|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 1:02:39 GMT -5
Physical diversity does exist. But race, as defined by humans belonging to separate and distinct species. Science shows that this does not exist. All humans on this planet are members of the same species, however, we have evolved different physical characteristics depending on adaptations to the environments our ancestors lived in. The genetic profile of modern Egyptians shows that they originated on the continent. The belong to the E group which is the group that most Africans belong to. Further more, many Egyptians belong to a sub group of E that is specific to Egypt itself and is found in very low frequencies outside of the region, so how could they be foreigners? As for the statement on diversity. If you go to the Museum in Cairo and you look at the statuary from the Old Kingdom, you will see that there was quite a bit of diversity already there. Skin tones ranged from light brown to dark brown, hair form from kinky to straight, noses from narrow and high, to flat and low, lips from thin to full. YOu will see in the Old kingdom faces that are consistent with the faces you still see on the street. So although there has been migration into the country, it was not enough to create a uniformity and irradicate the diversity that was always there. Lets not forget the fact also that when we speak of Ancient Egypt, we are not speaking about something that was static and isolated. We are talking about a 3,000 year period of history. Within those 3,000 years all different types of people found their way into Egypt for one reason or another. Therefore, at any give point in ints history after the formation of the unified state, it would not have been odd to see people of non Egyptian origins walking its streets. People who came there as slaves and servants, traders, dilpomats what have you. And of course some of these people would have settled amongs the native and adopted the culture and way of life, as is reflected in the Bible by the story of Joseph. All these things happened. So rather than basing your ideas on what Egypt was strictly on cartoons, the context of which you don't know because you can't read the language, broaden you min d to understand the complexity of the society. If whites were so common in ancient Egypt why don't we see them depicted in Egyptian art before 1200 BC? . I already answered this question, but since you obviously didn't read it, I'll repeat it... in a little more detail. #1: Understand what those tomb painting/cartoons were. They were not meant to be art in the conventional manner. They had a spiritual function. They represented the world to come. To make a picture, or to write words was to create those things in the next world. #2: The tomb paintings in the early periods depicted men as being dark skinned, however, the women are almost always depicted as being beige or yellow in complexion. So are we supposed to take these as being litteral depictions of the population? What place in the world do you know of where the men are all dark, but the women are all light skinned? #3: Looking at the cartoons, ot iconography if you will, have you noticed that they never depict old people? The handicapped? Over weight people? Do you seriously believe that this means all Egypians were eternally youthfull and in perfect physical shape? The reason for this goes back to point #1. Those picyures, (which were never meant to be seen), were meant to magically create a paradise in the next world for the owner of the tomb. Therefore, no imperfections were ever shown, only an idealic representation of the world as they wanted it to be. Men were shown as dark, why? It was a convention. Not a literal representation. These weren't meant to be portraits. Obviously the dark skinned man was considered the ideal of beauty and so everyone was epicted as being the dark skinned, aethletic, verile man. In our own society the media has idealized the blue eyed blond with the rail thin figure. If people dug up a copy of a Vogue magazine from 1970 2,000 years from now, would it be an accurate reflection of what the average American woman looked like? No it wouldn't would it? #4: Although the tomb paintings show men dark skinned, the statues from the Old Kingdom show Egyptians more realistically and displaying a variety of skin colors. Google search, "The Scribe". He is relatively light complected and has a striking resemblance to Modern Egyptian actor Adel Immam, (goole search him). There are several other statues that depict light complected individuals both male and female. Other evidence: actual physical remains. The earliest mummies from the predynastic era, the most famous being "Ginger", (google search it), is very well preserved and shows an individual who was light complected. Therefore, taken as a whole, physical remains, paintings, statuary, the Egyptians of old, just as today, displayed a variety of facial features and skin colors.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 1:28:05 GMT -5
Physical diversity does exist. But race, as defined by humans belonging to separate and distinct species. Science shows that this does not exist. All humans on this planet are members of the same species, however, we have evolved different physical characteristics depending on adaptations to the environments our ancestors lived in. The genetic profile of modern Egyptians shows that they originated on the continent. The belong to the E group which is the group that most Africans belong to. Further more, many Egyptians belong to a sub group of E that is specific to Egypt itself and is found in very low frequencies outside of the region, so how could they be foreigners? As for the statement on diversity. If you go to the Museum in Cairo and you look at the statuary from the Old Kingdom, you will see that there was quite a bit of diversity already there. Skin tones ranged from light brown to dark brown, hair form from kinky to straight, noses from narrow and high, to flat and low, lips from thin to full. YOu will see in the Old kingdom faces that are consistent with the faces you still see on the street. So although there has been migration into the country, it was not enough to create a uniformity and irradicate the diversity that was always there. Lets not forget the fact also that when we speak of Ancient Egypt, we are not speaking about something that was static and isolated. We are talking about a 3,000 year period of history. Within those 3,000 years all different types of people found their way into Egypt for one reason or another. Therefore, at any give point in ints history after the formation of the unified state, it would not have been odd to see people of non Egyptian origins walking its streets. People who came there as slaves and servants, traders, dilpomats what have you. And of course some of these people would have settled amongs the native and adopted the culture and way of life, as is reflected in the Bible by the story of Joseph. All these things happened. So rather than basing your ideas on what Egypt was strictly on cartoons, the context of which you don't know because you can't read the language, broaden you min d to understand the complexity of the society. I am basing my conclusion on Egyptian iconography not 'cartoons'. This iconography does not present any examples of Europeans in ancient Egypt. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ??Can I ask a question? Where in any of his writings or in the video that you posted did Keita say anything about Europeans being in early Egypt? The only discussion of ancient Egyptian DNA was by DNA Tribes. This information relating to king Tut is noteworty. ![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XdY3E3uOsgw/TvzM6u5OgzI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/_pCkKg3r86M/s1600/dnatribes.jpg) It shows that Egypt was a multiethnic societies made up of many different African groups. . And that my friend is the point that Keita is making. Europeans do not have a monopoly on light skin. There is no reason why those features could not have evolved right there in Africa. Light skinned Africans are still Africans. Light skinned Afro Americans are still people of African descent. Most Afro Americans are infact hybrids, a mixture of African, European and Native American. Depending on the individual, their genetic profile can be primarily European, even though the society regards them as African. Are you going to tell me that Adam Clayton Powel, W.E.B. Duboise and Walter white, Leena Horn(google search them-pictures), were not part of the African family? Seriously, can you answer this question? I'm sure your answer is yes they are, regardless of what they look like. So why then do people get their titties all twisted and are incapable of understanding that Egyptians, regardless of color or degree of mixture, are still part of the African family as well? Especially, when unlike us, they never left the continent? Egypt received its FOUNDING population from several different African ethnic groups and guess what? Some of those Africans were lighter complexion. What's so hard to understand? Guess what again, over the course of its history Ancient Egypt, at the height of its power, absorbed non Africans who were either brought there by force, or who volunterily went there looking for work and food. Its a fact. If you could read the captions on some of those cartoons you're so found of you would know this. Actually, I ya just picked up any history book you'd know this. As to why Egyptians never depicted lighter skinned peoples like the Berbers and Asiatics? Because, in a nut shell, Egypt didn't give two squats about the peoples on their northern boarders. They were more concerned with affairs in Egypt itself and the southern regions. It wasn't till historical events forced them to pay attention to those people that we see them establishing their influence into the Levant. It doesn't mean these people suddenly magicall appeared one day. Or do you ascribe to the belief that light skinned people were created by an evil black scientist in a laboratory?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 1:41:14 GMT -5
::)Have you actually been to Egypt and taken a good look at those people? They ain't white by any stretch of the immagination. Although there are many individuals who can pass as Europeans, they are a minority and it is the generally accepted consensus amongst Egyptians that such people are of foreign origin, either Turk, Albanian, Circasian, Armenian, Greek, Italian etc. The overwhelming majority of the population looks nothing like this. What do they look like? They look like Afro Brazilians or "mulatto" Dominicans. In other words, they tend on the whole to be a light brown, tawny complexion. However, as much as 50% of the population is very dark and you can see this from Alexandria to Aswan. If the average Egyptians were to have visited the USA in the 1950 they would have been subjected to the restrictions of Jim Crow, so where in the hell do you get this idea that Modern Egyptians are white. They ain't. It is obvious to everyone that they are people of color, non white, regardless of whatever anthropologist who insists on calling people caucasians when people in the USA that look like that are still called niggers? Give me a brake! There is no difference between Keita's theory of continuity between ancient and modern Egyptian populations than that of Frank Yurco. Here is the key Yurco statement: "...a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"Here is the key Keita statement: The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations The statement of Keita is just about the same as Yurco's. . Keita supports the Eurocentric view that the same population in North Africa today has characterized North Africa since pre-Egyptian times; and that Egypt was a multiracial society that contained 'white' people. This is why many trolls claim posters who support Keita can't read. .
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 1:50:50 GMT -5
Keita supports the Eurocentric view that the same population in North Africa today has characterized North Africa since pre-Egyptian times; and that Egypt was a multiracial society that contained 'white' people. This is why many trolls claim posters who support Keita can't read. . My friend, the only one who has a reading comprehension problem here is you apparently. Can you show me anywhere where Keita states that the native population was "multi racial" ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) He has shown that those so called "white people" are genetically related to "black Africans". They are of the same bloodline, therefore the notions of race that we live with are invalid. These people are not different races, they are different branches of the same African family. Now if you can accept a white skinned straight haired person as still being black, why is it so hard to believe that people who looked that way could also be found in Egypt as well and that they too were Africans. Explain that to me. Or is this really about some light skin vs dark skin complex?
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Jul 18, 2012 8:06:16 GMT -5
@ clydewin98 - You are confusing Origin with Admixture. It does not matter how that population looks, the base of the population has an origin inside of Africa. Please explain the Autochthonous presence of E-M81 among most of these males? Usually around 80% but found at 100% in some Tunisian Berbers. Is this subclade of E1b1b of Vandal Germanic origin? Does it have any type of frequency among Germanic speaking peoples in Europe? How can the invasion of Vandals and Arabs replace a the male populations Y-chromosome with one that is just as African as whatever is being replaced? Its like you are clueless of all the scientific tools that have been given to you over the last 15 years.
Diop had a lot of things at his disposal, what he did NOT have is DNA Evidence. Plus he is ONE man, HE CAN BE WRONG!. He had theories of Admixture in 18 Dynasty. According to the DNA evidence you posted that is unlikely. And that DNA evidence does not necessarily state Egypt was multi-Ethnic in the African sense.............That is probably a true statement but this data does not support it. Just as the data does not support immigration from AMERICA even when these samples have "American" matches.
Do your research,"Libu" and "Tehenu" and other populations in Southern Libya, they come from totally different African "Stocks" than what would be in reference to the ancestors of Ancient Berbers. It is the difference of mainly Nilo-Saharan Africans that inhabited most of the Sahara Desert vs NON-Nilo Saharan Africans, descending from the Horn of Africa, north through the red sea coast and West into the Maghreb.
In Europe, looking at Ancient DNA there is mostly an absence of R1b1b and Mtdna H. What ever recent Even that made Mtdna H the most frequent lineage in Europe probably is the same event that made it very frequent in North Africa. The Argument should be WHEN did this event occur in North Africa and how responsible can it be for the phenotype of those in the Maghreb.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 18, 2012 21:08:03 GMT -5
@ clydewin98 - You are confusing Origin with Admixture. It does not matter how that population looks, the base of the population has an origin inside of Africa. Please explain the Autochthonous presence of E-M81 among most of these males? Usually around 80% but found at 100% in some Tunisian Berbers. Is this subclade of E1b1b of Vandal Germanic origin? Does it have any type of frequency among Germanic speaking peoples in Europe? How can the invasion of Vandals and Arabs replace a the male populations Y-chromosome with one that is just as African as whatever is being replaced? Its like you are clueless of all the scientific tools that have been given to you over the last 15 years. Diop had a lot of things at his disposal, what he did NOT have is DNA Evidence. Plus he is ONE man, HE CAN BE WRONG!. He had theories of Admixture in 18 Dynasty. According to the DNA evidence you posted that is unlikely. And that DNA evidence does not necessarily state Egypt was multi-Ethnic in the African sense.............That is probably a true statement but this data does not support it. Just as the data does not support immigration from AMERICA even when these samples have "American" matches. Do your research,"Libu" and "Tehenu" and other populations in Southern Libya, they come from totally different African "Stocks" than what would be in reference to the ancestors of Ancient Berbers. It is the difference of mainly Nilo-Saharan Africans that inhabited most of the Sahara Desert vs NON-Nilo Saharan Africans, descending from the Horn of Africa, north through the red sea coast and West into the Maghreb. In Europe, looking at Ancient DNA there is mostly an absence of R1b1b and Mtdna H. What ever recent Even that made Mtdna H the most frequent lineage in Europe probably is the same event that made it very frequent in North Africa. The Argument should be WHEN did this event occur in North Africa and how responsible can it be for the phenotype of those in the Maghreb. Phenotype is important. All populations carry genes descendant from Africans. These genes originated in Africa, may it be haplogroup R or haplogroup M1. As a result it is the phenotype that makes the difference. Anyway none of this matters. We are discussing the change in keita's opinion relating to the founding of Egypt. 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” . We see Keita has moved from his view in 1996, that the ancient Egyptians were ‘Ethiopians’/black faced like “Somalis, Kushites and Nubians all Ethiopians’, to the ‘primacy of African influence” in the rise of ancient Egypt. This proves that Keita has changed his views on the population that made up ancient Egypt.I have never put words in Keita's mouth. I just read and interpreted his writings. His research is no more significant than any other mainstream Egyptologists, as I pointed out with the Yurco quote. Here is the key Yurco statement: "...a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"Here is the key Keita statement: The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations The statement of Keita is just about the same as Yurco's. .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 18, 2012 21:29:19 GMT -5
I am basing my conclusion on Egyptian iconography not 'cartoons'. This iconography does not present any examples of Europeans in ancient Egypt. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ??Can I ask a question? Where in any of his writings or in the video that you posted did Keita say anything about Europeans being in early Egypt? The only discussion of ancient Egyptian DNA was by DNA Tribes. This information relating to king Tut is noteworty. ![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XdY3E3uOsgw/TvzM6u5OgzI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/_pCkKg3r86M/s1600/dnatribes.jpg) It shows that Egypt was a multiethnic societies made up of many different African groups. . And that my friend is the point that Keita is making. Europeans do not have a monopoly on light skin. There is no reason why those features could not have evolved right there in Africa. Light skinned Africans are still Africans. Light skinned Afro Americans are still people of African descent. Most Afro Americans are infact hybrids, a mixture of African, European and Native American. Depending on the individual, their genetic profile can be primarily European, even though the society regards them as African. Are you going to tell me that Adam Clayton Powel, W.E.B. Duboise and Walter white, Leena Horn(google search them-pictures), were not part of the African family? Seriously, can you answer this question? I'm sure your answer is yes they are, regardless of what they look like. So why then do people get their titties all twisted and are incapable of understanding that Egyptians, regardless of color or degree of mixture, are still part of the African family as well? Especially, when unlike us, they never left the continent? Egypt received its FOUNDING population from several different African ethnic groups and guess what? Some of those Africans were lighter complexion. What's so hard to understand? Guess what again, over the course of its history Ancient Egypt, at the height of its power, absorbed non Africans who were either brought there by force, or who volunterily went there looking for work and food. Its a fact. If you could read the captions on some of those cartoons you're so found of you would know this. Actually, I ya just picked up any history book you'd know this. As to why Egyptians never depicted lighter skinned peoples like the Berbers and Asiatics? Because, in a nut shell, Egypt didn't give two squats about the peoples on their northern boarders. They were more concerned with affairs in Egypt itself and the southern regions. It wasn't till historical events forced them to pay attention to those people that we see them establishing their influence into the Levant. It doesn't mean these people suddenly magicall appeared one day. Or do you ascribe to the belief that light skinned people were created by an evil black scientist in a laboratory? No I do not believe whites were created by a scientist. I believe blacks went into caves and lost their ability to produce melanin in the skin. LOL. Granted Europeans and Africans share many of the same physical features: thin , lips, and straight hair. But, light skinned Blacks and white Europeans do not have the same complexion. Keita is specifically talking about the Amazigh. The Amazigh look like white Europeans. Below are pictures of the Amazigh. ![](http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/North_Africa/Amazigh.jpg) They do not look like light skin Africans. .
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 18, 2012 21:37:37 GMT -5
I am basing my conclusion on Egyptian iconography not 'cartoons'. This iconography does not present any examples of Europeans in ancient Egypt. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ??Can I ask a question? Where in any of his writings or in the video that you posted did Keita say anything about Europeans being in early Egypt? The only discussion of ancient Egyptian DNA was by DNA Tribes. This information relating to king Tut is noteworty. ![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XdY3E3uOsgw/TvzM6u5OgzI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/_pCkKg3r86M/s1600/dnatribes.jpg) It shows that Egypt was a multiethnic societies made up of many different African groups. . And that my friend is the point that Keita is making. Europeans do not have a monopoly on light skin. There is no reason why those features could not have evolved right there in Africa. Light skinned Africans are still Africans. Light skinned Afro Americans are still people of African descent. Most Afro Americans are infact hybrids, a mixture of African, European and Native American. Depending on the individual, their genetic profile can be primarily European, even though the society regards them as African. Are you going to tell me that Adam Clayton Powel, W.E.B. Duboise and Walter white, Leena Horn(google search them-pictures), were not part of the African family? Seriously, can you answer this question? I'm sure your answer is yes they are, regardless of what they look like. So why then do people get their titties all twisted and are incapable of understanding that Egyptians, regardless of color or degree of mixture, are still part of the African family as well? Especially, when unlike us, they never left the continent? Egypt received its FOUNDING population from several different African ethnic groups and guess what? Some of those Africans were lighter complexion. What's so hard to understand? Guess what again, over the course of its history Ancient Egypt, at the height of its power, absorbed non Africans who were either brought there by force, or who volunterily went there looking for work and food. Its a fact. If you could read the captions on some of those cartoons you're so found of you would know this. Actually, I ya just picked up any history book you'd know this. As to why Egyptians never depicted lighter skinned peoples like the Berbers and Asiatics? Because, in a nut shell, Egypt didn't give two squats about the peoples on their northern boarders. They were more concerned with affairs in Egypt itself and the southern regions. It wasn't till historical events forced them to pay attention to those people that we see them establishing their influence into the Levant. It doesn't mean these people suddenly magicall appeared one day. Or do you ascribe to the belief that light skinned people were created by an evil black scientist in a laboratory? Below is a Tawny contemporary Egyptian ![](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gUaWazRHTLg/0.jpg) The ancient Egyptians did not look like this man. This is why Keita originally did not believe contemporary Egyptians were similar to ancient Egyptians. 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” . We see Keita has moved from his view in 1996, that the ancient Egyptians were ‘Ethiopians’/black faced like “Somalis, Kushites and Nubians all Ethiopians’, to the ‘primacy of African influence” in the rise of ancient Egypt. This proves that Keita has changed his views on the population that made up ancient Egypt..
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 22:03:50 GMT -5
And that my friend is the point that Keita is making. Europeans do not have a monopoly on light skin. There is no reason why those features could not have evolved right there in Africa. Light skinned Africans are still Africans. Light skinned Afro Americans are still people of African descent. Most Afro Americans are infact hybrids, a mixture of African, European and Native American. Depending on the individual, their genetic profile can be primarily European, even though the society regards them as African. Are you going to tell me that Adam Clayton Powel, W.E.B. Duboise and Walter white, Leena Horn(google search them-pictures), were not part of the African family? Seriously, can you answer this question? I'm sure your answer is yes they are, regardless of what they look like. So why then do people get their titties all twisted and are incapable of understanding that Egyptians, regardless of color or degree of mixture, are still part of the African family as well? Especially, when unlike us, they never left the continent? Egypt received its FOUNDING population from several different African ethnic groups and guess what? Some of those Africans were lighter complexion. What's so hard to understand? Guess what again, over the course of its history Ancient Egypt, at the height of its power, absorbed non Africans who were either brought there by force, or who volunterily went there looking for work and food. Its a fact. If you could read the captions on some of those cartoons you're so found of you would know this. Actually, I ya just picked up any history book you'd know this. As to why Egyptians never depicted lighter skinned peoples like the Berbers and Asiatics? Because, in a nut shell, Egypt didn't give two squats about the peoples on their northern boarders. They were more concerned with affairs in Egypt itself and the southern regions. It wasn't till historical events forced them to pay attention to those people that we see them establishing their influence into the Levant. It doesn't mean these people suddenly magicall appeared one day. Or do you ascribe to the belief that light skinned people were created by an evil black scientist in a laboratory? No I do not believe whites were created by a scientist. I believe blacks went into caves and lost their ability to produce melanin in the skin. LOL. Granted Europeans and Africans share many of the same physical features: thin , lips, and straight hair. But, light skinned Blacks and white Europeans do not have the same complexion. Keita is specifically talking about the Amazigh. The Amazigh look like white Europeans. Below are pictures of the Amazigh. ![](http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/North_Africa/Amazigh.jpg) They do not look like light skin Africans. . You've got to be kidding me. Exactly what is a light skinned African supposed to look like? Are you looking at all these people? They all look different. They all have different skin colors and features, they do not all look the same. The reasons for this, in some cases #1: regional evolution. #2: In other cases, the impact of non Africans who were absorbed into those communities. In some cases, its a combination of #1 and #2. What Keita is trying to point out is that the reality of Africa is one of complexity. However, regardless of what they look like, if the majority of their DNA profile brings up haplotypes that are not found outside of Africa, are specific to the exact regions they live in and they share the same common male ancestor with over 73% of all Africans, and they were born in Africa and they speak languages that are not spoken outside of Africa nor are related to any languages outside of Africa, then guess what? THEY ARE AFRICANS. What keeps you from seeing and understanding this is your own personal issues. It has nothing to do with history, culture, genetics or any other science, but your personal insecurities. Therefore, you feel threatened if someone tells you a truth that doesn't match up with your color struck fantasy of an Africa that never was.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 18, 2012 22:27:27 GMT -5
And that my friend is the point that Keita is making. Europeans do not have a monopoly on light skin. There is no reason why those features could not have evolved right there in Africa. Light skinned Africans are still Africans. Light skinned Afro Americans are still people of African descent. Most Afro Americans are infact hybrids, a mixture of African, European and Native American. Depending on the individual, their genetic profile can be primarily European, even though the society regards them as African. Are you going to tell me that Adam Clayton Powel, W.E.B. Duboise and Walter white, Leena Horn(google search them-pictures), were not part of the African family? Seriously, can you answer this question? I'm sure your answer is yes they are, regardless of what they look like. So why then do people get their titties all twisted and are incapable of understanding that Egyptians, regardless of color or degree of mixture, are still part of the African family as well? Especially, when unlike us, they never left the continent? Egypt received its FOUNDING population from several different African ethnic groups and guess what? Some of those Africans were lighter complexion. What's so hard to understand? Guess what again, over the course of its history Ancient Egypt, at the height of its power, absorbed non Africans who were either brought there by force, or who volunterily went there looking for work and food. Its a fact. If you could read the captions on some of those cartoons you're so found of you would know this. Actually, I ya just picked up any history book you'd know this. As to why Egyptians never depicted lighter skinned peoples like the Berbers and Asiatics? Because, in a nut shell, Egypt didn't give two squats about the peoples on their northern boarders. They were more concerned with affairs in Egypt itself and the southern regions. It wasn't till historical events forced them to pay attention to those people that we see them establishing their influence into the Levant. It doesn't mean these people suddenly magicall appeared one day. Or do you ascribe to the belief that light skinned people were created by an evil black scientist in a laboratory? Below is a Tawny contemporary Egyptian ![](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gUaWazRHTLg/0.jpg) The ancient Egyptians did not look like this man. This is why Keita originally did not believe contemporary Egyptians were similar to ancient Egyptians. Any you would kknow this because you were alive back then and did a census right? Not every single Egyptian looked like Zaki, but there were people who did look like him back then. How do I know? Because I've seen statues that resemble him in Egypt. There was no one specific physical type that represented every single Egyptian. They were all different just as they are now. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Egyptians that look like Zaki, only different colors. If you go to Aswan you will find individuals with his features only with very dark skin. If you go to the Delta you will see those features on people with very light skin. When you look at Zaki those features are not Lebanese, Arabian or Palestinian. They're not even Moroccan. That is one of the many faces that is common in Egypt then and now. If you go to Egypt you will find many different features. And when you look at the mummies you see the same thing. Diversity in skin color, facial structure and hair type. Therefore Keita's statement is correct. The kind of diversity that you find today also existed in the past. In Egypt today you will find a significant percentage of the population that is similar in appearances with people all over East Africa. These people are not all Sudanese immigrants or Nubians and they are found in Alexandria all the way don to Aswan. You will also find people who range in color from tawny to light brown or even white, but they have the exact same features as people you find in Aswan and Nubian groups. Many times you see people with very white skin and bright red hair with the tightest afros. They are the same family, the same people. there is nothing that you will find in Egypt now that you wouldn't have seen at some point in antiquity. We can make the argument that back then the percentage of admixed individuals was much smaller than today, but they did exist. The only thing that has changed is the proportions. 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” . We see Keita has moved from his view in 1996, that the ancient Egyptians were ‘Ethiopians’/black faced like “Somalis, Kushites and Nubians all Ethiopians’, to the ‘primacy of African influence” in the rise of ancient Egypt. This proves that Keita has changed his views on the population that made up ancient Egypt..
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 18, 2012 23:48:52 GMT -5
You've got to be kidding me. Exactly what is a light skinned African supposed to look like? Are you looking at all these people? They all look different. They all have different skin colors and features, they do not all look the same. The reasons for this, in some cases #1: regional evolution. #2: In other cases, the impact of non Africans who were absorbed into those communities. In some cases, its a combination of #1 and #2. What Keita is trying to point out is that the reality of Africa is one of complexity. However, regardless of what they look like, if the majority of their DNA profile brings up haplotypes that are not found outside of Africa, are specific to the exact regions they live in and they share the same common male ancestor with over 73% of all Africans, and they were born in Africa and they speak languages that are not spoken outside of Africa nor are related to any languages outside of Africa, then guess what? THEY ARE AFRICANS. What keeps you from seeing and understanding this is your own personal issues. It has nothing to do with history, culture, genetics or any other science, but your personal insecurities. Therefore, you feel threatened if someone tells you a truth that doesn't match up with your color struck fantasy of an Africa that never was. You don't know what you're talking about. My contention is that the Berbers are not native to Africa and as a result, the ancestors of these people were not in Africa when ancient Egypt was founded. lol. You try to say that I base this view on personal opinion. This is false I base it on history. You fail to use reasoning in your view that the Berbers are Africans. History shows Germans invaded Northwest Africa. It is in Northwest Africa that we find the Berbers, who just happen to look like western Europeans. These Berbers speak a language that includes German features. This supports the view the Berbers are recent people to Northwest Africa. Berber Languages The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.
Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69). The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin. .. Amazigh
.
![](http://awaissa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/somalia_somali_nomad_girls.jpg)
Lightskin Somali GirlsAs you can see they don't look alike. . .
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 19, 2012 12:12:50 GMT -5
You've got to be kidding me. Exactly what is a light skinned African supposed to look like? Are you looking at all these people? They all look different. They all have different skin colors and features, they do not all look the same. The reasons for this, in some cases #1: regional evolution. #2: In other cases, the impact of non Africans who were absorbed into those communities. In some cases, its a combination of #1 and #2. What Keita is trying to point out is that the reality of Africa is one of complexity. However, regardless of what they look like, if the majority of their DNA profile brings up haplotypes that are not found outside of Africa, are specific to the exact regions they live in and they share the same common male ancestor with over 73% of all Africans, and they were born in Africa and they speak languages that are not spoken outside of Africa nor are related to any languages outside of Africa, then guess what? THEY ARE AFRICANS. What keeps you from seeing and understanding this is your own personal issues. It has nothing to do with history, culture, genetics or any other science, but your personal insecurities. Therefore, you feel threatened if someone tells you a truth that doesn't match up with your color struck fantasy of an Africa that never was. You don't know what you're talking about. My contention is that the Berbers are not native to Africa and as a result, the ancestors of these people were not in Africa when ancient Egypt was founded. lol. You try to say that I base this view on personal opinion. This is false I base it on history. You fail to use reasoning in your view that the Berbers are Africans. History shows Germans invaded Northwest Africa. It is in Northwest Africa that we find the Berbers, who just happen to look like western Europeans. These Berbers speak a language that includes German features. This supports the view the Berbers are recent people to Northwest Africa. Berber Languages The Berber languages as pointed out by numerous authors is full of vocabulary from other languages. Many Berbers may be descendants of the Vandels (Germanic) speaking people who ruled North Africa and Spain for 400 years. Commenting on this reality Diop in The African Origin of Civilization noted that: “Careful search reveals that German feminine nouns end in t and st. Should we consider that Berbers were influenced by Germans or the referse? This hypothesis could not be rejected a priori, for German tribes in the fifth century overran North Africa vi Spain, and established an empire that they ruled for 400 years….Furthermore, the plural of 50 percent of Berber nouns is formed by adding en, as is the case with feminine nouns in German, while 40 percent form their plural in a, like neuter nouns in Latin.
Since we know the Vandals conquered the country from the Romans, why should we not be more inclined to seek explanations for the Berbers in the direction, both linguistically and in physical appearance: blond hair, blue eyes, etc? But no! Disregarding all these facts, historians decree that there was no Vandal influence and that it would be impossible to attribute anything in Barbary to their occupation” (p.69). The influence of European languages on the Berber languages and the grammar of the Berber languages indicate that the Berbers are probably of European, especially Vandal origin. .. Amazigh
.
![](http://awaissa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/somalia_somali_nomad_girls.jpg)
Lightskin Somali GirlsAs you can see they don't look alike. . . Point #1: Berber is a collective term for the native peoples of North Africa. They do not all look the same. They have a variety of skin tones and facial features. So the picture that you posted, while of a particular Berber, is not representative of all Berbers. However, what DNA data is showing, is that even those blond Berbers, (who are very few in number), share the same paternal DNA with Sudanese, Somalis and Ethiopians. How then could they have originated outside of Africa? If anything, one could say that they were various native communities and that over time they absorbed outsiders. But this type of mixture would not change the fact that they are still Africans. Their DNA is found nowhere else but Africa. How then could they be of European or Asian origin if their haplotypes are not found in Europe or Asia? Point #2: Linguistics. None of the Berber dialects are of European origin. They are part of the Afro Asiatic language groups. If they were of Germanic origins why is it then that they do not speak German? Spanish is spoken all over Latin America. Why? Because it was brought there by Spaniards. English is spoken all over North America and most of the Caribbean. Why? Because the language was brought to these places by the English. So where are the German speaking communities in North Africa? If England, Grance and Spain could transplant their languages across the Atlantic and have it take hold in under 100yrs, why couldn't the Germans do the same in 400yrs? Regarding loan words: This is not indicative of a people's origins. You and I are speaking English are we not? Does this mean that you are not a person of African descent but of English origin? Do you speak any native African language in any capacity and if so, did you grow up speaking it, or did you have to learn it? With regards to the Berbers, as stated before, they are a collection of many different communities. They are not all the same. They have their own dialects and distinct cultures. A Kabyli from Algeria is nothing at all like an Ahwash from Morocco and neither of them are anything like a Tuareg, and the Siwis in Egypt are a whole world of their own still. So before you start talking about ethic groups, perhaps you should take the time to study them first. Just a thought.... Or better yet, I believe we have a member on the forum who is a Berber. He'll tell you everything I just did... I have a lot of respect for Diop. But there is a lot of information we now have that he did not. Point#3: Your picture of a Berber contrasted with Somali girls. What does this prove? I could show you a picture of light skinned Bushmen from the Kalahari who look nothing like Somalis. In fact, except for the hair, they look more like Mongols. Does this mean that the Bushmen originated in Mongolia? Incidentally, you also find many Berber tribes in Morocco with the exact same facial features as Bushmen. All these people are diverse. There have always been peoples of all forms in North Africa as there still are today. Since we're on the topic of Berbers, check out these people and notice all the diversity from skin color to features. Yet they are the same people. It has always been bloodline, language, culture and geography which unites ethnic groups in Africa, not skin color
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 19, 2012 13:39:30 GMT -5
Point #1: Berber is a collective term for the native peoples of North Africa. They do not all look the same. They have a variety of skin tones and facial features. So the picture that you posted, while of a particular Berber, is not representative of all Berbers. However, what DNA data is showing, is that even those blond Berbers, (who are very few in number), share the same paternal DNA with Sudanese, Somalis and Ethiopians. How then could they have originated outside of Africa? If anything, one could say that they were various native communities and that over time they absorbed outsiders. But this type of mixture would not change the fact that they are still Africans. Their DNA is found nowhere else but Africa. How then could they be of European or Asian origin if their haplotypes are not found in Europe or Asia? Point #2: Linguistics. None of the Berber dialects are of European origin. They are part of the Afro Asiatic language groups. If they were of Germanic origins why is it then that they do not speak German? Spanish is spoken all over Latin America. Why? Because it was brought there by Spaniards. English is spoken all over North America and most of the Caribbean. Why? Because the language was brought to these places by the English. So where are the German speaking communities in North Africa? If England, Grance and Spain could transplant their languages across the Atlantic and have it take hold in under 100yrs, why couldn't the Germans do the same in 400yrs? Regarding loan words: This is not indicative of a people's origins. You and I are speaking English are we not? Does this mean that you are not a person of African descent but of English origin? Do you speak any native African language in any capacity and if so, did you grow up speaking it, or did you have to learn it? With regards to the Berbers, as stated before, they are a collection of many different communities. They are not all the same. They have their own dialects and distinct cultures. A Kabyli from Algeria is nothing at all like an Ahwash from Morocco and neither of them are anything like a Tuareg, and the Siwis in Egypt are a whole world of their own still. So before you start talking about ethic groups, perhaps you should take the time to study them first. Just a thought.... Or better yet, I believe we have a member on the forum who is a Berber. He'll tell you everything I just did... I have a lot of respect for Diop. But there is a lot of information we now have that he did not. Point#3: Your picture of a Berber contrasted with Somali girls. What does this prove? I could show you a picture of light skinned Bushmen from the Kalahari who look nothing like Somalis. In fact, except for the hair, they look more like Mongols. Does this mean that the Bushmen originated in Mongolia? Incidentally, you also find many Berber tribes in Morocco with the exact same facial features as Bushmen. All these people are diverse. There have always been peoples of all forms in North Africa as there still are today. Since we're on the topic of Berbers, check out these people and notice all the diversity from skin color to features. Yet they are the same people. It has always been bloodline, language, culture and geography which unites ethnic groups in Africa, not skin color 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
.
![](http://awaissa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/somalia_somali_nomad_girls.jpg)
Lightskin Somali GirlsAs you can see they don't look alike. . . .
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 19, 2012 17:40:51 GMT -5
Point #1: Berber is a collective term for the native peoples of North Africa. They do not all look the same. They have a variety of skin tones and facial features. So the picture that you posted, while of a particular Berber, is not representative of all Berbers. However, what DNA data is showing, is that even those blond Berbers, (who are very few in number), share the same paternal DNA with Sudanese, Somalis and Ethiopians. How then could they have originated outside of Africa? If anything, one could say that they were various native communities and that over time they absorbed outsiders. But this type of mixture would not change the fact that they are still Africans. Their DNA is found nowhere else but Africa. How then could they be of European or Asian origin if their haplotypes are not found in Europe or Asia? Point #2: Linguistics. None of the Berber dialects are of European origin. They are part of the Afro Asiatic language groups. If they were of Germanic origins why is it then that they do not speak German? Spanish is spoken all over Latin America. Why? Because it was brought there by Spaniards. English is spoken all over North America and most of the Caribbean. Why? Because the language was brought to these places by the English. So where are the German speaking communities in North Africa? If England, Grance and Spain could transplant their languages across the Atlantic and have it take hold in under 100yrs, why couldn't the Germans do the same in 400yrs? Regarding loan words: This is not indicative of a people's origins. You and I are speaking English are we not? Does this mean that you are not a person of African descent but of English origin? Do you speak any native African language in any capacity and if so, did you grow up speaking it, or did you have to learn it? With regards to the Berbers, as stated before, they are a collection of many different communities. They are not all the same. They have their own dialects and distinct cultures. A Kabyli from Algeria is nothing at all like an Ahwash from Morocco and neither of them are anything like a Tuareg, and the Siwis in Egypt are a whole world of their own still. So before you start talking about ethic groups, perhaps you should take the time to study them first. Just a thought.... Or better yet, I believe we have a member on the forum who is a Berber. He'll tell you everything I just did... I have a lot of respect for Diop. But there is a lot of information we now have that he did not. Point#3: Your picture of a Berber contrasted with Somali girls. What does this prove? I could show you a picture of light skinned Bushmen from the Kalahari who look nothing like Somalis. In fact, except for the hair, they look more like Mongols. Does this mean that the Bushmen originated in Mongolia? Incidentally, you also find many Berber tribes in Morocco with the exact same facial features as Bushmen. All these people are diverse. There have always been peoples of all forms in North Africa as there still are today. Since we're on the topic of Berbers, check out these people and notice all the diversity from skin color to features. Yet they are the same people. It has always been bloodline, language, culture and geography which unites ethnic groups in Africa, not skin color 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
.
![](http://awaissa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/somalia_somali_nomad_girls.jpg)
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. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) 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.
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Jul 19, 2012 19:41:58 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
.
![](http://awaissa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/somalia_somali_nomad_girls.jpg)
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. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) 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.
|
|