm not debating that everyone in some point in time came from 'black' people. The confusion lies between the belief of an African and the belief that black people equates being an "African". I disagree. Not only is it irrational but believers like yourself put your foot in your mouth when you post articles implying "We are all Africans, thus we are all Black". Uh-huh, I say not! I can use the article you posted agaisnt you, but I am being very lenient with you because I know you don't understand anything if it don't refer to your beloved "African" and their "Journey out of Africa". Like I said, the original, Indigenous Arabs are Asiatic or Asian in origin. They always been there and they owe their stock to Asiatic groups. There was never an migration of Africans populating Asia. I already address the issue in my first response to you, you dumb fvck. You need to read the article you posted again and this time take your time. Your article can't even make up its mind. The people who wrote it is just as confused as you. [/qb][/QUOTE]Like I said, nothing from you but rhetoric and more misspelling of a curse word. I asked you to provide any sort of evidence for a separate migration of people to Arabia OTHER THAN the migrations of Africans into Arabia and you provide NONE. Arabia is next to Africa and one of the EARLIEST places settled by migrations out of Africa. Therefore, these first Arabians were NOT Asians. So, I simply wait for you to explain HOW the first people of Arabia were ASIANS when no Asians EXISTED when the first modern humans left Africa and settled Arabia. Again, I am waiting for you to provide citations and sources for your claims, but I am not holding my breath. Of course maybe by misspelling curse words again you will think you are proving something: [QUOTE] The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey. The earliest human populations to move out of Africa to colonise Europe and Asia did so at about 1.8 million years ago. A later wave of dispersal associated with anatomically modern humans is believed to have taken place about 130,000 years ago. The Red Sea region and the Arabian Peninsula provide a key stepping-stone between Africa and the rest of the world, and a variety of archaeological, fossil and DNA indicators increasingly point to the southern dispersal route across the Bab el Mandeb and the southern Arabian Peninsula as a favoured pathway. Oceanographic and climatological data show that throughout most of the period in question, sea level was 50 to 150m lower than the present. Extensive areas of the now-submerged continental shelf were available for human occupation, most probably with freshwater lakes and springs and more attractive conditions for human settlement than the more arid hinterland, especially at the southern end of the Red Sea in areas such as the Farasan Islands. The drop in sea level would also have created a sea channel between the African and Arabian coastlines much narrower than the present and no more difficult to cross than a large river. Here we report on a new collaborative Saudi-UK initiative with an international team of specialists to conduct more detailed survey of the archaeology and geology of the Red Sea coastline of Saudi Arabia, and to undertake a combined land and underwater survey of the Farasan Islands. The underwater component of the survey will be looking for traces of the submerged landscape and associated archaeology at all depths on the continental shelf using a variety of techniques including coring, remote sensing, deep diving and photographic survey. [/QUOTE]From: http://www.arabianseminar.org.uk/abstracts2006.html [QUOTE] "Based on the mutations, we estimated that they must have migrated about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, taking the southern sea route," he said. Vincent Macaulay, a genetic statistician at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, led a separate genetic study. The results, which were also based on ecological and archaeological evidence, led Macaulay and his colleagues to conclude that modern humans left Africa via a southern migration route. The researchers say evidence suggests modern humans could not have taken a northern route prior to 50,000 years ago, as one competing theory suggests. That's because the whole of North Africa, Arabia, and the Middle East into Central Asia was desert up until that time. The scientists also cite evidence of human settlement in Australia dating back to 63,000 years ago. For modern humans to leave Africa via a southern route, as Macaulay and his colleagues argue, modern humans would have had to master ocean travel. Macaulay said that crossing the Red Sea, which separates North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula, would not have been impossible. It was only a few kilometers across and modern humans "would have been able to see across to the other side. So [it was] perhaps not quite swimmable, but certainly floatable on a raft. [/QUOTE]From: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0513_050513_modernhuman_2.html So I guess all these people above are Afrocentrists for saying that the first humans in Arabia came from Africa. LOL! So I guess all these scientists and geneticists who say Africans first settled the ENTIRE planet are spreading folklore now huh? And I guess Asians have just always been in Asia before humans even left Africa and that they just were ALWAYS in Arabia, just grew up there naturally without any migrations of the FIRST humans from Africa, like sprouts of cabbage out of a cabbage patch. Yep, the only one spreading folklore my friend seems to be YOU. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3