|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 19, 2012 21:40:27 GMT -5
Point 1.You're such a liar. You know that the Berbers also carry European M1 and R lineages. These clades found among the Berbers betry their Western European origins and mating with native Black Africans. Point 2. As I have already made clear there is no such thing as Afro-Asiatic. Secondly, most of the vocabulary is mixed with borrowings from Latin, Arabic, French, Spanish, and other sub-Saharan languages. There is generally little or no intelligibility between the dialects. This makes it clear that these people have diverse origins. The reason Berbers shows such a mixture of languages is because of the various groups Latin (Romans), Spanish (female slaves), 19th and 20th Century Colonist (French), Arabic (Muslims) and etc. who imposed their language on the original Vandal groups. Point 3. You are correct Berber is a generic term. Keita was talking about Amazigh. As I have shown above they do not look like "light skin" african people. And there is no way you can say the Amazigh whites resemble Somali or other light skin Blacks in phenotype. No matter what the diversity is between Africans, the skin color of light skin Africans and Khoisan does not match that of European whites and the Amazigh. ..  Amazigh
.
Lightskin Somali GirlsAs you can see they don't look alike. . . . Who is lying? They posses haplotypes that are specific to North Africa. If they also have other input, which if you read my previous statement carefully, you would see I don't deny it. They are a combination of native Africans, many of whom evolved lighter skins than tropical peoples. In addition to this there has been absorbtion of non Africans. The argument is not whether or not they are pure blooded, but whether they are Africans. Most African Americans, especially from the Caribbean and South America have substantial genetic input from Europe as well as Native American groups. Are you going to tell an Afro Brazilian that they are not part of the African family? Again, I ask you, are you going to tell me Adam Clayton Powel is not part of the African family? A significant percentage of Afro Americans, Mohamed Ali being only one example, have European Y lineages. Does this mean Mohamed Ali is really European? You keep avoiding this question. And by the way Cameroon has the highest concentration of R linages in Africa and the Lemba have been shown to have the Jewish Cohen gene in large percentages. Does this mean the Lemba and Cameroonians are of European origin? Your second point: Based on the first set of photos you posted, I would say that yes indeed a significant number of North Africans are the exact same color as those Somali girls. Yes there are some people in those pictures who are very fair skinned, but have you seen the whole population? No you haven't Believe me, even in those communities with the fair skinned rosy cheeked people, there are just as many and in some cases, more who are the same shade of light brown as those Somali girls. The fact that European photographers ignore them in favor of the lightest complected people in that community in no way reflects the true range of diversity in those communities. I guess you didn't take the time to watch the video I posted. I guess your intellectual capacity can only accommodate imobile cartoons. As for your last point, the Berber woman you keep posting. Yeah, she looks just like my aunt June. My aunt Joan Is a shade lighter with a much narrower nose. I guess she's not a part of the African family either.  This conversation is really so totally ilogical. I'm sorry, but I find the reasoning to be consistent with a Jr. high school level of education rather than someone who claims to hold several advance degrees. Your statement that there is no such language group as Afro Asiatic kind of says it all right there. Your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese. The Berbers are an African people. Their physical appearances do not change that. Their language is African specific. The fact that some dialects have absobed loan words does not change that. English is riddled with foreign loan words and so what? Their DNA shows African male linages as well as maternal African linages. Their dances are often times identical to those found as far south as Congo and Uganda. Their music is polyrythmic and follows the call and response patter, typical African structure. And if you watched the video, you would hear that high piched cry. In Arabic its called zaghruda. You will hear that same cry all over East Africa, even as far south as South Africa. There is more linking them to the continent of Africa than there is anywhere else. The fact their color makes you insecure is your own personal hang up. But they've got people out there who can help you get over that, they're called therapists.
You have not presented any data disputing the various historical groups that have contributed genome to the 'white' Berbers that match the numerous vocabulary items lexicalized in the diverse Berber languages: German, Latin and etc. The African genomes and linguistic elements found among the Brbers just indicates that the European ancestors of these 'whites' mated with Africans. You admit that the Amazigh carry genome that match the many Europeans who have influenced this population as a result, there is no way to make this population exclusive.. Your comments are opinions. Below is linguistic evidence supporting my contention Afro-Asiatic does not exist. Since you claim it is full of holes. Present the linguistic evidence that proves Afro-Asiatic exist since you claim it is like swiss cheese. Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric. Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary. Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages.   Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language. This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form. Radcliffe commenting on these text observed: There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic. Reference: Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden. . |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 21, 2012 11:04:09 GMT -5
Who is lying? They posses haplotypes that are specific to North Africa. If they also have other input, which if you read my previous statement carefully, you would see I don't deny it. They are a combination of native Africans, many of whom evolved lighter skins than tropical peoples. In addition to this there has been absorbtion of non Africans. The argument is not whether or not they are pure blooded, but whether they are Africans. Most African Americans, especially from the Caribbean and South America have substantial genetic input from Europe as well as Native American groups. Are you going to tell an Afro Brazilian that they are not part of the African family? Again, I ask you, are you going to tell me Adam Clayton Powel is not part of the African family? A significant percentage of Afro Americans, Mohamed Ali being only one example, have European Y lineages. Does this mean Mohamed Ali is really European? You keep avoiding this question. And by the way Cameroon has the highest concentration of R linages in Africa and the Lemba have been shown to have the Jewish Cohen gene in large percentages. Does this mean the Lemba and Cameroonians are of European origin? Your second point: Based on the first set of photos you posted, I would say that yes indeed a significant number of North Africans are the exact same color as those Somali girls. Yes there are some people in those pictures who are very fair skinned, but have you seen the whole population? No you haven't Believe me, even in those communities with the fair skinned rosy cheeked people, there are just as many and in some cases, more who are the same shade of light brown as those Somali girls. The fact that European photographers ignore them in favor of the lightest complected people in that community in no way reflects the true range of diversity in those communities. I guess you didn't take the time to watch the video I posted. I guess your intellectual capacity can only accommodate imobile cartoons. As for your last point, the Berber woman you keep posting. Yeah, she looks just like my aunt June. My aunt Joan Is a shade lighter with a much narrower nose. I guess she's not a part of the African family either. This conversation is really so totally ilogical. I'm sorry, but I find the reasoning to be consistent with a Jr. high school level of education rather than someone who claims to hold several advance degrees. Your statement that there is no such language group as Afro Asiatic kind of says it all right there. Your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese. The Berbers are an African people. Their physical appearances do not change that. Their language is African specific. The fact that some dialects have absobed loan words does not change that. English is riddled with foreign loan words and so what? Their DNA shows African male linages as well as maternal African linages. Their dances are often times identical to those found as far south as Congo and Uganda. Their music is polyrythmic and follows the call and response patter, typical African structure. And if you watched the video, you would hear that high piched cry. In Arabic its called zaghruda. You will hear that same cry all over East Africa, even as far south as South Africa. There is more linking them to the continent of Africa than there is anywhere else. The fact their color makes you insecure is your own personal hang up. But they've got people out there who can help you get over that, they're called therapists. What you are saying doesn't really apply to the Egypt issue. You have people who are clearly admixed (in Egypt) claiming to be the "true" egyptians, and this just isn't true. We know for a fact that the ancient egyptians started bringing in slaves from the middle east as early as the 4th dynasty. We also know they continued the importation of slaves from outside of Africa up until the last dynasty. we also cant forget the influx of greeks, romans, assyrians, "people of the sea", arabs and turks etc. Also the Amorites/Hyksos who were there for 200 years also helped to change the look of the people. See those half breed egyptians of today can't have it both ways. They either have to except that their grandfathers were black africans and slaves from outside of Africa or they need to let that claim go. You are confusing the discussion here. We are talking about the origins of the empire which is 100% African. Were these people light skinned before admixture? We don't know, and to say other wise is silly as none of us were there at that time. And to use modern populations in areas we know were heavily mixed to try and argue for the idea of a light skinned native people in north africa who magically developed that way there is beyond daft. Lets put our thinking caps on for a second. IF these light skinned people magically evolved in the north like that with no outside influence then why the hell do you still have jet black looking egyptians in the SAME areas? What sort of magical conditions would allow for a evolutionary path were some are dark skinned and some are light skinned? Doesn't make sense, now does it?! With that said, we can not look at some of the modern north african people, who look like the white looking berbers and say they are indigenous, that goes against historical facts. We also know MILLIONS of whites were imported into North Africa during the time of the Moorish reign in Europe. Good book to get would be christian slaves, muslim masters. My point is, you don't seem to know enough about African history to try and argue so adamantly. Also, if you look at Keita's latest video, he clearly says he only looks at the Y chromosome and ignores the X because the X is from women and generally those women were brought in from everywhere. however the men were generally indigenous. You can't just pick and choose what you want to take from Keita and then claim you have it all figure out, because you don't. Even keita in his latest video seems to try and understand history a lot more now to help understand the genetic findings, something he wasn't doing before. Before he was relying on the silly argument of evolution to explain the people of north africa, which doesn't hold weight when we look at historical facts. And yeah, you visited Egypt, so what. I have visited Mexico, doesn't make me a expert in their history. You need to read books and do research for that. I'm not confusing anything. The fact that your mind is not capable of processing a complext thought is not my fault. No one is saying that Egypt was founded by anyone other than Native Africans. What is being said is that Africans on a whole, even tropical Africans are and always have been very diverse with regards to their facial features. The assertion by Eurocentrics that only the people who look like what they call Negros are real Africans and anyone else who doesn't share those features must be the product of mixing is not true. The Masi, Fulani, Tutsi and others have narrow features not because they are mixed, but because they represent the natural diversity built into Africa. Still with me? I hope so. Furthermore, there has always been diversity in skin color in Africa. As stated several times, many Bushmen are very light complected in comparison to their tropical neighbors. They are quite often a yellowish brown color. This is not the result of mixing. This is built in. In North Africa there was also the same type of light skinned adaptation. How do I know this? As stated before, the earliest mummies found in Egypt from the predynastic period were light skinned. This was not due to mixing but natural evolutionary adaptation to a sub tropical environment. Sub tropical means not tropical, in other words its not in the tropical zone, receives less direct sun rays.... okay I think you get it. These people, although light complected, were Africans. How do we know. Well.... first of all...they're in Africa. Secondly, their limbs are consistent with tropical Africans and they have curly hair and are often prognethic. So, although they lost the tropical coloring, they retained other physical traits that show their tropical African origins. Still with me? There were, still are and always will be Egyptians who have retained all of their tropical African characteristics. Were are they found? In Upper Egypt. Upper egypt and Sudan is where Pharaonic civilization was born. The culture of the south replaced the culture of the north shortly before the unification of the two lands. Are you still with me? Therefore, we can say that the people who founded the Egyptian civilization were dark skinned tropical Africans just like their descendants living in Egypt today. Got it? Now for the part you can't understand: Because of Egypt's geographical location, it straddles the tropical and sub tropical zones. This means that there was a diversity of skin colors present from a very early time. In addition to this, over the course of its history you did have non Africans who migrated into and settled in the country. That is just a fact. To state this fact is not the same as saying that Egyptian civilization was created by non Africans. It simply means that those people came to Egypt for one reason or another. It does not change the fact that the native population and culture was uniquely African. But the fact is, these people were gradually absorbed into the population and added to the physical diversity that was already there. They didn't change the culture, they didn't create the culture, they blended into the culture. Therefore, if you go to Egypt today, you will still see ALOT of people who are of the physical type found in Upper Egypt. You will also find people who are of the lighter skinned northern Egyptian type. AND you will also find people who are a blend of Northern and Southern types AND GET THIS, you will find peole who are a blend of the southern, northern and non African types. As you yourself mentioned, the Egyptians at different points brought non Egyptians into the country. What do you think happened to their kids? You are aware of the fact that they must have had kids aren't you? We'll if not, I'll tell you. A significant number of them married native Egyptians. Now if you have native Egyptians marrying non Egyptians, what do you think the kids would have looked like? Remember, as you pointed out, we're talking about the 4th Dynasty. So yes, the kind of diversity you see today would and did exist yesterday. The only thing I would add to that is that because of historical circumstances, the percentages of blended individuals is much hight today than it was in Egypt's earlies history. As for you're question about where these lighter people magically appeared from. Where did the lighter Bushmen in South Africa appear from? Where did those light skinned Somali girls magically appear from? The answer is that those people had been living in those regions for hundreds of tjousands of years before there was such a thing as Egypt. In fact, it was only when the Sahara dried up that the population in the Nile Vally increased. Here's another thing for you to consider. Once Egypt was unified, you had internal movement in the country. What does this mean? This means that you would have had dark skinned people from the south migrating and settling in the north. Light skinned people migrating and settling in the south. Its still happening today which is why you can find very light skinned people living in Luxor and Aswan and very dark people living in Alexandria and the Delta. All Keita is saying is that the history of Africa is complex. Racial mixture does not change your ethnicity, culture or nationality. So for you to tell an Egyptian, they are not really Egyptian, when they were born there, raised there and descended from the people of the country is rediculous. For you to referre to people as "half breeds", is also ridiculous when you consider the fact that most African Americans are tri hybrids, a mixture of European, African and Native American. Many African Americans are so mixed you can't tell what they are. I'm willing to bet that neither you nor Winters can claim to be 100% pure blooded African. Here's something else: What African ethnic group do you belong to? What African language do you speak? What African spirituat practice do you follow? Where were you born? What's that??? I thought so. How African are you? Why don't you go to any African country, off of the tourist circuit and ask an African what they think? |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 21, 2012 11:10:26 GMT -5
You've done nothing but evade every single question I've put to you, so until you do, don't expect anything from me. And lets just say for arguments sake, there is no such thing as Afro Asiatic, you still have the fact that even Algerians have limb ratios that match tropical Africans, where as Eastern Mediterraneans and Mesopotamians don't, North Africans sharing the same male ancestor with people as far south as Sudan and further, and sharing music and dance traditions that are similar to people in Central and West Africa and having DNA markers in hight percentages that are restricted to North West and North East Africa that are not found in Europe or Asia. Who is lying? They posses haplotypes that are specific to North Africa. If they also have other input, which if you read my previous statement carefully, you would see I don't deny it. They are a combination of native Africans, many of whom evolved lighter skins than tropical peoples. In addition to this there has been absorbtion of non Africans. The argument is not whether or not they are pure blooded, but whether they are Africans. Most African Americans, especially from the Caribbean and South America have substantial genetic input from Europe as well as Native American groups. Are you going to tell an Afro Brazilian that they are not part of the African family? Again, I ask you, are you going to tell me Adam Clayton Powel is not part of the African family? A significant percentage of Afro Americans, Mohamed Ali being only one example, have European Y lineages. Does this mean Mohamed Ali is really European? You keep avoiding this question. And by the way Cameroon has the highest concentration of R linages in Africa and the Lemba have been shown to have the Jewish Cohen gene in large percentages. Does this mean the Lemba and Cameroonians are of European origin? Your second point: Based on the first set of photos you posted, I would say that yes indeed a significant number of North Africans are the exact same color as those Somali girls. Yes there are some people in those pictures who are very fair skinned, but have you seen the whole population? No you haven't Believe me, even in those communities with the fair skinned rosy cheeked people, there are just as many and in some cases, more who are the same shade of light brown as those Somali girls. The fact that European photographers ignore them in favor of the lightest complected people in that community in no way reflects the true range of diversity in those communities. I guess you didn't take the time to watch the video I posted. I guess your intellectual capacity can only accommodate imobile cartoons. As for your last point, the Berber woman you keep posting. Yeah, she looks just like my aunt June. My aunt Joan Is a shade lighter with a much narrower nose. I guess she's not a part of the African family either. This conversation is really so totally ilogical. I'm sorry, but I find the reasoning to be consistent with a Jr. high school level of education rather than someone who claims to hold several advance degrees. Your statement that there is no such language group as Afro Asiatic kind of says it all right there. Your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese. The Berbers are an African people. Their physical appearances do not change that. Their language is African specific. The fact that some dialects have absobed loan words does not change that. English is riddled with foreign loan words and so what? Their DNA shows African male linages as well as maternal African linages. Their dances are often times identical to those found as far south as Congo and Uganda. Their music is polyrythmic and follows the call and response patter, typical African structure. And if you watched the video, you would hear that high piched cry. In Arabic its called zaghruda. You will hear that same cry all over East Africa, even as far south as South Africa. There is more linking them to the continent of Africa than there is anywhere else. The fact their color makes you insecure is your own personal hang up. But they've got people out there who can help you get over that, they're called therapists.
You have not presented any data disputing the various historical groups that have contributed genome to the 'white' Berbers that match the numerous vocabulary items lexicalized in the diverse Berber languages: German, Latin and etc. The African genomes and linguistic elements found among the Brbers just indicates that the European ancestors of these 'whites' mated with Africans. You admit that the Amazigh carry genome that match the many Europeans who have influenced this population as a result, there is no way to make this population exclusive.. Your comments are opinions. Below is linguistic evidence supporting my contention Afro-Asiatic does not exist. Since you claim it is full of holes. Present the linguistic evidence that proves Afro-Asiatic exist since you claim it is like swiss cheese. Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric. Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary. Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages. Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language. This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form. Radcliffe commenting on these text observed: There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic. Reference: Ehret,C. 1995. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic. Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden. . |
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Jul 21, 2012 12:27:08 GMT -5
What you are saying doesn't really apply to the Egypt issue. You have people who are clearly admixed (in Egypt) claiming to be the "true" egyptians, and this just isn't true. We know for a fact that the ancient egyptians started bringing in slaves from the middle east as early as the 4th dynasty. We also know they continued the importation of slaves from outside of Africa up until the last dynasty. we also cant forget the influx of greeks, romans, assyrians, "people of the sea", arabs and turks etc. Also the Amorites/Hyksos who were there for 200 years also helped to change the look of the people. See those half breed egyptians of today can't have it both ways. They either have to except that their grandfathers were black africans and slaves from outside of Africa or they need to let that claim go. You are confusing the discussion here. We are talking about the origins of the empire which is 100% African. Were these people light skinned before admixture? We don't know, and to say other wise is silly as none of us were there at that time. And to use modern populations in areas we know were heavily mixed to try and argue for the idea of a light skinned native people in north africa who magically developed that way there is beyond daft. Lets put our thinking caps on for a second. IF these light skinned people magically evolved in the north like that with no outside influence then why the hell do you still have jet black looking egyptians in the SAME areas? What sort of magical conditions would allow for a evolutionary path were some are dark skinned and some are light skinned? Doesn't make sense, now does it?! With that said, we can not look at some of the modern north african people, who look like the white looking berbers and say they are indigenous, that goes against historical facts. We also know MILLIONS of whites were imported into North Africa during the time of the Moorish reign in Europe. Good book to get would be christian slaves, muslim masters. My point is, you don't seem to know enough about African history to try and argue so adamantly. Also, if you look at Keita's latest video, he clearly says he only looks at the Y chromosome and ignores the X because the X is from women and generally those women were brought in from everywhere. however the men were generally indigenous. You can't just pick and choose what you want to take from Keita and then claim you have it all figure out, because you don't. Even keita in his latest video seems to try and understand history a lot more now to help understand the genetic findings, something he wasn't doing before. Before he was relying on the silly argument of evolution to explain the people of north africa, which doesn't hold weight when we look at historical facts. And yeah, you visited Egypt, so what. I have visited Mexico, doesn't make me a expert in their history. You need to read books and do research for that. I'm not confusing anything. The fact that your mind is not capable of processing a complext thought is not my fault. No one is saying that Egypt was founded by anyone other than Native Africans. What is being said is that Africans on a whole, even tropical Africans are and always have been very diverse with regards to their facial features. The assertion by Eurocentrics that only the people who look like what they call Negros are real Africans and anyone else who doesn't share those features must be the product of mixing is not true. The Masi, Fulani, Tutsi and others have narrow features not because they are mixed, but because they represent the natural diversity built into Africa. Still with me? I hope so. Furthermore, there has always been diversity in skin color in Africa. As stated several times, many Bushmen are very light complected in comparison to their tropical neighbors. They are quite often a yellowish brown color. This is not the result of mixing. This is built in. In North Africa there was also the same type of light skinned adaptation. How do I know this? As stated before, the earliest mummies found in Egypt from the predynastic period were light skinned. This was not due to mixing but natural evolutionary adaptation to a sub tropical environment. Sub tropical means not tropical, in other words its not in the tropical zone, receives less direct sun rays.... okay I think you get it. These people, although light complected, were Africans. How do we know. Well.... first of all...they're in Africa. Secondly, their limbs are consistent with tropical Africans and they have curly hair and are often prognethic. So, although they lost the tropical coloring, they retained other physical traits that show their tropical African origins. Still with me? There were, still are and always will be Egyptians who have retained all of their tropical African characteristics. Were are they found? In Upper Egypt. Upper egypt and Sudan is where Pharaonic civilization was born. The culture of the south replaced the culture of the north shortly before the unification of the two lands. Are you still with me? Therefore, we can say that the people who founded the Egyptian civilization were dark skinned tropical Africans just like their descendants living in Egypt today. Got it? Now for the part you can't understand: Because of Egypt's geographical location, it straddles the tropical and sub tropical zones. This means that there was a diversity of skin colors present from a very early time. In addition to this, over the course of its history you did have non Africans who migrated into and settled in the country. That is just a fact. To state this fact is not the same as saying that Egyptian civilization was created by non Africans. It simply means that those people came to Egypt for one reason or another. It does not change the fact that the native population and culture was uniquely African. But the fact is, these people were gradually absorbed into the population and added to the physical diversity that was already there. They didn't change the culture, they didn't create the culture, they blended into the culture. Therefore, if you go to Egypt today, you will still see ALOT of people who are of the physical type found in Upper Egypt. You will also find people who are of the lighter skinned northern Egyptian type. AND you will also find people who are a blend of Northern and Southern types AND GET THIS, you will find peole who are a blend of the southern, northern and non African types. As you yourself mentioned, the Egyptians at different points brought non Egyptians into the country. What do you think happened to their kids? You are aware of the fact that they must have had kids aren't you? We'll if not, I'll tell you. A significant number of them married native Egyptians. Now if you have native Egyptians marrying non Egyptians, what do you think the kids would have looked like? Remember, as you pointed out, we're talking about the 4th Dynasty. So yes, the kind of diversity you see today would and did exist yesterday. The only thing I would add to that is that because of historical circumstances, the percentages of blended individuals is much hight today than it was in Egypt's earlies history. As for you're question about where these lighter people magically appeared from. Where did the lighter Bushmen in South Africa appear from? Where did those light skinned Somali girls magically appear from? The answer is that those people had been living in those regions for hundreds of tjousands of years before there was such a thing as Egypt. In fact, it was only when the Sahara dried up that the population in the Nile Vally increased. Here's another thing for you to consider. Once Egypt was unified, you had internal movement in the country. What does this mean? This means that you would have had dark skinned people from the south migrating and settling in the north. Light skinned people migrating and settling in the south. Its still happening today which is why you can find very light skinned people living in Luxor and Aswan and very dark people living in Alexandria and the Delta. All Keita is saying is that the history of Africa is complex. Racial mixture does not change your ethnicity, culture or nationality. So for you to tell an Egyptian, they are not really Egyptian, when they were born there, raised there and descended from the people of the country is rediculous. For you to referre to people as "half breeds", is also ridiculous when you consider the fact that most African Americans are tri hybrids, a mixture of European, African and Native American. Many African Americans are so mixed you can't tell what they are. I'm willing to bet that neither you nor Winters can claim to be 100% pure blooded African. Here's something else: What African ethnic group do you belong to? What African language do you speak? What African spirituat practice do you follow? Where were you born? What's that??? I thought so. How African are you? Why don't you go to any African country, off of the tourist circuit and ask an African what they think? instead of attempting to sound cleaver, try doing some research, because once again you do not know enough about history to intelligently have these discussions. How do you know that Masi, Fula or any of these other groups do not have outside influence via the maternal line? YOU DONT! Your assuming, based on your ignorant imagination. I suggest you go sort out Keita's latest video from the conference at chapel hill, which will help to remove the fog of ignorance from your simple mind. Once you listen to Keita and you see what the DNA shows, THEN come back and talk to me. Other wise this conversation wont go anywhere. One of us (you) are basing arguments on opinion and emotion while the other (me) is basing on facts. You dont know enough, that has been made painfully obvious. Also use your brain, what supposed environment would allow for people in the same exact conditions to become light to the point of looking like a mullatto and others in the SAME environment to be jet black? The answer is NONE. What you dont seem to get through your thick skull is, before whites ever took one African from Africa, we were enslaving them for CENTURIES. But I have said enough, go start with Keita's latest lecture. I look forward to speaking with you after you have educated yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 21, 2012 18:37:39 GMT -5
I won't come out and call you stupid. That would be impolite and against the requests of the moderators to show respect to all, (....but I am thinking it......) Okay, 1st off : Isn't this the exact same video that started this thread off? If this is not the video you are talking about then please provide it. That shouldn't be so hard for a smart guy like you. So based on this video I'd like to know where he says anything about the Fulani, Tusis and Masi having non African MTDNA. Where in this video does he say anything about the physical diversity in Africans being attributed to mixture? He doesn't. I was going to point this out when you had posted this video in another thread and then ran hog wild about "Africans enslaving thousands of Europeans changing the appearances of Africans", but I had better things to do that to waste my time with someone I consider.... well... you know... Your second question how could dark skinned Africans and light skinned Africans evolve in the same environment? Here is where you show your level of intelligence and why its important to travel to these countries to learn, The answer quite simply is that BECAUSE AFRICA IS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT CLIMATE ZONES! Its not one big hot jungle. Part of Africa is located in the Tropical zone. But the northern and southern parts of Africa ARE SUB TROPICAL. This means the sun's rays are not as direct as in the tropical zone. There are areas of mountain elevation, highlands, there are dersert zones and there are grasslands. Africa's topography and geography is diverse, (that's just one of them big words that means different). Honestly, like other members who have attempted conversation with you, I can only conclude that this conversation is not going to go anywhere because you don't have enough understanding to comprehend what is said in the video or what people tell you if it doesn't fit in with your made up fantasy of African history and its cultures. I raised several well thought out points, but instead of dealing with the points I made, you resort to insults, typical. Then you ask me one dumb assed question after another when I had already stated the answers previously. I will say one thing though. Thank you so much for the lesson. I have learned that so many of you so call Afrocentrics have no knowledge whatso ever of Africa, its peoples, histories or cultures. Worse of all, you don't care to know. You come to forums like this, not to learn anything, not to discuss anything, but to just spew your racial hatred based in your pathetic sense of inferiority. You try to cover your inferiority complex by flipping white supremacy upside down so that you become the superior race. Therefore, you know almost nothing of the Egyptians, their history and culture. You don't care. all you see is skin color and Egypt becomes the platform for you to spew your bullshit. When you can privide me with evidence to support the hog shit you're trying to pass of as history,or better yet, answer the issues I raised in response to your dumb assed questions, then maybe I'll have something to consider, but till then.......... I'm not confusing anything. The fact that your mind is not capable of processing a complext thought is not my fault. No one is saying that Egypt was founded by anyone other than Native Africans. What is being said is that Africans on a whole, even tropical Africans are and always have been very diverse with regards to their facial features. The assertion by Eurocentrics that only the people who look like what they call Negros are real Africans and anyone else who doesn't share those features must be the product of mixing is not true. The Masi, Fulani, Tutsi and others have narrow features not because they are mixed, but because they represent the natural diversity built into Africa. Still with me? I hope so. Furthermore, there has always been diversity in skin color in Africa. As stated several times, many Bushmen are very light complected in comparison to their tropical neighbors. They are quite often a yellowish brown color. This is not the result of mixing. This is built in. In North Africa there was also the same type of light skinned adaptation. How do I know this? As stated before, the earliest mummies found in Egypt from the predynastic period were light skinned. This was not due to mixing but natural evolutionary adaptation to a sub tropical environment. Sub tropical means not tropical, in other words its not in the tropical zone, receives less direct sun rays.... okay I think you get it. These people, although light complected, were Africans. How do we know. Well.... first of all...they're in Africa. Secondly, their limbs are consistent with tropical Africans and they have curly hair and are often prognethic. So, although they lost the tropical coloring, they retained other physical traits that show their tropical African origins. Still with me? There were, still are and always will be Egyptians who have retained all of their tropical African characteristics. Were are they found? In Upper Egypt. Upper egypt and Sudan is where Pharaonic civilization was born. The culture of the south replaced the culture of the north shortly before the unification of the two lands. Are you still with me? Therefore, we can say that the people who founded the Egyptian civilization were dark skinned tropical Africans just like their descendants living in Egypt today. Got it? Now for the part you can't understand: Because of Egypt's geographical location, it straddles the tropical and sub tropical zones. This means that there was a diversity of skin colors present from a very early time. In addition to this, over the course of its history you did have non Africans who migrated into and settled in the country. That is just a fact. To state this fact is not the same as saying that Egyptian civilization was created by non Africans. It simply means that those people came to Egypt for one reason or another. It does not change the fact that the native population and culture was uniquely African. But the fact is, these people were gradually absorbed into the population and added to the physical diversity that was already there. They didn't change the culture, they didn't create the culture, they blended into the culture. Therefore, if you go to Egypt today, you will still see ALOT of people who are of the physical type found in Upper Egypt. You will also find people who are of the lighter skinned northern Egyptian type. AND you will also find people who are a blend of Northern and Southern types AND GET THIS, you will find peole who are a blend of the southern, northern and non African types. As you yourself mentioned, the Egyptians at different points brought non Egyptians into the country. What do you think happened to their kids? You are aware of the fact that they must have had kids aren't you? We'll if not, I'll tell you. A significant number of them married native Egyptians. Now if you have native Egyptians marrying non Egyptians, what do you think the kids would have looked like? Remember, as you pointed out, we're talking about the 4th Dynasty. So yes, the kind of diversity you see today would and did exist yesterday. The only thing I would add to that is that because of historical circumstances, the percentages of blended individuals is much hight today than it was in Egypt's earlies history. As for you're question about where these lighter people magically appeared from. Where did the lighter Bushmen in South Africa appear from? Where did those light skinned Somali girls magically appear from? The answer is that those people had been living in those regions for hundreds of tjousands of years before there was such a thing as Egypt. In fact, it was only when the Sahara dried up that the population in the Nile Vally increased. Here's another thing for you to consider. Once Egypt was unified, you had internal movement in the country. What does this mean? This means that you would have had dark skinned people from the south migrating and settling in the north. Light skinned people migrating and settling in the south. Its still happening today which is why you can find very light skinned people living in Luxor and Aswan and very dark people living in Alexandria and the Delta. All Keita is saying is that the history of Africa is complex. Racial mixture does not change your ethnicity, culture or nationality. So for you to tell an Egyptian, they are not really Egyptian, when they were born there, raised there and descended from the people of the country is rediculous. For you to referre to people as "half breeds", is also ridiculous when you consider the fact that most African Americans are tri hybrids, a mixture of European, African and Native American. Many African Americans are so mixed you can't tell what they are. I'm willing to bet that neither you nor Winters can claim to be 100% pure blooded African. Here's something else: What African ethnic group do you belong to? What African language do you speak? What African spirituat practice do you follow? Where were you born? What's that??? I thought so. How African are you? Why don't you go to any African country, off of the tourist circuit and ask an African what they think? instead of attempting to sound cleaver, try doing some research, because once again you do not know enough about history to intelligently have these discussions. How do you know that Masi, Fula or any of these other groups do not have outside influence via the maternal line? YOU DONT! Your assuming, based on your ignorant imagination. I suggest you go sort out Keita's latest video from the conference at chapel hill, which will help to remove the fog of ignorance from your simple mind. Once you listen to Keita and you see what the DNA shows, THEN come back and talk to me. Other wise this conversation wont go anywhere. One of us (you) are basing arguments on opinion and emotion while the other (me) is basing on facts. You dont know enough, that has been made painfully obvious. Also use your brain, what supposed environment would allow for people in the same exact conditions to become light to the point of looking like a mullatto and others in the SAME environment to be jet black? The answer is NONE. What you dont seem to get through your thick skull is, before whites ever took one African from Africa, we were enslaving them for CENTURIES. But I have said enough, go start with Keita's latest lecture. I look forward to speaking with you after you have educated yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Jul 22, 2012 10:57:16 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007,
I know some of this is going to be new and hard for you to swallow. You black anglo saxons have a very weird view, but if you do proper research, hopefully this will sink in.
In terms of people of different color in the SAME environment, I wasn't speaking about All of Africa. What I said was, and I quote.
"IF these light skinned people magically evolved in the north like that, with no outside influence, then why the hell do you still have jet black looking egyptians in the SAME areas?"
So, you talking about the entire continent of Africa, once again has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed. In upper egypt for example, you can find, light, dark and mullatto looking people. Evolution doesn't explain that, admixture does. As I said before, you don't know enough about history to have this conversation intelligently, hence your sophomoric rebuttal.
In terms of African enslaving Europeans or none Africans, again you need to do research. Its a FACT. Although I am no fan of his biased work, Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise and Fall of Egypt talks about the slave trade they initiated around the 4th dynasty, where in they imported "Eurasians" into Kemet. This slave trade continued up until the last dynasty. We also saw this slave trade from 700 A.D. to about 1600 A.D. under the "moors". A good book for you to read is Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters by R. Davis. He only looks at a small part of this slave trade, from the 1500s onward or so. He ignores the earlier slave trade. You should also do research on the Barbary Slave Trade. Go to amazon and look up books on barbary slave trade, and the above mentioned topics and read MULTIPLE books on the subject from various authors. Also search jstor for different research articles. You are also going to have to learn who and what the original North Africans were before this slave trade, and then you will start to get the picture. If that is to much work for you (which I assume it will be), then don't worry about it. Also, you should go read all of Diop's books, he has mentioned this slave trade in Kemet.
As to Keita, for this video lets start at around 4:00 when he talks about Y Chromosomal genealogy and history BOTH explaining the people of Africa today.
24:16 he talks about the question of weither or not people of fair-skin and straight hair originate in Africa or not. Frames it in terms of theoretical issue versus historical issue.
27:42 talks about the problem with the mitochondrial DNA and "sex biased migration". Since you don't know enough about history, let me explain what that means. Women being imported into the area, which, again historically we know means enslaved women. Once you start reading more, you will come to understand this dynamic.
around 33:40 talks about how understanding history is important in understanding the peopling.
Around 34:00 talks about fulani and lineages, specifically he is talking about the Y Chromosomal lineage and exceptions to the rule etc.
37:20 talks about one of the Malian Mansas bringing back white women (slaves). Also talks about one of the Kings asking for White women (slaves) in order to allow a moroccan to migrate to his kingdom. He also talks about the importance of understanding history to understand the people of today.
Around 39:00 tells a story about understanding history and how different groups in one area helped to contribute to modern day peoples in Algeria. My point, you have to understand history, which you dont.
Now in this video Starting around 20:25 talks about the limitations of genetics (it is a geneticist talking). Basically he is saying history and what has happened in the past in terms of people moving about, etc. must be used to explain genetic findings.
Around 29:00 Keita talks about a Syrian slave woman being sold to someone in Mali.
Listen closely to around 34:00 when they are going back and forth about peoples. Basically what they are saying is people are not stagnant, they move over time and just relying on DNA to try and show who is who in a given area isn't going to cut it. You have to understand history in terms of migration patters, regardless if that patter is the result of forced migration (slavery) or other wise.
Lastly listen to Keita's comments around 53:00 to the end. He explains that this is not something that can be looked at purely from a one dimensional standpoint as you are trying to do.
Anyway listen, this is getting boring. Do research man, crack books open, actually read them, educate yourself about africa. THEN come back and speak. Other wise you are just allowing your black anglo saxon brain washing to over take you. You don't know enough, humble yourself and accept that.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 22, 2012 22:05:11 GMT -5
How do I get across to you I'm done wasting my time with this discussion and you. Let me see. I know Okay, my work is done here.  Truthteacher2007, I know some of this is going to be new and hard for you to swallow. You black anglo saxons have a very weird view, but if you do proper research, hopefully this will sink in. In terms of people of different color in the SAME environment, I wasn't speaking about All of Africa. What I said was, and I quote. "IF these light skinned people magically evolved in the north like that, with no outside influence, then why the hell do you still have jet black looking egyptians in the SAME areas?" So, you talking about the entire continent of Africa, once again has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed. In upper egypt for example, you can find, light, dark and mullatto looking people. Evolution doesn't explain that, admixture does. As I said before, you don't know enough about history to have this conversation intelligently, hence your sophomoric rebuttal. In terms of African enslaving Europeans or none Africans, again you need to do research. Its a FACT. Although I am no fan of his biased work, Toby Wilkinson's book The Rise and Fall of Egypt talks about the slave trade they initiated around the 4th dynasty, where in they imported "Eurasians" into Kemet. This slave trade continued up until the last dynasty. We also saw this slave trade from 700 A.D. to about 1600 A.D. under the "moors". A good book for you to read is Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters by R. Davis. He only looks at a small part of this slave trade, from the 1500s onward or so. He ignores the earlier slave trade. You should also do research on the Barbary Slave Trade. Go to amazon and look up books on barbary slave trade, and the above mentioned topics and read MULTIPLE books on the subject from various authors. Also search jstor for different research articles. You are also going to have to learn who and what the original North Africans were before this slave trade, and then you will start to get the picture. If that is to much work for you (which I assume it will be), then don't worry about it. Also, you should go read all of Diop's books, he has mentioned this slave trade in Kemet. As to Keita, for this video lets start at around 4:00 when he talks about Y Chromosomal genealogy and history BOTH explaining the people of Africa today. 24:16 he talks about the question of weither or not people of fair-skin and straight hair originate in Africa or not. Frames it in terms of theoretical issue versus historical issue. 27:42 talks about the problem with the mitochondrial DNA and "sex biased migration". Since you don't know enough about history, let me explain what that means. Women being imported into the area, which, again historically we know means enslaved women. Once you start reading more, you will come to understand this dynamic. around 33:40 talks about how understanding history is important in understanding the peopling. Around 34:00 talks about fulani and lineages, specifically he is talking about the Y Chromosomal lineage and exceptions to the rule etc. 37:20 talks about one of the Malian Mansas bringing back white women (slaves). Also talks about one of the Kings asking for White women (slaves) in order to allow a moroccan to migrate to his kingdom. He also talks about the importance of understanding history to understand the people of today. Around 39:00 tells a story about understanding history and how different groups in one area helped to contribute to modern day peoples in Algeria. My point, you have to understand history, which you dont. Now in this video Starting around 20:25 talks about the limitations of genetics (it is a geneticist talking). Basically he is saying history and what has happened in the past in terms of people moving about, etc. must be used to explain genetic findings. Around 29:00 Keita talks about a Syrian slave woman being sold to someone in Mali. Listen closely to around 34:00 when they are going back and forth about peoples. Basically what they are saying is people are not stagnant, they move over time and just relying on DNA to try and show who is who in a given area isn't going to cut it. You have to understand history in terms of migration patters, regardless if that patter is the result of forced migration (slavery) or other wise. Lastly listen to Keita's comments around 53:00 to the end. He explains that this is not something that can be looked at purely from a one dimensional standpoint as you are trying to do. Anyway listen, this is getting boring. Do research man, crack books open, actually read them, educate yourself about africa. THEN come back and speak. Other wise you are just allowing your black anglo saxon brain washing to over take you. You don't know enough, humble yourself and accept that. |
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 23, 2012 11:18:28 GMT -5
@ mendeman. How is it that in South Africa we have people as light as the Bushman and other people dark like Shona and Zulu?
How is it that in Congo there are Pygmies that are much lighter than their Bantu speaking farming neighbors?
How is it that in Southern Ethiopia you we have almost reddish Omotic speakers living right next to Nearly Pitch Black Nilo-Saharan folks?
The argument you are making is very very simplistic. There is no reason to believable that in Egypt there will not be different skin tones among the natives. Even natives of the SAME family.
On the globe about a 5th of Egypt sits directly in the tropics. This is about half of Egyptian Nubia. These people will be notably darker than AFRICANS living in the Delta. The Egyptian state was made up of many different African folks coming from many different regions. Saharans, Nilotics, People from the Western Desert, the Beja type folks in the Eastern Desert......who supposedly are the ancestors of Pan Grave people. All these people do not look the same and have different skin tones and body shapes. If you can get Africans that are pitch black to medium brown in nearly ANY Sub Saharan country, there is no reason to believe you cannot find NATIVE Africans that are Pitch black to medium brown and even LIGHT brown in a country that spans the tropics AND the Mediterranean region. Also take note that all these AFRICANS did not populate Egypt at the same period. There were events in Egypt that added a FRESH INFLUX of Africans from different Areas. The Bantu Expansion is the different between Zulu and Bushman living in the Same area. Take note that Bushmen in South Africa have intermediate limbs. Unlike the Zulu and other Bantu speakers that have not adapted to that non-tropical climate.
The difference between different skin times could be based on region as well as different ORIGINS of the Africans in question.
Africans have skin tone variation for the same reason they have cranial variation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Jul 24, 2012 8:51:46 GMT -5
@ mendeman. How is it that in South Africa we have people as light as the Bushman and other people dark like Shona and Zulu? How is it that in Congo there are Pygmies that are much lighter than their Bantu speaking farming neighbors? How is it that in Southern Ethiopia you we have almost reddish Omotic speakers living right next to Nearly Pitch Black Nilo-Saharan folks? The argument you are making is very very simplistic. There is no reason to believable that in Egypt there will not be different skin tones among the natives. Even natives of the SAME family. On the globe about a 5th of Egypt sits directly in the tropics. This is about half of Egyptian Nubia. These people will be notably darker than AFRICANS living in the Delta. The Egyptian state was made up of many different African folks coming from many different regions. Saharans, Nilotics, People from the Western Desert, the Beja type folks in the Eastern Desert......who supposedly are the ancestors of Pan Grave people. All these people do not look the same and have different skin tones and body shapes. If you can get Africans that are pitch black to medium brown in nearly ANY Sub Saharan country, there is no reason to believe you cannot find NATIVE Africans that are Pitch black to medium brown and even LIGHT brown in a country that spans the tropics AND the Mediterranean region. Also take note that all these AFRICANS did not populate Egypt at the same period. There were events in Egypt that added a FRESH INFLUX of Africans from different Areas. The Bantu Expansion is the different between Zulu and Bushman living in the Same area. Take note that Bushmen in South Africa have intermediate limbs. Unlike the Zulu and other Bantu speakers that have not adapted to that non-tropical climate. The difference between different skin times could be based on region as well as different ORIGINS of the Africans in question. Africans have skin tone variation for the same reason they have cranial variation. Where to begin You asked about Shona, Zulu, Khoi etc and how they all look different yet live in the same area. What in the hell does this have to do with what I am talking about? Just in case you didn't catch it (which you didn't) the conversation is talking about Arab Egyptian and black Anglo Saxons who claim they are indigenous to the area or developed there via evolution. THAT is the discussion. You on the other hand are talking about people who did not originate in the areas they are in now, and did not "develop" together in the same circumstances. For example Bantus came from the north, Khoi San came from the east etc. etc. this might help you understand a bit LISTEN to what she is saying, PEOPLE MIGRATE. The THEORY of evolution can not explain how people in the same exact area, under the same exact geographical conditions can look VASTLY different. Evolution DOESNT explain that, but mixing does. People had the ability to move back then just as they do today. Africans brought in non african slaves, so there is nothing to say that this importation contributed to the light skin etc. Again, we have to do research, not just pull unsubstantiated opinions out of our back sides. You know what, im repeating myself. Take your time and re-look at everything that has been said in this thread. LOOK AND LISTEN to the videos posted, then try very hard to use your brain. If you still have the same understanding of the conversation that you do now, then don't worry about it, this conversation may be to advanced for you. |
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2012 8:52:54 GMT -5
@ mendeman. How is it that in South Africa we have people as light as the Bushman and other people dark like Shona and Zulu? How is it that in Congo there are Pygmies that are much lighter than their Bantu speaking farming neighbors? How is it that in Southern Ethiopia you we have almost reddish Omotic speakers living right next to Nearly Pitch Black Nilo-Saharan folks? The argument you are making is very very simplistic. There is no reason to believable that in Egypt there will not be different skin tones among the natives. Even natives of the SAME family. On the globe about a 5th of Egypt sits directly in the tropics. This is about half of Egyptian Nubia. These people will be notably darker than AFRICANS living in the Delta. The Egyptian state was made up of many different African folks coming from many different regions. Saharans, Nilotics, People from the Western Desert, the Beja type folks in the Eastern Desert......who supposedly are the ancestors of Pan Grave people. All these people do not look the same and have different skin tones and body shapes. If you can get Africans that are pitch black to medium brown in nearly ANY Sub Saharan country, there is no reason to believe you cannot find NATIVE Africans that are Pitch black to medium brown and even LIGHT brown in a country that spans the tropics AND the Mediterranean region. Also take note that all these AFRICANS did not populate Egypt at the same period. There were events in Egypt that added a FRESH INFLUX of Africans from different Areas. The Bantu Expansion is the different between Zulu and Bushman living in the Same area. Take note that Bushmen in South Africa have intermediate limbs. Unlike the Zulu and other Bantu speakers that have not adapted to that non-tropical climate. The difference between different skin times could be based on region as well as different ORIGINS of the Africans in question. Africans have skin tone variation for the same reason they have cranial variation. This is a silly argument. Its the same as asking a European who lacks melanin in the skin why do some members of the same family have different hair colors; or why do Afro-Americans in the same family appear to be dark, while others are light, this is just natural variety. This whole thing about evolution as the reason why some people are light and others are dark lacks any foundation as proven by the Eskimos. The Eskimos live in the Arctic but they are still darker than Europeans. Cranial variation among Africans is the result diet. Yet even though this exist physical anthropological can still tell the difference between the skull of a negro and the skull of a caucasian. |
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2012 9:00:04 GMT -5
Mike 111 made a very interesting post which is germane to this discussion at Egyptsearch. I wiil post the comment below.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 24, 2012 14:27:17 GMT -5
@ mendeman. How is it that in South Africa we have people as light as the Bushman and other people dark like Shona and Zulu? How is it that in Congo there are Pygmies that are much lighter than their Bantu speaking farming neighbors? How is it that in Southern Ethiopia you we have almost reddish Omotic speakers living right next to Nearly Pitch Black Nilo-Saharan folks? The argument you are making is very very simplistic. There is no reason to believable that in Egypt there will not be different skin tones among the natives. Even natives of the SAME family. On the globe about a 5th of Egypt sits directly in the tropics. This is about half of Egyptian Nubia. These people will be notably darker than AFRICANS living in the Delta. The Egyptian state was made up of many different African folks coming from many different regions. Saharans, Nilotics, People from the Western Desert, the Beja type folks in the Eastern Desert......who supposedly are the ancestors of Pan Grave people. All these people do not look the same and have different skin tones and body shapes. If you can get Africans that are pitch black to medium brown in nearly ANY Sub Saharan country, there is no reason to believe you cannot find NATIVE Africans that are Pitch black to medium brown and even LIGHT brown in a country that spans the tropics AND the Mediterranean region. Also take note that all these AFRICANS did not populate Egypt at the same period. There were events in Egypt that added a FRESH INFLUX of Africans from different Areas. The Bantu Expansion is the different between Zulu and Bushman living in the Same area. Take note that Bushmen in South Africa have intermediate limbs. Unlike the Zulu and other Bantu speakers that have not adapted to that non-tropical climate. The difference between different skin times could be based on region as well as different ORIGINS of the Africans in question. Africans have skin tone variation for the same reason they have cranial variation. This is a silly argument. Its the same as asking a European who lacks melanin in the skin why do some members of the same family have different hair colors; or why do Afro-Americans in the same family appear to be dark, while others are light, this is just natural variety. This whole thing about evolution as the reason why some people are light and others are dark lacks any foundation as proven by the Eskimos. The Eskimos live in the Arctic but they are still darker than Europeans. Cranial variation among Africans is the result diet. Yet even though this exist physical anthropological can still tell the difference between the skull of a negro and the skull of a caucasian. This is weaksauce. You in fact answered the question of Mendeman. Nearly all your hypothesis are faulty because of your very narrow range of thinking. The color of the Eskimos can be explained somewhat by their diet but more importantly by the fact that they have not been living in that area for 10's of thousands of years. The Eskimo's are not FULLY adapted to that area for the same reason that American Indians living on the Equator dont have tropical limbs and dark skin.....Lack of time depth in their respective location. Here is an image of different food producing peoples and technology - Some of which went into Egypt around 3500BC  Its obvious that these different Africans come from different regions and would not all look the same, in skin tone, facial bone morphology or skeleton. Looking at the Paternal and Maternal makeup of people in the Nile valley The AFRICAN SPECIFIC lineages : E-M2, E-M35, E-M78, E-V6, V-88, A3b2, B2a, E2a, E1a, - indictate MIGRATION OR DISBURSEMENT from very different regions where the people in the respective areas are quite different. Even on top of that, you speak of Diet but fail to note there are two major groups that populate Egypt, those from the Sahara that survive mainly of Cattle with the addition of Sudanic crops and the others that are mainly very successful agriculturalists. Here is ONE Image where the Egyptian pictograph for "FACE" is the simalr to the modal skin tone of many south African Click speakers:  I dont know what beef you have with Keita but there is no reason to troll and stram man attack him because he is not really stating what you are arguing against. Its quite pitiful. |
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2012 20:49:18 GMT -5
I dont know what beef you have with Keita but there is no reason to troll and stram man attack him because he is not really stating what you are arguing against. Its quite pitiful. Why do I have to have a beef with Keita because I just noting he has changed his views on ancient Egypt? The question remains has he or has he not changed his views? Let's review his statements. In 1996, in Egypt in Africa he made it clear that "The information from living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millenia and it seems to have far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. Subtantial 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 generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years". In 1996, he felt that Sub-Saharan Africans represented the ancient Egyptian type. Keita wrote in 1996, ”The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt ‘Ethiopians’.Were the Egyptians more related to any of these ‘Ethiopians’ than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all ‘Ethiopians’ in Greek terms”. These populations are all Sub-Saharan Africans.In 2008 Keita wrote: In this passage he claims that the modern Egyptian population represents the ancient egyptian population eventhogh in 1996 he observed "The information from living Egyptian population may not be as useful” . A comparison of Keita’s 1996 and 2008 statements indicate that he has moved from his view in 1996, that the ancient Egyptians were ‘Ethiopians’/black faced like “Somalis, Kushites and Nubians all Ethiopians’, to his present view the ‘primacy of African influence” which suggest other populations played a role in the rise of ancient Egypt. Answer this question has Keita changed his view? . |
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 25, 2012 8:09:32 GMT -5
@ Clyde Clyde - Notice he says THE DIVERSITY STILL EXISTS! EVen some years ago he said the "Southern Egyptian to Nubian color" would be the modal color for MOST of the country" The Egyptian "type" being similar to "Ethiopians" in "Greek speak' is not mutually exclusive to other non-African types being present inside of Egypt regardless of how small they may be. You can read it, as well as the context below. i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb178/beyoku/5.png There you have it. Foreign groups inside Egypt as early as the middle Kingdom. Some of these people were of course absorbed. This would add to the DIVERSITY of Egypt. The demographic shift of certain groups being more representative NOW than they were in the past is a different argument all together but does not disagree with the words from Keita. Are you telling me Egyptians adopted loan word for agriculture and cattle, Sudanic Crops and possible religious ideas from Nilo-Saharans but these Nilo-Saharans did not contribute ONE individual to the peopling of Egypt? Likewise Egyptians adopted Wheat, Barley, peas, Lentils, Sheep, Goats, Flax, etc from South West Asians but these south West Asians did not contribute ONE PERSON to the peopling of Egypt? Have you been able to research and understand the Genetic studies that date African and Non-African lineages in North and North East Africa? And I am NOT even talking about M1 and U6. Have you even read the results of ANCIENT DNA studies on the area? Could it be possible that Keita has access to bits of information that you do not? I MYSELF have access to data that you do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 26, 2012 11:42:21 GMT -5
Could you please tell me what items you're referring to? Thanks in advance, Arara The haplogroups are U6,R1, and M1. . |
|
