...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa George BJ Busby 2016
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] So what about the Africans before 4,000 years ago? Surely he isn't suggesting that those populations that we know were all over Africa just disappeared? This is a stupid paper. Africans have been around longer than any 4000 years and surely those people from prior to that didn't up and disappear. Basically it is sounding like they are claiming those "other" older African groups disappeared and were replaced by Bantus and Eurasians, which is ridiculously stupid. Africans have been moving around in Africa for years and certainly those lineages still exist in some form. [/qb][/QUOTE]Its not necessarily stupid. They are not saying there were no Africans around until 4000 years ago. Where do you see that? Their findings indicate that some gene flow from areas outside Africa has occurred in sub-Saharan populations over time. Nothing surprising there- given environmental fluctuations of the region over millennia that could spark movement of nomads, etc. None of that supports any mass movement of "incoming" or "wandering Causacoids" into Africa to civilize the natives. In any event the "incoming Eurasians" in many cases would already look like some of today's sub-Saharan Africans. This defeats attempts to use genetic data to recycle "Hamiticism," for the "Hamites" in question would look like some of the much maligned "negro types." [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T6tMRC_K1aM/U8XDhfPy59I/AAAAAAAABB8/LRMPjl0yXjk/s1600/backflowblues.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Lw93qeV08sg/VfDuYVzKVQI/AAAAAAAAB0o/KDeL_4a_XBU/s1600/basal_eurasian_muhlhausen_brace_samesample.jpg[/IMG] The real problem is how some in the academy throw around the label "Eurasian"- giving it all these broad interpretations but draw the category "sub-Saharan African" as narrowly as possible, as in the classic "true negro" dodge. There is a clear problem with hypocrisy and double standards in the field, as even Keita himself notes. It is not just random commenters or bloggers off the web saying this. [IMG]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1lSQwgCqlwM/Vp0hwxdKFbI/AAAAAAAACG8/hWFlBQZe8io/s1600/hypocrisy_frigi_keita_berbers.jpg[/IMG] Remember the term "basal Eurasian" and so on- again, using a wider expansive format. Why couldn't they just as well use the term "Afro-Asian transitional" or similar, given various phenotype resemblances to today's "black Africans?" ANd many who talk up "EUrasian influences" in Africa, are reluctant to apply the format to talk about African influences in Europe. If the same "true negro" model applies to Africa, why don't they apply a "true white" model likewise in Europe and call various like Southern Europeans "Mixed race"? But they seldom apply their own race models the other way- the classic hypocritical, double standard, that Diop so well pointed out years ago. [IMG]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7VqPERQXyxw/Vvx9FmCxg-I/AAAAAAAACN4/hKBvXUVBDaofathsXWkHQSdIw0o2J5Dqg/s1600/diop2_phenotypeprimacy_diversity2_mofya.jpg[/IMG] Thankfully some recent scholars have begun to honestly talk about the African influences in Europe. Busby seems more careful than others we have seen here in the past. [/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