|
Post by homeylu on Apr 13, 2010 13:02:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 13, 2010 15:49:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Apr 13, 2010 20:56:51 GMT -5
If you go by the term Moors you can most definitely see that they are both Black and Twanny as exactly was described by Leo Africanus and others.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 14, 2010 1:49:54 GMT -5
^^ Yes, but when I see them like this sharing one culture, one religion, and one identity, I can't help but notice that they don't see themselves as Black or "Tawny", negro or caucasian, I think these are American social definitions projected on to a group that see themselves as ONE PEOPLE, despite the physical variation that occurs within the tribe.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 16, 2010 16:49:39 GMT -5
^^ Yes, but when I see them like this sharing one culture, one religion, and one identity, I can't help but notice that they don't see themselves as Black or "Tawny", negro or caucasian, I think these are American social definitions projected on to a group that see themselves as ONE PEOPLE, despite the physical variation that occurs within the tribe. Wow sis, you hit that right on the head, they all see themselves as Tuareg thats more important than anything.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 17, 2010 11:45:11 GMT -5
^^ Yes, but when I see them like this sharing one culture, one religion, and one identity, I can't help but notice that they don't see themselves as Black or "Tawny", negro or caucasian, I think these are American social definitions projected on to a group that see themselves as ONE PEOPLE, despite the physical variation that occurs within the tribe. Wow sis, you hit that right on the head, they all see themselves as Tuareg thats more important than anything. Imagine the conversation between those racial anthropologists..hmm well we can't call the 'true negros', they don't fit the profile of Caucasoid, either, and they're not really what we would call Mediterranean, um hmm umm... Damn racial anthropologists ....African physical diversity defies a biological race!
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 17, 2010 11:45:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 17, 2010 11:46:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 17, 2010 11:47:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 18, 2010 13:33:29 GMT -5
Now that I have uploaded all of the various Tuareg groups from different geographic locations, I will now formulate my thesis, which is the following: Genetic Haplo groups are not determinant of a biological race. Race and ethnic groups exists as social constructions, and the definitions of how a group defines or ‘classifies’ themselves, will not always correlate with how they are defined by outsiders. The same rule can be applied to other Ancient groups such as the AE, did they see themselves simply as Kemetians of various phenotypes, or did they define themselves the way ‘outsiders’ do projecting their own social definitions on to them. If after reading, you have a different position to pose, you are welcome, however if you take any portion of this thesis out of context, and formulate red herrings to railroad this topic, you will simply be ignored. I am here to educate, not to engage in meaningless testosterone driven babble some members are famous for. Again I wholeheartedly welcome ‘educators‘ with a different perspective, its how we all learn. Under the generally accepted OOA model, Africa has the greatest genetic diversity within and between regions, tribes and people, all built-in. It’s important to note that other populations worldwide are derived as sub-sets of this diversity. Keeping in mind, only a handful of genes make-up the various phenotypes for Africans, for example only around 6 or 7 account for their skin color, another few for their hair texture, a few for the nose shapes, etc. So as to be expected, although some Africans may have the same ‘stereotypical’ physical features, they could be genetically distinctive from one another, and by contrast those with physical characteristics that vary, as is the case with the Tuareg, may have very little genetic variation, which proves that they came from a more recent common ancestor, than groups with more genetic variation. The number of SNP mutations are counted to determine the time since the most common recent ancestor. To understand this more clear, the entire human race’s most common recent ancestor was Mitochondrial Eve, who is hypothesized to have lived approx. 200,000 years ago.( To further try to explain it in laymens terms, just imagine, each of us have 2 parents, each of our parents had 2 parents, and their parents had 2 parents, and their parent’s parents had 2 parents, giving us 16 great great grand parents; now imagine that one of the 16 great great grand parents had the genes to produce a narrow nose phenotype, another carried the genes to reproduce the curly hair phenotype, and so on, each of those genes are passed off to their offspring, who eventually pass it off to you, now even if neither of your parents have those features, since they carried the genes for that particular feature, you have a high possibility of inheriting this particular trait, while your bother or sister could inherit a totally different trait, such as the curly hair, then another sibling could inherit the trait for light-skin, if it happens to be in your heritage. In other words, it is not predetermined which physical traits we will inherit from our parents or even older ancestors. How many times have you heard your grandparents or someone exclaim, that child has my granddaddy’s eyes, I know those eyes from anywhere. ..well they are not kidding, some traits can be carried from one offspring to another, those are dominant traits, while others sit for a while, then show up several generations later, those are recessive traits. And these traits are not just with regard to ’physical’ characteristics either. We also carry genes for certain illnesses, such as sickle-cell or diabetes, and even other traits that can determine our physical endurance, such as the ability to be a fast sprinter, while no one else in your immediate family may have this ability, you can be sure somewhere in your family tree the trait for this gene existed.) Sorry to trail off the topic, it’s the teacher in me. Now lets see how some scientists manipulate data to try to define a biological race, keeping in mind everything that you have just learned above (we DO NOT know which physical characteristics we will inherit from our ancestors, and this goes for our ancestors who live a long long time ago in Africa, where all mankind descended.) If I sound as if I’m speaking to younger people, please forgive me, it’s a force of habit. Now instead of gathering the data, and allowing the data to speak for itself, these type scientists typically PREDEFINE a certain category, and they would typically insert the data into that category, forcing it to fit their ‘predefined’ position. A great deal depends on how the categories are manipulated and who is manipulating the definitions. True red hair for example is comparatively rare worldwide, and is primarily associated with Northern Europe- particularly the British isles. Yet few claim that the peoples of the British Isles are “another race” as a result of this trait. You have never heard of the red-hairatoids, now have you? Unfortunately however, there is a double standard when it comes to African populations, and various “marker” traits are used to claim “different” races or what have you to an extent not seen when European populations are being dealt with. Arbitrarily defining particular traits or DNA element as ‘European” or “Asian” is all part of this game, for example the narrow nose now define an INDIGINEOUS African as a Caucasoid. Now of course DNA analysis can be broken down to find even finer distinctions within groups, but it can also find more overlap as well. The PN2 clade of Haplogroup E for example links numerous African populations together from the Atlantic coast to the Red Sea coast, shattering the boundaries of phenotypically defined “races.” The PN2 transition of course is not the last word. It is an important part in the genetic mix alongside others, nevertheless it does illustrate that DNA analysis can demonstrate broader unity and overlap. We could say the same for crania-facial analysis often used in conjunction with DNA analysis. Again, Africans not only show greater intra-regional and inter-regional diversity, but there is substantial overlap as well between data derived from African populations and others. In other words there are older African groups whose crania-facial analysis overlap with lets say North Asians. This is expected and can be predicted under the OOA model. Narrow noses for example appear among the oldest populations of Africa, among people with tropical body proportions, showing that such traits, often arbitrarily defined as “Caucasian” do not depend on any “race mix” to occur. At the same time people in a tribe down the street can be found with flat noses. The point again is that greater variation WITHIN groups is confirmed by both DNA and skeletal analyses, and I used the photographic display of the Tuareg tribe to support my position. Hopefully everyone can understand this concept, and know why the OOA thesis exist to began with. If we cannot as a whole, eventually trace most of our physical characteristics back to our ancestors who STAYED in Africa, then we must have actually evolved as separate species or DISTINCTIVE races, then the OOA theory would be debunked.
|
|
|
Post by NeferKemet on Apr 19, 2010 16:56:05 GMT -5
Very well done my sister! Now that I have uploaded all of the various Tuareg groups from different geographic locations, I will now formulate my thesis, which is the following: Genetic Haplo groups are not determinant of a biological race. Race and ethnic groups exists as social constructions, and the definitions of how a group defines or ‘classifies’ themselves, will not always correlate with how they are defined by outsiders. The same rule can be applied to other Ancient groups such as the AE, did they see themselves simply as Kemetians of various phenotypes, or did they define themselves the way ‘outsiders’ do projecting their own social definitions on to them. If after reading, you have a different position to pose, you are welcome, however if you take any portion of this thesis out of context, and formulate red herrings to railroad this topic, you will simply be ignored. I am here to educate, not to engage in meaningless testosterone driven babble some members are famous for. Again I wholeheartedly welcome ‘educators‘ with a different perspective, its how we all learn. Under the generally accepted OOA model, Africa has the greatest genetic diversity within and between regions, tribes and people, all built-in. It’s important to note that other populations worldwide are derived as sub-sets of this diversity. Keeping in mind, only a handful of genes make-up the various phenotypes for Africans, for example only around 6 or 7 account for their skin color, another few for their hair texture, a few for the nose shapes, etc. So as to be expected, although some Africans may have the same ‘stereotypical’ physical features, they could be genetically distinctive from one another, and by contrast those with physical characteristics that vary, as is the case with the Tuareg, may have very little genetic variation, which proves that they came from a more recent common ancestor, than groups with more genetic variation. The number of SNP mutations are counted to determine the time since the most common recent ancestor. To understand this more clear, the entire human race’s most common recent ancestor was Mitochondrial Eve, who is hypothesized to have lived approx. 200,000 years ago.( To further try to explain it in laymens terms, just imagine, each of us have 2 parents, each of our parents had 2 parents, and their parents had 2 parents, and their parent’s parents had 2 parents, giving us 16 great great grand parents; now imagine that one of the 16 great great grand parents had the genes to produce a narrow nose phenotype, another carried the genes to reproduce the curly hair phenotype, and so on, each of those genes are passed off to their offspring, who eventually pass it off to you, now even if neither of your parents have those features, since they carried the genes for that particular feature, you have a high possibility of inheriting this particular trait, while your bother or sister could inherit a totally different trait, such as the curly hair, then another sibling could inherit the trait for light-skin, if it happens to be in your heritage. In other words, it is not predetermined which physical traits we will inherit from our parents or even older ancestors. How many times have you heard your grandparents or someone exclaim, that child has my granddaddy’s eyes, I know those eyes from anywhere. ..well they are not kidding, some traits can be carried from one offspring to another, those are dominant traits, while others sit for a while, then show up several generations later, those are recessive traits. And these traits are not just with regard to ’physical’ characteristics either. We also carry genes for certain illnesses, such as sickle-cell or diabetes, and even other traits that can determine our physical endurance, such as the ability to be a fast sprinter, while no one else in your immediate family may have this ability, you can be sure somewhere in your family tree the trait for this gene existed.) Sorry to trail off the topic, it’s the teacher in me. Now lets see how some scientists manipulate data to try to define a biological race, keeping in mind everything that you have just learned above (we DO NOT know which physical characteristics we will inherit from our ancestors, and this goes for our ancestors who live a long long time ago in Africa, where all mankind descended.) If I sound as if I’m speaking to younger people, please forgive me, it’s a force of habit. Now instead of gathering the data, and allowing the data to speak for itself, these type scientists typically PREDEFINE a certain category, and they would typically insert the data into that category, forcing it to fit their ‘predefined’ position. A great deal depends on how the categories are manipulated and who is manipulating the definitions. True red hair for example is comparatively rare worldwide, and is primarily associated with Northern Europe- particularly the British isles. Yet few claim that the peoples of the British Isles are “another race” as a result of this trait. You have never heard of the red-hairatoids, now have you? Unfortunately however, there is a double standard when it comes to African populations, and various “marker” traits are used to claim “different” races or what have you to an extent not seen when European populations are being dealt with. Arbitrarily defining particular traits or DNA element as ‘European” or “Asian” is all part of this game, for example the narrow nose now define an INDIGINEOUS African as a Caucasoid. Now of course DNA analysis can be broken down to find even finer distinctions within groups, but it can also find more overlap as well. The PN2 clade of Haplogroup E for example links numerous African populations together from the Atlantic coast to the Red Sea coast, shattering the boundaries of phenotypically defined “races.” The PN2 transition of course is not the last word. It is an important part in the genetic mix alongside others, nevertheless it does illustrate that DNA analysis can demonstrate broader unity and overlap. We could say the same for crania-facial analysis often used in conjunction with DNA analysis. Again, Africans not only show greater intra-regional and inter-regional diversity, but there is substantial overlap as well between data derived from African populations and others. In other words there are older African groups whose crania-facial analysis overlap with lets say North Asians. This is expected and can be predicted under the OOA model. Narrow noses for example appear among the oldest populations of Africa, among people with tropical body proportions, showing that such traits, often arbitrarily defined as “Caucasian” do not depend on any “race mix” to occur. At the same time people in a tribe down the street can be found with flat noses. The point again is that greater variation WITHIN groups is confirmed by both DNA and skeletal analyses, and I used the photographic display of the Tuareg tribe to support my position. Hopefully everyone can understand this concept, and know why the OOA thesis exist to began with. If we cannot as a whole, eventually trace most of our physical characteristics back to our ancestors who STAYED in Africa, then we must have actually evolved as separate species or DISTINCTIVE races, then the OOA theory would be debunked.
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 20, 2010 10:03:28 GMT -5
Very well done my sister! Thanks sis, it's good to have another positive female on board, you know-- to keep these brothas in line.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 7, 2010 23:04:32 GMT -5
An excellent post. These are all the points I keep raising time and time again with regards to not only the Ancient Egyptians, but the Modern Egyptians as well. If we only look within Africa then we will find the truth.
I've always maintained that it was ridiculous to place people into separate categories based on their physical characteristics alone. For example, people will look at the mummy of Ramses and claim that he was of the Caucasian race and then apply that to the whole of Egyptian society across 3,000 years of history. But to do such a thing is a gross error. First of all, most of the mummies were destroyed, so we are working with a very small number of specimens to begin with. Secondly, a lone mummy by itself is out of context. What about the extended family? Take myself for example. I'm a kind of caramel skin tone, with a narrow face and a very high forehead. Compare me to my brother who has a very low brow, is significantly darker than I am and has very loosely curled hair, where as mine is very kinky. Now lets say we get dug up 3,000 years from now. Based of phenotypes and cranial measurements, would we be categorized as belonging to the same race? No. Now on paper, it makes sense, we have different physical features, skin colors, hair types and yet, we are biologically as close as relatives could be, so how could we be off different races, even though we look nothing alike? This is the same thing that happens with Ancient Egypt. We look at a mummy and say, this one was Caucasian, that one negroid. Yet if we went back in time and saw these living people in the context that they existed in, we would see that quite often within a family of blood relatives, there was a range of types, so how could they be different races.
I'm glad that more people like you are examining these issues because we have been living under the veil of a Euro centric world view that is not based in reality. Rather it is an idea concocted by them to suit their own needs which they try to validate with science.
Their world was crafted on the need to have social separations which were unnatural and they have gone through great lengths to justify this exercise against nature. Therefore, they can't understand an African reality as exemplified by the evidence you've provided. A reality which we in the African diaspora see every day in the faces of our families and extended communities. They are hopelessly hung up on the idea that for people to be related, they have to all exhibit the exact same physical characteristics. This has never been our reality.
I think its high time that we begin to abandon the world view they created for and imposed on us and start living according to the truth of our reality. Just as in our families, the so called negroid mummy, is biologically related to the so called caucasian mummy, and the red haired northern Egyptian is biologically related to the black skinned Saidis and Nubians, and the Tuareg with the dark skin and flat nose is biologically related to the Tuareg with the fair skin and narrow nose. Do they care whose got what DNA from where, or whose deep ancestor migrated in from Asia or wherever? Real people don't give 2 sh%^s about stuff like that. What they care about is who is my family, who is my people, who is my klan, who do I turn to for protection or help in time of need? These are the real things that human communities and societies are based on. What we developed in the West is a freak of nature where fathers denied their own children and pretend that whole groups of their blood relatives don't exist because they have more of a sun tan and so we go against nature and human instinct to maintain a lie and then try to validate it by projecting it back in time and on people and cultures who would never begin to fathom such madness.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 7, 2010 23:20:02 GMT -5
More Tuaregs plus great music too!
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 8, 2010 3:18:21 GMT -5
Nomads is typically diverse. Sometimes the Tuareg called themselves "red skinned". The Tuareg originate in Libya and then went into Algeria and further south into Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Nigeria. They went to war with Songhay, Kanuri, Hausa, Djerma people and took slaves called "Ikalan" There were also slave markets run in some of those tribes. Some of the Tuareg married these southern peoples and their children became free and integrated into the Tuareg hierarchical system. So being Nomads, the diversity you see in Mali Tuareg reflects all the different ares they went into.
|
|