|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 1, 2014 9:43:13 GMT -5
lol.. indeed. It is sad that this nonsense is being claimed as valid African history. I've never been an advocate of feel good wishstory history. The problem with such nonsense is that it distracts from our real history which is so rich and facinating. For example, the music clips I shared. The music itself is spectacular and so dynamic. When you consider that these are the roots of what would go on to become Jazz, Blues, Rythm and Blues, Rock and Roll. When you consider that it's the roots of what we consider "white music", Country and Western, Heavey Metal. Tha is amazing. The cusines we created. The languages we created, our spiritual traditions. The fact that our ancestors had the strength in the face of incredible adversity to hold on to so much, create so much, contribute so much. The world as we know it today would look the same, sound the same or taste the same without us. What need is there to create fake history? I would urge those reading this thread to not be afraid to educate yourselves. There is no such thing as black knowledge and white knowledge, there is just knowledge. Consider the fact that our ancestors created civilizations in Mali and Songhai that were based on knowledge. They read and wrote Arabic and were connected to the larger world studying mathematic, geometry, medicine. Their universities produced scholars who were renounded throughout the world. So much so that when the Kingdom of Morocco conquered Timbuktu, they took the best and brightest scholars back to Morocco with them. These men did not achieve the knowledge and international respect by holding to stupid notions of black knowledge versus white knowledge. Do not be afraid to aquire knowledge, study, learn. Don't be afraid of using academic sources. Those sources which some disregard as "white scholarship" are the very sources that we have used not only to reclaim our history, but to prove that Egypt itself was an African civilization populated by native Africans. Yes, there are the nay sayers who still hold on to old notions of racial superiority and try to advance their theories through a veil of academic science and scholarship, but they are always debunked. That is what you can do when you embrace true knowledge. We have the ability to go to real universities and get real degrees. We don't have to get our degrees from MSU, (make shit up)!
|
|
|
Post by asante on May 1, 2014 10:00:59 GMT -5
Zaharan you still ain't talking about nothing (the other silly person talking has been cut off two threads ago). You're just filling your post up with the most irrelevant quotes and graphics (really just " post fillers" to hide your lack of original thinking) to make it appear as though it has substance when it doesn't (Beyoku has been grilling you on this for years now). To me it's funny how both of these individuals are still apparently really hurt by the intellectual thrashing given to them in this thread ( that's what happens to people who can't think). They feel some type of way....so any chance that they feel that they can make a lengthy (relevance doesn't matter) post in response against anything I think of they will take it. Understand they are trying to make this a battle ego (Mr. Database) rather than the spreading of new information or new thoughts among our own. Zaharan your way of thinking is TOXIC to original thought on this information board...That being said does anybody else have a take on this subject? Notice how both maps of lactose intolerance correlates (there is no conflict below from these two different sources): Consistently we see that African Americans (the focus of this thread) are lactose intolerant and that West African populations have a high tolerance (but low consumption) of lactate. We also see that Bantu speaking populations in Central and Southern Africa are highly lactose intolerant just like African Americans. According to this data it is therefore impossible for West Africans to be the primary population source of African American..it's impossible. The only other explanation is that Southern and Central Africa were the main population sources of African Americans. This is not something that should just be overlooked (though it has been obviously).
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on May 2, 2014 22:28:02 GMT -5
Asante you are fooling no one. Your notion is bogus, and you still have put little on the table demonstrating otherwise. Talking about "toxic" "Beyoku" and "ego" and other irrelevant red herrings cannot divert attention away from your failure. You have been debunked on several points and rather than take substantive steps to correct the weaknesses in your claim, you ramble on about things that have little do do with the matter at hand. Rather than adjust, refine and learn you continue to fall into the same errors. Let's recap for new arrivals: Your claim is dubious for two central reasons: Lactose intolerance comparison origin of slaves into North America (1) Given that AAs primarily come from West Africa as documented by numerous credible historians (yes including black ones), and (2) given that lactose intolerance is relatively high in said West African populations (as several credible scientists show),
on what credible grounds do you continue to assert that African Americans (who are lactose intolerant a high levels) do not come from West Africa, but are the product of some kind of mysterious "Bantu" migration from the Nile Valley?
Simply repeating your claims is not enough. What credible scholarly sources so you put on the table?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say here now on page 2: Consistently we see that African Americans (the focus of this thread) are lactose intolerant and that West African populations have a high tolerance (but low consumption) of lactate. We also see that Bantu speaking populations in Central and Southern Africa are highly lactose intolerant just like African Americans. According to this data it is therefore impossible for West Africans to be the primary population source of African American..it's impossible. The only other explanation is that Southern and Central Africa were the main population sources of African Americans. This is not something that should just be overlooked (though it has been obviously). As noted above, this is nonsense, because: STRIKE 1-- West African populations in the main do NOT have a high tolerance. Your entire argument collapses at Strike 1, but other following strikes only make the outcome more painfully clear. ^^Under Asante's dubious WAHOT formula (West Africa Hotbed of Tolerance) theory, the Nigerians above should not exist.. [/b] STRIKE 2--Many "Bantu" speaking populations have a high lactose intolerance, but it does not at all follow that they are somehow heavily ancestors of African Americans based on this lactose factor. STRIKE 3-- Most African Americans do NOT derive from southern African populations to any significant extent, and any tie-in with West Central Africans has little to do with with any alleged "lactose link"... STRIKE 4- Your leap from your dubious lactose tolerance claim to cobble together some sort of "NBA" (Nile Bantu American) link also fails, because the initial propositions on which your "NBA" format rests are dubious or weak. STRIKE 5-- the "data" on which you hang your rickety claim is a map of unknown credibility and provenance. Once again, what credible scientists show that West African populations are primarily lactose tolerant? You could have created the "map" yourself- manufacturing bogus "evidence" in "support" of your own dubious claim. Sorry. You will get no free passes here from minimal standards of evidence or competence just cuz you black. You have to put reliable data on the table. What's taking you so long in presenting credible scholar sources in support of your claim? STRIKE 6-- Your claim of some sort of "original" thinking also falls flat, because you have not even begun to credibly address the gaping holes in the alleged "original" notion. About all you are doing is recycling the old "fleeing Nile Valley negroes" diffusion meme from the 1970s by trying to use "lactose tolerance" as a rickety prop. It fails. You did not think through your dubious claim, ignored the clues we gave you as to how to cover weaknesses and make things more defensible, and now it is exposed thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 3, 2014 8:33:39 GMT -5
Asante you are fooling no one. Your notion is bogus, and you still have put little on the table demonstrating otherwise. Talking about "toxic" "Beyoku" and "ego" and other irrelevant red herrings cannot divert attention away from your failure. You have been debunked on several points and rather than take substantive steps to correct the weaknesses in your claim, you ramble on about things that have little do do with the matter at hand. Rather than adjust, refine and learn you continue to fall into the same errors. Let's recap for new arrivals: Your claim is dubious for two central reasons: Lactose intolerance comparison origin of slaves into North America (1) Given that AAs primarily come from West Africa as documented by numerous credible historians (yes including black ones), and (2) given that lactose intolerance is relatively high in said West African populations (as several credible scientists show),
on what credible grounds do you continue to assert that African Americans (who are lactose intolerant a high levels) do not come from West Africa, but are the product of some kind of mysterious "Bantu" migration from the Nile Valley?
Simply repeating your claims is not enough. What credible scholarly sources so you put on the table?----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say here now on page 2: Consistently we see that African Americans (the focus of this thread) are lactose intolerant and that West African populations have a high tolerance (but low consumption) of lactate. We also see that Bantu speaking populations in Central and Southern Africa are highly lactose intolerant just like African Americans. According to this data it is therefore impossible for West Africans to be the primary population source of African American..it's impossible. The only other explanation is that Southern and Central Africa were the main population sources of African Americans. This is not something that should just be overlooked (though it has been obviously). As noted above, this is nonsense, because: STRIKE 1-- West African populations in the main do NOT have a high tolerance. Your entire argument collapses at Strike 1, but other following strikes only make the outcome more painfully clear. ^^Under Asante's dubious WAHOT formula (West Africa Hotbed of Tolerance) theory, the Nigerians above should not exist.. [/b] STRIKE 2--Many "Bantu" speaking populations have a high lactose intolerance, but it does not at all follow that they are somehow heavily ancestors of African Americans based on this lactose factor. STRIKE 3-- Most African Americans do NOT derive from southern African populations to any significant extent, and any tie-in with West Central Africans has little to do with with any alleged "lactose link"... STRIKE 4- Your leap from your dubious lactose tolerance claim to cobble together some sort of "NBA" (Nile Bantu American) link also fails, because the initial propositions on which your "NBA" format rests are dubious or weak. STRIKE 5-- the "data" on which you hang your rickety claim is a map of unknown credibility and provenance. Once again, what credible scientists show that West African populations are primarily lactose tolerant? You could have created the "map" yourself- manufacturing bogus "evidence" in "support" of your own dubious claim. Sorry. You will get no free passes here from minimal standards of evidence or competence just cuz you black. You have to put reliable data on the table. What's taking you so long in presenting credible scholar sources in support of your claim? STRIKE 6-- Your claim of some sort of "original" thinking also falls flat, because you have not even begun to credibly address the gaping holes in the alleged "original" notion. About all you are doing is recycling the old "fleeing Nile Valley negroes" diffusion meme from the 1970s by trying to use "lactose tolerance" as a rickety prop. It fails. You did not think through your dubious claim, ignored the clues we gave you as to how to cover weaknesses and make things more defensible, and now it is exposed thoroughly. [/quote] Well said! This type of mentality and lack of scholarship is exactly the thing that as given Afrocentricity the bad image of irrational, poorly educated, bigots that many people have. It plays right into the hands of those who are against people of color. As soon as it is known that we are people of Afro descent, we are automatically written off as Afrocentric nut jobs. This why we have to be not as good as, but better than those who are constantly seeking to belittle us. You can't just say shit and then get mad because people don't bow down and agree with you. You have to be able to back your position up and defend it with credible evidence. This is what all scholars, no matter what their color have to do. That's why there is such a thing as peer review. The person you are talking to is someone who is suffering for some sort of emotional deficit, otherwise they would take the good advise that you and others have given them. Anyone who has had at least a descent high school education knows that whenever you present an argument, you have to first pick it apart and look at the different ways your opponents will try to discredit your position. Looking at your argument objectively allows you to see the weaknesses in your argument and either revise certain points or find ways to make it stronger. The notion that a person can't or shouldn't do this because that is "white" logic is the height of stupidity. People like this never cease in presenting outdated material, totally ignoring the fact that they were created by so called "white" scholars who either wroted before more relavent information was available, or who were working based on scewed assumptions that have since been prooven to be innacurate. When you present them with evidence debunking their argument, they dismiss it as "Eurocentric" scholarship, but when it suits their agenda, they'll quote any "white" source and ignore the color. Such a mind belongs either to a child, an emotional disturbed person or both. It's a perfect example though of what NOT TO DO if one wants to be taken seriously and respected.
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on May 3, 2014 23:25:59 GMT -5
"STRIKE 4- Your leap from your dubious lactose tolerance claim to cobble together some sort of "NBA" (Nile Bantu American) link also fails, because the initial propositions on which your "NBA" format rests are dubious or weak. "
The claim that they spread southwards from the Nile Valley (or the so-called "middle east" rather) isn't that far fetched. "Bantu" just means "people" in several different languages within that "language family". Honestly I dislike the name itself, because it was just applied by a German, it's not really a word we define ourselves by. It's kinda like calling germanic whites "volk(s)/folk - people" because those words mean "people" in at least 6 germanic langauges (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German, Dutch, Icelandic), so the term "bantu people" sounds like european pseudoscience to me.
Regarding the aforementioned theory, it is interesting to know that other languages (arabic & hebrew) have linguistic similarities, such as the word "ben" (Hebrew), which means "son" and in several "bantu languages" it's "bena/bana". In Arabic, for an example, a lot of tribes are named bani/banu -"something" . An example: "Banu Hashim" (The Hashim people/The people of Hashim) , "Bani Hamida" (The Hamida People/The People of Hamida) , "Beni Sakhr" (The Sakhr People/The People of Sakhr) & "Banu Umayya" (The Umayya people/The People of Umayya ... This tribe is the originator of the Umayyad Caliphate iirc)
Another example 'water' : Hebrew -> "Mayim" (pronounced "my") Lingala -> "Mayi" , Oshikwanyama "Omeya" (the O is basically silent) , Arabic --> "Ma" , Egyptian Arabic --> "maya" . I'm not sure about how it's pronounced in Arabic, but in the other languages, it's basically pronounced as the pronoun "my". (There are heaps of other similar word, but I can't be arsed to list them all.)
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on May 4, 2014 21:46:55 GMT -5
I have no problem with the theory that they spread southward from the Nile Valley. I would be the first guy broadcasting clear findings to that end. Just would like to see more credible evidence put on the table and a stronger chain of logic. There are a couple of ways it can be done but that legwork is up to those making the initial claim. We left behind several possible angles of attack in this and previous threads that gave stronger, more defensible avenues, but they were dismissed or ignored. Hence we have the same easily debunked errors and weaknesses, that were avoidable with proper legwork or adjustments. On the linguistic similarities you mention, where many different peoples may have words that sound the same, and with roughly the same meaning, such can lead to misleading claims unless care is taken above and beyond the superficial word match. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 5, 2014 10:15:00 GMT -5
"STRIKE 4- Your leap from your dubious lactose tolerance claim to cobble together some sort of "NBA" (Nile Bantu American) link also fails, because the initial propositions on which your "NBA" format rests are dubious or weak. " The claim that they spread southwards from the Nile Valley (or the so-called "middle east" rather) isn't that far fetched. "Bantu" just means "people" in several different languages within that "language family". Honestly I dislike the name itself, because it was just applied by a German, it's not really a word we define ourselves by. It's kinda like calling germanic whites "volk(s)/folk - people" because those words mean "people" in at least 6 germanic langauges (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German, Dutch, Icelandic), so the term "bantu people" sounds like european pseudoscience to me. Regarding the aforementioned theory, it is interesting to know that other languages (arabic & hebrew) have linguistic similarities, such as the word "ben" (Hebrew), which means "son" and in several "bantu languages" it's "bena/bana". In Arabic, for an example, a lot of tribes are named bani/banu -"something" . An example: "Banu Hashim" (The Hashim people/The people of Hashim) , "Bani Hamida" (The Hamida People/The People of Hamida) , "Beni Sakhr" (The Sakhr People/The People of Sakhr) & "Banu Umayya" (The Umayya people/The People of Umayya ... This tribe is the originator of the Umayyad Caliphate iirc) Another example 'water' : Hebrew -> "Mayim" (pronounced "my") Lingala -> "Mayi" , Oshikwanyama "Omeya" (the O is basically silent) , Arabic --> "Ma" , Egyptian Arabic --> "maya" . I'm not sure about how it's pronounced in Arabic, but in the other languages, it's basically pronounced as the pronoun "my". (There are heaps of other similar word, but I can't be arsed to list them all.) You raise a good point about the linguistic similarities. But I would point out that Hebrew and Arabic belong to the Semetic language group and Semetic has its origins in an African language family. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that they shae commonalities with various African languages. I think far too often we are prone to give Arabs/Middles Easterners credit for introducing things to Africa when in fact its the other way around. Just looking at the shere size of the African continent compared with all of the Middle East should say something. Looking at certain cultural practices says another. Circumcision: Is practiced from East Africa. It's done in Egypt in the north, (pre Islamic) to Kenya in the south and all the way across to the Atlantic Ocean in West Africa, so where did Arabs/muslims/Jews get the practice from? Zaghruda: Called cries of ululation in English. Its done in all of the Arabic speaking countries, so people assume it's an Arabic thing. However, when you look at Africa you will see that it is done all over the continent from East to west to north and south and everything inbetween, so who did the Arabs get it from? Dance: Known in the West as Belly Dance, it's a form of dance that unlike most styles in the world, focuses not on the legs and feet, but articulating the hips and torso. People call it Arabic dance. However, when you look at all of the Arabic speaking countries, you notice this tyle of movement being dominant in the Arabic speaking countries of Africa. As you move into the Mediterranian the frequency diminshes. Their predominant form of dance is a line dance that consists of repeated combinations of steps, , where as Belly Dance, or Raks Baladi is improvisational and a form of individual expression. When you look at the larger African continent you see this style of dance movement recurring with great frequency. , So Did Arabs bring it to North Africa, or has it always been there and remained after the Arabs invaded and imposed their language. Is it more likely that it spread via Egyptians to the Levant due to thousands of years of Egyptian influence in that region? Music: While the classical Arabic music doesn't place a heavy emphasis on rythm, the folk and popular music does. The music tends to be polyrythmic, and have call and response. In the Arabian penninsula it is often flavored with polyrythmic clappig. Polyrythms are a central component of African music styles. So when all is said and done, who has had the greater influence on whom?
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on May 5, 2014 12:50:38 GMT -5
"STRIKE 4- Your leap from your dubious lactose tolerance claim to cobble together some sort of "NBA" (Nile Bantu American) link also fails, because the initial propositions on which your "NBA" format rests are dubious or weak. " The claim that they spread southwards from the Nile Valley (or the so-called "middle east" rather) isn't that far fetched. "Bantu" just means "people" in several different languages within that "language family". Honestly I dislike the name itself, because it was just applied by a German, it's not really a word we define ourselves by. It's kinda like calling germanic whites "volk(s)/folk - people" because those words mean "people" in at least 6 germanic langauges (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, German, Dutch, Icelandic), so the term "bantu people" sounds like european pseudoscience to me. Regarding the aforementioned theory, it is interesting to know that other languages (arabic & hebrew) have linguistic similarities, such as the word "ben" (Hebrew), which means "son" and in several "bantu languages" it's "bena/bana". In Arabic, for an example, a lot of tribes are named bani/banu -"something" . An example: "Banu Hashim" (The Hashim people/The people of Hashim) , "Bani Hamida" (The Hamida People/The People of Hamida) , "Beni Sakhr" (The Sakhr People/The People of Sakhr) & "Banu Umayya" (The Umayya people/The People of Umayya ... This tribe is the originator of the Umayyad Caliphate iirc) Another example 'water' : Hebrew -> "Mayim" (pronounced "my") Lingala -> "Mayi" , Oshikwanyama "Omeya" (the O is basically silent) , Arabic --> "Ma" , Egyptian Arabic --> "maya" . I'm not sure about how it's pronounced in Arabic, but in the other languages, it's basically pronounced as the pronoun "my". (There are heaps of other similar word, but I can't be arsed to list them all.) You raise a good point about the linguistic similarities. But I would point out that Hebrew and Arabic belong to the Semetic language group and Semetic has its origins in an African language family. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that they shae commonalities with various African languages. I think far too often we are prone to give Arabs/Middles Easterners credit for introducing things to Africa when in fact its the other way around. Just looking at the shere size of the African continent compared with all of the Middle East should say something. Looking at certain cultural practices says another. Circumcision: Is practiced from East Africa. It's done in Egypt in the north, (pre Islamic) to Kenya in the south and all the way across to the Atlantic Ocean in West Africa, so where did Arabs/muslims/Jews get the practice from? Zaghruda: Called cries of ululation in English. Its done in all of the Arabic speaking countries, so people assume it's an Arabic thing. However, when you look at Africa you will see that it is done all over the continent from East to west to north and south and everything inbetween, so who did the Arabs get it from? Dance: Known in the West as Belly Dance, it's a form of dance that unlike most styles in the world, focuses not on the legs and feet, but articulating the hips and torso. People call it Arabic dance. However, when you look at all of the Arabic speaking countries, you notice this tyle of movement being dominant in the Arabic speaking countries of Africa. As you move into the Mediterranian the frequency diminshes. Their predominant form of dance is a line dance that consists of repeated combinations of steps, , where as Belly Dance, or Raks Baladi is improvisational and a form of individual expression. When you look at the larger African continent you see this style of dance movement recurring with great frequency. , So Did Arabs bring it to North Africa, or has it always been there and remained after the Arabs invaded and imposed their language. Is it more likely that it spread via Egyptians to the Levant due to thousands of years of Egyptian influence in that region? Music: While the classical Arabic music doesn't place a heavy emphasis on rythm, the folk and popular music does. The music tends to be polyrythmic, and have call and response. In the Arabian penninsula it is often flavored with polyrythmic clappig. Polyrythms are a central component of African music styles. So when all is said and done, who has had the greater influence on whom? The real Arabs looked just like any African today, though there were probably some differences since both "Kushitic" type peoples and "Negroid" (I really hate that term, but I don't know how else I should describe a certain set of phenotypical traits) settled the Arabian peninsula/Levant/Canaan/Mesopotamia/Anatolia ages ago. Here's some pictures that you've probably seen before: Two "kinky haired" Israelites clearly possessing "stereotypical" African traits such as almond shaped eyes, flared nostrils, high cheekbones, "kinky/coarse" hair texture & full lips Same thing with these two Israelites (although their hairstyle is a bit different) Israelites with what seems to be dreadlocks or some kind of braided hairstyle. (This is from the babylonian exile) Here's the full version of the picture above (notice the tassels/fringes on the bottom of their garments) And last, an Arab with "loc's" I believe that these so called "bantus" are just the descendants of Israelites living in North-East Africa (I consider the "middle-east" to be a part of North Africa, or North-East Africa, rather.) that migrated (gradually) back into Africa when they became persecuted by Greeks and Romans later on, this makes sense to me, as we know that figures such as Abraham & Jacob returned to Egypt in dire times, so Africa would really be the only continent that they had any significant amount of knowledge of. What I also find interesting is that fringes (as in accordance to mosaic law) features so prominently in our culture(s) (continued in the following post)
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on May 5, 2014 19:38:52 GMT -5
Kavango people with fringed garments: An Ovahimba Queen N'Zinga with fringes on the bottom of her dress Kongo people Batswana The fringes/tassels are called Tsiytsi (Tzitzit in current day Hebrew) . Fringes looks like vegetation (grass) around a compound, which is probably why the TseTse-fly is named the same as fringes on clothes, due to them living in the fringe around "homesteads" etc. In this picture, you can see a Congo priest (or Cohen rather) wearing something that looks like an ephod, and also, the guy under the green arrow also wears a cap that resembles a yarmulke/kippah (notice how they are praying) Here's an excerpt from a book called "The Strange Adventures Of Andrew Battell Of Leigh. In Angola And Other Adjoining Regions" "This country is very rich. The King had great store of gold sent him from this place: the time that I was there, the King of Angika had a great city at Massangana; wich city Paulo Dias, Governor of Luanda took and situated there; and finding hard by a great story of gold, fortified it with four forts, and walled a great circuit ground round about it, and within that wall; The Portuguese do build a city, and from this city every day they do war against the King of Anginka, and have burnt a great part of his kingdom. The Angikas are men of goodly stature; they are the stubbornest nation that lives under the sun, and the resolutest in the field that ever man saw; for they will rather kill themselves than yield to the Portugals. They inhabit right under line, and of all kinds of Moors, those are the blackest. They do live in the law of Turks (Islam was known as the Turkic religion at that time), and honour Mahomet (Mohammed). They keep many concubines, as the turks do; they wash themselves every morning upwards, falling flat on their faces towards the east. ^^ This is where it gets interesting. The author thinks the locals are Muslims, which isn't the case since Islam didn't penetrate Africa that far. The Muslims however, incorporated much the the customs from their Hebrew brethren, which would account for the similarities, they also sacrificed animals (which led the Europeans to label them as being animistic, when in reality, the Abrahamic god required them to sacrifice animals to him at various times) in various rituals performed by specially ordained "priests" . Monotheism is also a thing that separates us from other peoples in Africa, in lingala/kikongo the name of "god" (or the supreme creator) is Yah-Abé/Yah-abi which obviously means "Yah is our father) , in Lozi (spoken by Caprivians) it's "Nyambe" . "The Caprivian religio-culture resembles the Israelite cult, on views such as polygamy; abstinence from certain food, and payment of bride price (lobola)." (read more about them here: kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.no/2013/06/the-caprivi-people-caprivians-minority.html)Regarding why Arabs of today still keep OUR cultural traditions is because they (the pale-skinned ones and their descendants) were vassals to the Muslim/Islamic empire, who were "black" people. These Turks were assimilated into the Islamic empire, eventually being made equal with the original Arabs themselves (Big f'kin mistake) . It didn't take long before these pale-skinned folks started their quest for domination, which culminated in the creation of the Ottoman Empire around 1300AD. I'm willing to bet that the traditions among the native inhabitants of the Levant were pretty similar, that would at least explain why the "folk music" and ancient traditions such as ululating has such an African feel to it. (It is also possible that the Turks appropriated it when they imported the very same people as slaves during the Arabian slave trade, but I think it's more plausible that they just appropriated it when they were incorporated into the Islamic society in the 8-9th century AD)
|
|
|
Post by africurious on May 19, 2014 0:27:23 GMT -5
what's up with the wackos coming over to ESR? Oh boy. And, why is Oprah talking nonsense about she's Zulu. Smh, this nonsense is what happens when these genetic ancestry companies out to make $s tell ppl nonsense that they are x or y "tribe". And ppl lap it up because they aren't versed in the science.
|
|
|
Post by africurious on May 19, 2014 0:57:56 GMT -5
To the ululation, circumcision and dancing that truthteacher mentioned I'd add the practice of males holding hands while walking together and conversing. It seems to have originated somewhere in the NE half of africa but spread all the way to southern africa and the arabian penninsula and environs. And of course its never mentioned enough that all the languages (except sumerian) that are known to be native to the arabian peninsula and fertile crescent are in an african language family and were brought there by africans!
And not another person claiming jews migrated to africa causing whole ethnic groups to be descended from "real jews". There is zero linguistic evidence for it--a few words that are supposedly similar don't cut it. That is a week linguistic argument and would be laughed at by professionals. The dna evidence shows all these groups that are claimed to be descended from "real jews" are related to other african ethnic groups surrounding them and don't even carry genes that you find in palestine (with the exception of the Lemba perhaps). The yarmulke is not derived from the kongo/angola because its an ashkenazi jewish thing only which stems from their Kazar/eastern euro origins. There is zero evidence for an ancient mass migration of "jews", neither the biblical one from egypt nor any other theoretical or recent ones into africa.
|
|
|
Post by asante on May 20, 2019 18:20:54 GMT -5
I forgot all about this thread! Zaharan forgive me for the response that is half a decade late, it truly slipped past me. I only saw it after going through my old archives. If you chose to wait another five years to respond to this then I can take that... None the less let's dig into this some more.
Lactose intolerance comparison origin of slaves into North America As noted above, this is nonsense, because: STRIKE 1-- West African populations in the main do NOT have a high tolerance. Your entire argument collapses at Strike 1, but other following strikes only make the outcome more painfully clear. ^^Under Asante's dubious WAHOT formula (West Africa Hotbed of Tolerance) theory, the Nigerians above should not exist.. In comparison to the regions where Bantu Africans inhabit (who are also "Niger Congo speakers) West Africans do in fact have a notably higher prevalence of lactose tolerance;
Stanford University As we can see there is in fact consistency with my claims and the reported frequencies of lactose intolerance throughout Africa.
No it's not the end all be all of the evidence, but the correlation is definitely worth pointing out. Given what many people including myself have come into consciousness of with regards to the activities of Africans migrating to America during the "BCE" period I think that it gives some credence to that argument.
Then please provide a logical explanation as to why the frequency of lactose intolerance in African Americans is not mirroring that of West Africans, whom we are constantly told is our primary ancestral stock. The first map of the thread makes it's clear that African Americans have an almost zero tolerance for lactose, whereas West African groups collectively have tolerance for it. Then given the fact that the only additional ancestries that are general to the African American genome are neglectable traces of Native American ancestry and varying degrees of "European" ancestry ranging around 18-20%, what could have possibly been the ancestral factor that made such a notable differentiation in lactose intolerance between West Africans and "African Americans"?
I don't think that it's a "dubious" claim at all. In fact Ivan Van Sertima published a pretty good argument for the migrations of Hapi Valley Africans into the America's during the reign of dynastic Kemet. It is my theory that of the "Niger-Congo" speaking populations of the "Bantu" branch represents those Africans who left directly from dynastic Hapi Valley civilization, and trekked their ways into southern and central Africa. This in my opinion is why DNAtribes consistently finds those particular Africans to be the closest match to most of the pharaohs tested. The entire region of Northeast Africa including what is modern day Israel - the Levant were politically dominated by this branch of Africans known as Bantu - by way of Kemetic dominion over the vicinity. Some sources had noted that as a result of political turmoil (war with the whites, and the mulatto offspring who eventually took over the region) "Phoenician ships" took many of these newly displaced people in this region "westward" along the Mediterranean with West Africa being mentioned as the destination. It is my contention based on the many pieces of pre-columbian evidence that what is later called continental "America" was the actual destination of many of those Phoenician ships.
I content with this theory that many of the so called "African Americans" are largely of this Bantu offshoot mixed with several other Africoid elements that had long been present in the Americas (such as the aboriginal Australian type that Luzia belonged to). As far as West Africans are concerned, some of the groups present today did come directly from Hapi Valley civilizations into tropical West Africa (i.e. the Nok civilization), While Niger-Congo West African groups such as the Wolof remained in northeast Africa for centuries after the collapse of dynastic civilization, and only came after the events associated with the Arab invasion of Northern Africa - Europe did they migrate to Western Africa.
Even though a few maps have been posted already eliminating the legitimacy of this "strike" against my theory, I'll post more maps that show the distribution of lactose intolerance - tolerance to see if they too correlate with the initial map from the OP.
Wikipedia has apparently made a map based on the general frequencies exhibited collective data.
Nope not a one of these maps were made up by me, and the first one presented 5 years ago is still consistent with just about every map distribution that I've come across in these searches. Therefore we see that there is in fact a notable difference in lactose intolerance-tolerance between Bantu southern-central Africans and Western Africans with the latter having more tolerance. The issues that is brought up is that if West Africans are the primary source of African Americans; and Africans Americans based on consistent Western research claims that we lack "native American" (another trick) DNA; have moderate to substantial "European" admixture who are overwhelmingly tolerant of lactate;
"The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies."
how in the Hell does that result in African Americans being notably less tolerance for lactose than Western Africans....?
The Devil is clearly playing games here. This is why I was hesitant to outright dismiss the claims of some of these new age youtube scholars with regards to our peoples heavy involvement in early America. While I do disagree with those who claim that "African Americans didn't come from no Africa", I do not negate the genesis that began with those migrations that have been hidden by Western scholars.
Well it's original, because as stated on page one this new theory of mines (let's call it "Tre's theory") deals specifically with the Bantu branch of Niger-Congo speaking populations, and yes it is based on the revelation of the strange variation in lactose traits among Africans and African Americans. The supplemental proof of Africans in America to begin with is in They Came Before Columbus and a host of more contemporary publications, so the argument is not "did Africans make it to America". No the theory is based on the direct and indirect African ancestry of African Americans. I see a "gaping" inconsistencies in the narrative of African Americans coming primarily from West Africa, those same "African Americans" supposedly absorbing more lactose tolerance ancestry from Europeans during slavery, but as a whole are extremely lactose intolerant... Make it make sense!
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 20, 2019 20:35:22 GMT -5
Thread title is misleading sensationalism. OP's own supplied map shows the W Afr homelands of the USA Aframericans are noteven Bantoid much less baNtu speaking lands. 1-9, 13&14, + Ijoid. For whatever it's worth, the cow milk tolerance 'gene' originated with Green Sahara protoFulani. Check the famous southeast Algerian Rock Art. It's the ding dang oldest milk tolerance 'gene' of them all, ovacaprid, camel, pig, or whatever animal one choses or whichever human population one considers.
|
|
|
Post by asante on May 20, 2019 21:28:48 GMT -5
Thread title is misleading sensationalism. No this thread was posed as a "question" and theory, not a definite statement... The specific question that garnered the theory has yet to answered. "Why African Americans who are supposedly of West African ancestry have an almost zero tolerance for lactate?"
Simply explain that. You all's reaction to a simple question (and posed as such via the question mark in the title of the thread...) wreaks of the common notion that "some of you" are some type of guardians to a silly Western paradigm. What in the Hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about subjective "rock art". I'm referring specifically to data on the actual... [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on May 20, 2019 23:46:45 GMT -5
Thread title is misleading sensationalism. No this thread was posed as a "question" and theory, not a definite statement... The specific question that garnered the theory has yet to answered. So sue me. Sure looks rhetorical. If not please accept my sincere apologies. Nonetheless the cited map answers said question with a resounding NO!HEY a theory is a definite statement. You tripping yourself up. But you don't present a coherent hypothesis less lone a full blown operative theory. Evolution is a theory. Relativity is a theory. This thread is just egotism against all odds. Nothing wrong with that. Ego trips? I take them frequently cos confidence struts inside of me. Confidence not Cocksuredness. I'm the Educator! U gon need me sooner or later. "Why African Americans who are supposedly of West African ancestry have an almost zero tolerance for lactate?" The same Aframericans who, Yvette Carnell of #ADOS constantly reminds us, are also of NW Euro ancestry too? Don't be ashamed. The same Afrimericans seen buying milk by the gallon in supermarkets? Chasing down Mr Softee trucks inda summertime whenda weather fine? At Baskin Robin's on the line? Pouring Pet Milk on Cream O Wheat? Slamming cheeseburgers? OK, mebbe cheese & yogurt get a pass. <<smile>> Simply explain that. You all's reaction to a simple question (and posed as such via the question mark in the title of the thread...) wreaks of the common notion that "some of you" are some type of guardians to a silly Western paradigm. I ain't "you all". I YYT Tukuler al~Takruri and I ain't got no qualms disagreeing with you or no cotdamn body else. How you gonna point a finger at "some of you" supposedly guarding silly Ws paradigms when you one who do it all the time? OP's own supplied map shows the W Afr homelands of the USA Aframericans are noteven Bantoid much less baNtu speaking lands. 1-9, 13&14, + Ijoid. What in the Hell are you talking about? You do realize you just said you can't read the map you yourself posted. How silly to refer the forum a map you don't understand. For whatever it's worth, the cow milk tolerance 'gene' originated with Green Sahara protoFulani. Check the famous southeast Algerian Rock Art. It's the ding dang oldest milk tolerance 'gene' of them all, I'm not talking about subjective "rock art". I'm referring specifically to data on the actual... Who you? The last person never read the Lactose thread 8 years ago and all its data data data? Gramps says watch Sonny go CouCou for Cocoa Puffs!!! www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=003964#000007 passim
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008996#000003 passimFollow the links read the threads educate thyself or keep imagining yourself a crusader against all odds only open to pats on the back from amen corner cronies. How dare lesser mortals critique The Asante. Lookit all the pic spam you post. How you summon nerve to say a painting of a cow being milked is subjective? Wtf else is it depicting? Face facts. This not no debate. It's a discussion where there are valid points other than yours and you have quite a few invalid non-factual subjective "points" of your own. If you just wanna lay down the law then why claim the thread title is an innocent question when you not trying to hear the static. Demogoguery playing/pleasing a certain crowd? Learn how to ask a replier a question w/o calling em out in a challenge. You aint got it like that. Nobody bowing down to you just cos you you. And you know you slapped the scat outta me woke me back up got me black on track.
|
|