|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Dec 10, 2013 8:32:31 GMT -5
Central Asians, Europeans, etc from conquest (primarily..) And a considerable percentage of Afro Americans are admixed with various Europeans and Native American groups, yet we can still discerne that they are African. While there has been mixture in North Africa, it wasn't as extencive as people think. A lot of what we see there is regional adaptation. The fact that the different Berber groups often have a distinct facial structure one from the other and varying skin tones I think speaks volumes. 9 times out of 10 I can spot the difference between an Egyptian, an Algerian and a Moroccan. They don't all look the same, don't have the same facial structures. Given this reality and the fact that Egyptian depictions showed both pale and dark skinned Lybians, (Berbers), this diversity has been in place for a very, very, very long time. Way before any Phoenician ever set foot on North African soil. As an AA, yes I know and genetics has proven that non-African admixture is not that heavy. Again, I'm not saying they are mixed because of their features, because we all know Africans have the highest genetic diversity. Also, you say the Berbers weren't as mixed up as we think, how so? |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 10, 2013 16:32:33 GMT -5
And a considerable percentage of Afro Americans are admixed with various Europeans and Native American groups, yet we can still discerne that they are African. While there has been mixture in North Africa, it wasn't as extencive as people think. A lot of what we see there is regional adaptation. The fact that the different Berber groups often have a distinct facial structure one from the other and varying skin tones I think speaks volumes. 9 times out of 10 I can spot the difference between an Egyptian, an Algerian and a Moroccan. They don't all look the same, don't have the same facial structures. Given this reality and the fact that Egyptian depictions showed both pale and dark skinned Lybians, (Berbers), this diversity has been in place for a very, very, very long time. Way before any Phoenician ever set foot on North African soil. As an AA, yes I know and genetics has proven that non-African admixture is not that heavy. Again, I'm not saying they are mixed because of their features, because we all know Afrcans have the highest genetic diversity. Also, you say the Berbers weren't as mixed up as we think, how so? From the materials I've viewed, the present population has been in place at least 13,000yrs ago. From looking at the autosomal DNA, the percentage of recent admixture from the middle east decreases the further west you go from Arabia. The percentage of European dna is also low. On the paternal line, the predominant marker is E1b1b which is a native African haplotype. It's found in greatest percentage in Africa and in very small amounts outside of the continent. The Maternal line is U6 which is found in greatest numbers in North West Africa and very small outside of the continent. The other thing to take into consideration is theformation of identity. The majority of the so called Arabs in North Africa are people who have adopted an Arab identity. Meaning that they adopted the language and culture of the conquerors. The other way is by linage. If your father is Arab, you are considered Arab, no matter what your mother was. It would be as if my family claimed a European identity because 100yrs ago we had a European male ancestor. In many ways its no different from the idea that if a peson has 1 African ancestor they are black. Even if it was one African ancestor to 10 European ancestors. The motivation for Berbers to adopt Arab identity? Religion. The coming of Islam. Also wanting to be part of the power elite rather than the subjugated population. Prestige. Claiming descent from an important Arab ancestor, or even better, claiming to be decended from the prophet or his companions. For example, a lot of Black North Africans like to claim descent from Bilal. However, the fact that North African Arabic is very distinct from Arabian dialects, even the dialects of Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean says there is a very strong native impact on the adopted language. Music, dance and other cultural aspects also show a much closer relationship to other African cultures rather than anything European or Arab. But here's the other thing to keep in mind. There are very distinct cultural differences between different Berber groups. They don't speak the same languages, they don't dress the same, they don't have the same music, they don't all look the same. They have always been diverse. They have never been one culture, one people. They have their distinct identities. The term "BERBER" is a misnomer that they do not use to describe themselves. They identify most closely with the name of their ethnic group or as a collective term Amazigh. This video shows the tensions that still exist between those who retain their identity as versus those who have adopted an Arab identity. Its the same scenario we see playing out in Sudan between the Nubians, the South Sudani ethnic groups and the majority that has adopted an Arab identity. |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Dec 11, 2013 16:35:51 GMT -5
As an AA, yes I know and genetics has proven that non-African admixture is not that heavy. Again, I'm not saying they are mixed because of their features, because we all know Afrcans have the highest genetic diversity. Also, you say the Berbers weren't as mixed up as we think, how so? From the materials I've viewed, the present population has been in place at least 13,000yrs ago. From looking at the autosomal DNA, the percentage of recent admixture from the middle east decreases the further west you go from Arabia. The percentage of European dna is also low. On the paternal line, the predominant marker is E1b1b which is a native African haplotype. It's found in greatest percentage in Africa and in very small amounts outside of the continent. The Maternal line is U6 which is found in greatest numbers in North West Africa and very small outside of the continent. The other thing to take into consideration is theformation of identity. The majority of the so called Arabs in North Africa are people who have adopted an Arab identity. Meaning that they adopted the language and culture of the conquerors. The other way is by linage. If your father is Arab, you are considered Arab, no matter what your mother was. It would be as if my family claimed a European identity because 100yrs ago we had a European male ancestor. In many ways its no different from the idea that if a peson has 1 African ancestor they are black. Even if it was one African ancestor to 10 European ancestors. The motivation for Berbers to adopt Arab identity? Religion. The coming of Islam. Also wanting to be part of the power elite rather than the subjugated population. Prestige. Claiming descent from an important Arab ancestor, or even better, claiming to be decended from the prophet or his companions. For example, a lot of Black North Africans like to claim descent from Bilal. However, the fact that North African Arabic is very distinct from Arabian dialects, even the dialects of Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean says there is a very strong native impact on the adopted language. Music, dance and other cultural aspects also show a much closer relationship to other African cultures rather than anything European or Arab. But here's the other thing to keep in mind. There are very distinct cultural differences between different Berber groups. They don't speak the same languages, they don't dress the same, they don't have the same music, they don't all look the same. They have always been diverse. They have never been one culture, one people. They have their distinct identities. The term "BERBER" is a misnomer that they do not use to describe themselves. They identify most closely with the name of their ethnic group or as a collective term Amazigh. This video shows the tensions that still exist between those who retain their identity as versus those who have adopted an Arab identity. Its the same scenario we see playing out in Sudan between the Nubians, the South Sudani ethnic groups and the majority that has adopted an Arab identity. Any more genetic info? I guess I was being a little confusing. I was referring to NA's in general. Aren't NA's closer to the coast more admixed than their southern counterparts? |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Dec 11, 2013 17:23:57 GMT -5
it depends on where you are in the south and on the coast
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 12, 2013 10:00:30 GMT -5
From the materials I've viewed, the present population has been in place at least 13,000yrs ago. From looking at the autosomal DNA, the percentage of recent admixture from the middle east decreases the further west you go from Arabia. The percentage of European dna is also low. On the paternal line, the predominant marker is E1b1b which is a native African haplotype. It's found in greatest percentage in Africa and in very small amounts outside of the continent. The Maternal line is U6 which is found in greatest numbers in North West Africa and very small outside of the continent. The other thing to take into consideration is theformation of identity. The majority of the so called Arabs in North Africa are people who have adopted an Arab identity. Meaning that they adopted the language and culture of the conquerors. The other way is by linage. If your father is Arab, you are considered Arab, no matter what your mother was. It would be as if my family claimed a European identity because 100yrs ago we had a European male ancestor. In many ways its no different from the idea that if a peson has 1 African ancestor they are black. Even if it was one African ancestor to 10 European ancestors. The motivation for Berbers to adopt Arab identity? Religion. The coming of Islam. Also wanting to be part of the power elite rather than the subjugated population. Prestige. Claiming descent from an important Arab ancestor, or even better, claiming to be decended from the prophet or his companions. For example, a lot of Black North Africans like to claim descent from Bilal. However, the fact that North African Arabic is very distinct from Arabian dialects, even the dialects of Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean says there is a very strong native impact on the adopted language. Music, dance and other cultural aspects also show a much closer relationship to other African cultures rather than anything European or Arab. But here's the other thing to keep in mind. There are very distinct cultural differences between different Berber groups. They don't speak the same languages, they don't dress the same, they don't have the same music, they don't all look the same. They have always been diverse. They have never been one culture, one people. They have their distinct identities. The term "BERBER" is a misnomer that they do not use to describe themselves. They identify most closely with the name of their ethnic group or as a collective term Amazigh. This video shows the tensions that still exist between those who retain their identity as versus those who have adopted an Arab identity. Its the same scenario we see playing out in Sudan between the Nubians, the South Sudani ethnic groups and the majority that has adopted an Arab identity. Any more genetic info? I guess I was being a little confusing. I was referring to NA's in general. Aren't NA's closer to the coast more admixed than their southern counterparts? You can't make generalizations. There are some very dark people on the coast, there are some very pale people on the coast. Furthermore, as I stated before, if we look at Egyptian depictions, there were very pale people in NorthAfrica, specifically Lybiya way before the Phoenicians or the Greeks ever settled on the coast. And judging from their dress, the tatoos on their bodies, the feather in their hair, their hair styles, they had more in common with other Africans than they did with Western Asians. So althouth there has been mixture, there isn't any reason to assume that there was so much mixture that it changed the physical appearance of the people. Afro Americans can have significant percentages of European DNA and still not loose their African characteristics. For example, did you know Mohamed Ali's grandfather was Irish? Does he look it? |
|
|
|
Post by anastasiaescrava on Dec 12, 2013 22:42:31 GMT -5
Any more genetic info? I guess I was being a little confusing. I was referring to NA's in general. Aren't NA's closer to the coast more admixed than their southern counterparts? You can't make generalizations. There are some very dark people on the coast, there are some very pale people on the coast. Furthermore, as I stated before, if we look at Egyptian depictions, there were very pale people in NorthAfrica, specifically Lybiya way before the Phoenicians or the Greeks ever settled on the coast. And judging from their dress, the tatoos on their bodies, the feather in their hair, their hair styles, they had more in common with other Africans than they did with Western Asians. So althouth there has been mixture, there isn't any reason to assume that there was so much mixture that it changed the physical appearance of the people. Afro Americans can have significant percentages of European DNA and still not loose their African characteristics. For example, did you know Mohamed Ali's grandfather was Irish? Does he look it? Already knew about MA. I can't say whether he looks like it because I've seen people from different races look like each other. I just got done watching a Kung fu flick and the main character who is Chinese looks like Barack Obama. Although I'm not denying there are still indigenous Berbers at the coast, the terrain further down in Africa made it harder to penetrate, yes? |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Dec 12, 2013 23:15:10 GMT -5
the mountains are very hard terrain to penetrate also
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 13, 2013 13:51:13 GMT -5
You can't make generalizations. There are some very dark people on the coast, there are some very pale people on the coast. Furthermore, as I stated before, if we look at Egyptian depictions, there were very pale people in NorthAfrica, specifically Lybiya way before the Phoenicians or the Greeks ever settled on the coast. And judging from their dress, the tatoos on their bodies, the feather in their hair, their hair styles, they had more in common with other Africans than they did with Western Asians. So althouth there has been mixture, there isn't any reason to assume that there was so much mixture that it changed the physical appearance of the people. Afro Americans can have significant percentages of European DNA and still not loose their African characteristics. For example, did you know Mohamed Ali's grandfather was Irish? Does he look it? Already knew about MA. I can't say whether he looks like it because I've seen people from different races look like each other. I just got done watching a Kung fu flick and the main character who is Chinese looks like Barack Obama. Although I'm not denying there are still indigenous Berbers at the coast, the terrain further down in Africa made it harder to penetrate, yes? To a certain extent terrain did make travel more difficult, but didn't prevent it. I think the main concern was more of being closer to the major trade centers on the coast. But even in the southern regions you still see quite a bit of diversity in physical characteristics, often times, even within one ethnic group. I think in general we need to take into consideration that much of the way in which we conceptualize the African reality was shaped by the colonizers, primarily European. Therefore, we have to reconsider what we use to take for granted. The ways in which we here in the west divide and characterize people doesn't reflect reality. Regardless of what they look like, or why they look the way they do, the fact is they are inherantly African. They were born on the continent, they speak languages restricted to the continent, they have cultures that are unique and found no where else, their style of dance, music, food and even spiritual practices, (that stuff they still do that pre dates Islam) are all African specific. The mixture that exists has to be understood in terms of absorbtion, rather than replacement and that absorbtion had been happenning for a very, very, very long time. It's part of the African story. In Europe we've seen Asiatic people like the Huns, Tartars etc settle in Eastern Europe. A significant portion of Russia is actually in Europe. No one questions the Europeanity of the Poles, Russians or Hungarians. No one ever suggests that they are some how less European than the French or Ukrainians. Why then do so many of us have such a hard time accepting North Africans for being part of the continent as well? |
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Mar 1, 2014 19:26:21 GMT -5
Already knew about MA. I can't say whether he looks like it because I've seen people from different races look like each other. I just got done watching a Kung fu flick and the main character who is Chinese looks like Barack Obama. Although I'm not denying there are still indigenous Berbers at the coast, the terrain further down in Africa made it harder to penetrate, yes? To a certain extent terrain did make travel more difficult, but didn't prevent it. I think the main concern was more of being closer to the major trade centers on the coast. But even in the southern regions you still see quite a bit of diversity in physical characteristics, often times, even within one ethnic group. I think in general we need to take into consideration that much of the way in which we conceptualize the African reality was shaped by the colonizers, primarily European. Therefore, we have to reconsider what we use to take for granted. The ways in which we here in the west divide and characterize people doesn't reflect reality. Regardless of what they look like, or why they look the way they do, the fact is they are inherantly African. They were born on the continent, they speak languages restricted to the continent, they have cultures that are unique and found no where else, their style of dance, music, food and even spiritual practices, (that stuff they still do that pre dates Islam) are all African specific. The mixture that exists has to be understood in terms of absorbtion, rather than replacement and that absorbtion had been happenning for a very, very, very long time. It's part of the African story. In Europe we've seen Asiatic people like the Huns, Tartars etc settle in Eastern Europe. A significant portion of Russia is actually in Europe. No one questions the Europeanity of the Poles, Russians or Hungarians. No one ever suggests that they are some how less European than the French or Ukrainians. Why then do so many of us have such a hard time accepting North Africans for being part of the continent as well? Really? It should be pretty obvious to anybody that people of Slavic descent look radically different from an Anglo-Saxon. And also, the Visigoths aren't the only "white" ethnic group to settle in North Africa either. The Alans (or Alani) were white-asian pastoralist tribe who settled in North Africa with the Vandals in the 5th century. The Byzantines also landed in North Africa in the 6th century. These people were Germanic tribes coming from Asia moving westwards into Europe and then into North Africa.  The largest group of whites who call themselves Berbers/Amazigh or indigenous to NA are the Kabyles. How can people seriously suggest that people looking like this:  are somehow indigenous to NA, when there are still people looking like this:  living in the same general area? This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint at all. Everybody knows that you need melanin to protect yourself from the harmful effects of the sun. We already know that the white invaders of Israel & South Africa suffer from one of the highest rates of melanoma on planet earth today, so they obviously can't be indigenous to their respective countries, which they inhabit.  Tamanrassetites of Algiers. Take Khoisan peoples from south Africa (region, not the country) , they are said to be the oldest group of people still in existence to this day, with the biggest/greatest genetic diversity of all human beings, yet, you don't see any pale-skinned, straight-haired, blonde Khoisan's around. Ever.  A good picture to demonstrate the diversity in skin hues. (I'm Namibian myself, and I haven't seen a lighter skinned San-person to this day) It should be obvious that Kabyles/"Berbers" such as this ![]()    are quadroon/octoroon (or perhaps even more than that) offspring of the original black inhabitants of North Africa & the white people who invaded/settled NA during the course of time. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that these pale-skinned people would survive the MASSIVE uv-radiation in those areas of the world without some kind of environmental protection (i.e more advanced techniques in making clothing etc.) . Pale-skinned peoples even get sunburned during the winter in arctic climates, so suggesting that these people somehow originated in Africa is nothing short of preposterous. It goes completely against nature. |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Mar 2, 2014 0:45:34 GMT -5
To a certain extent terrain did make travel more difficult, but didn't prevent it. I think the main concern was more of being closer to the major trade centers on the coast. But even in the southern regions you still see quite a bit of diversity in physical characteristics, often times, even within one ethnic group. I think in general we need to take into consideration that much of the way in which we conceptualize the African reality was shaped by the colonizers, primarily European. Therefore, we have to reconsider what we use to take for granted. The ways in which we here in the west divide and characterize people doesn't reflect reality. Regardless of what they look like, or why they look the way they do, the fact is they are inherantly African. They were born on the continent, they speak languages restricted to the continent, they have cultures that are unique and found no where else, their style of dance, music, food and even spiritual practices, (that stuff they still do that pre dates Islam) are all African specific. The mixture that exists has to be understood in terms of absorbtion, rather than replacement and that absorbtion had been happenning for a very, very, very long time. It's part of the African story. In Europe we've seen Asiatic people like the Huns, Tartars etc settle in Eastern Europe. A significant portion of Russia is actually in Europe. No one questions the Europeanity of the Poles, Russians or Hungarians. No one ever suggests that they are some how less European than the French or Ukrainians. Why then do so many of us have such a hard time accepting North Africans for being part of the continent as well? Really? It should be pretty obvious to anybody that people of Slavic descent look radically different from an Anglo-Saxon. And also, the Visigoths aren't the only "white" ethnic group to settle in North Africa either. The Alans (or Alani) were white-asian pastoralist tribe who settled in North Africa with the Vandals in the 5th century. The Byzantines also landed in North Africa in the 6th century. These people were Germanic tribes coming from Asia moving westwards into Europe and then into North Africa. The largest group of whites who call themselves Berbers/Amazigh or indigenous to NA are the Kabyles. How can people seriously suggest that people looking like this: are somehow indigenous to NA, when there are still people looking like this: living in the same general area? This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint at all. Everybody knows that you need melanin to protect yourself from the harmful effects of the sun. We already know that the white invaders of Israel & South Africa suffer from one of the highest rates of melanoma on planet earth today, so they obviously can't be indigenous to their respective countries, which they inhabit. Tamanrassetites of Algiers. Take Khoisan peoples from south Africa (region, not the country) , they are said to be the oldest group of people still in existence to this day, with the biggest/greatest genetic diversity of all human beings, yet, you don't see any pale-skinned, straight-haired, blonde Khoisan's around. Ever. A good picture to demonstrate the diversity in skin hues. (I'm Namibian myself, and I haven't seen a lighter skinned San-person to this day) It should be obvious that Kabyles/"Berbers" such as this ![]() are quadroon/octoroon (or perhaps even more than that) offspring of the original black inhabitants of North Africa & the white people who invaded/settled NA during the course of time. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that these pale-skinned people would survive the MASSIVE uv-radiation in those areas of the world without some kind of environmental protection (i.e more advanced techniques in making clothing etc.) . Pale-skinned peoples even get sunburned during the winter in arctic climates, so suggesting that these people somehow originated in Africa is nothing short of preposterous. It goes completely against nature. you show a picture of gingers and pass it off as the entire population such good representation in your pictures you are doing you are doing the byzantines they were just romans and they just stick to their cities they did not go into the desert and the mountains the vandals wipe out the alans before they even set feet in north africa and they just go and take the roman cities then they all die they get kicked out you speak of white invaders of israel but israel is product of that invasion and it was jews not the whites the jews are swarthier than the palestinians do not pretend to support them you hate them as much just like you hate the berbers according to your theory that getting sunburn means you are not indigenous then i guess that pretty much all the people are not indigenous because everyone can get a sunburn here is the climate of kabylia which you say is same generally as those family (who are actually from the darfur not libya???)        ah yes same as the desert that family you put picture live in those pale people there must be burning up (because people there just sit around in the sun all day i mean that is what everyone does right? they try and avoid the shade and do the work in the middle of the day when the sun is its hottest that is what they do in namibia i assume as well and only could a black people think people like lounes matoub are pale skinned i guess if george zimmerman of peru is pale skinned then matoub is as well) what are those blacks in america anyway? they are supposed to be 50 to 25 percent white they still look black to me those half ones like obama should be 25 percent black only then modern berbers according to you must need to be 99% vandal to lose their black looks but it still does not explain why berbers look like neither a aryan prince or a child aryan prince and nubian princess (or is it other way around?) your theory also has a whole in it my friend since the vandals came in and then all the berbers became white that makes the moors that came after white vandals too? cant have that can we? or did the vandals then suddenly make the berbers white after the moors did their thing? hiding around in a cave somewhere waiting for the perfect time to make them white? |
|
|
|
Post by azrur on Mar 2, 2014 0:57:29 GMT -5
north africa was desertification only recently the sahara used to be a forest
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Mar 2, 2014 1:31:33 GMT -5
To a certain extent terrain did make travel more difficult, but didn't prevent it. I think the main concern was more of being closer to the major trade centers on the coast. But even in the southern regions you still see quite a bit of diversity in physical characteristics, often times, even within one ethnic group. I think in general we need to take into consideration that much of the way in which we conceptualize the African reality was shaped by the colonizers, primarily European. Therefore, we have to reconsider what we use to take for granted. The ways in which we here in the west divide and characterize people doesn't reflect reality. Regardless of what they look like, or why they look the way they do, the fact is they are inherantly African. They were born on the continent, they speak languages restricted to the continent, they have cultures that are unique and found no where else, their style of dance, music, food and even spiritual practices, (that stuff they still do that pre dates Islam) are all African specific. The mixture that exists has to be understood in terms of absorbtion, rather than replacement and that absorbtion had been happenning for a very, very, very long time. It's part of the African story. In Europe we've seen Asiatic people like the Huns, Tartars etc settle in Eastern Europe. A significant portion of Russia is actually in Europe. No one questions the Europeanity of the Poles, Russians or Hungarians. No one ever suggests that they are some how less European than the French or Ukrainians. Why then do so many of us have such a hard time accepting North Africans for being part of the continent as well? Really? It should be pretty obvious to anybody that people of Slavic descent look radically different from an Anglo-Saxon. And also, the Visigoths aren't the only "white" ethnic group to settle in North Africa either. The Alans (or Alani) were white-asian pastoralist tribe who settled in North Africa with the Vandals in the 5th century. The Byzantines also landed in North Africa in the 6th century. These people were Germanic tribes coming from Asia moving westwards into Europe and then into North Africa. The largest group of whites who call themselves Berbers/Amazigh or indigenous to NA are the Kabyles. How can people seriously suggest that people looking like this: are somehow indigenous to NA, when there are still people looking like this: living in the same general area? This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint at all. Everybody knows that you need melanin to protect yourself from the harmful effects of the sun. We already know that the white invaders of Israel & South Africa suffer from one of the highest rates of melanoma on planet earth today, so they obviously can't be indigenous to their respective countries, which they inhabit. Tamanrassetites of Algiers. Take Khoisan peoples from south Africa (region, not the country) , they are said to be the oldest group of people still in existence to this day, with the biggest/greatest genetic diversity of all human beings, yet, you don't see any pale-skinned, straight-haired, blonde Khoisan's around. Ever. A good picture to demonstrate the diversity in skin hues. (I'm Namibian myself, and I haven't seen a lighter skinned San-person to this day) It should be obvious that Kabyles/"Berbers" such as this ![]() are quadroon/octoroon (or perhaps even more than that) offspring of the original black inhabitants of North Africa & the white people who invaded/settled NA during the course of time. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that these pale-skinned people would survive the MASSIVE uv-radiation in those areas of the world without some kind of environmental protection (i.e more advanced techniques in making clothing etc.) . Pale-skinned peoples even get sunburned during the winter in arctic climates, so suggesting that these people somehow originated in Africa is nothing short of preposterous. It goes completely against nature. First of all, although there are blond people found in Kaybilia, the majority of them don't look that way. Only a small minority of them do, but it's that minority that people love to take pictures of and ignore everybody else, giving a false impression of what they actually look like. Yes the Vandals did have contact with North Africa, but they didn't take over the area. Just not that many of them to do the job. The language and culture of North Africans is still African. If they were over run by Vikings, why don't they speak Norwegian? Where are the cultural aspects of those Vikings? Third, as has already been shown to you, all of Africa is NOT tropical. North Africa is sub tropical and it gets very cold in the winter. Snow is not unusual. You are aware of the fact that it actually snowed in Cairo this winter? That was unusual, but at times, it can dip into the low 40's and upper 30's. The coast of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco are farther north than even Alexandria, in other words, it can get damn cold in the winter, especially if you live in the mountains. As for the Byzantines, they were not Germanic, they were a mixture of Anatolians, Greeks and a whole bunch of people all rolled into one. The picture of the black skinned people standing by the water is not from Algeria, its mislabled. They are most likely from somewhere in Sudan judging by the lady's hair style. Yes, there are black skinned people all across North Africa, they are usually from the south, but guess what? They got feet, they got camels, they got cars and buses and airplanes. They don't have to stay in the south. Very often they migrate north, just ike people in the north often migrate south. It happens. It think anyone with either a pair of good eyes or a good eye glass perscription can see that people in different European regions look different. Are they racially pure? Hell to the NO! But is anyone considering them to be less European because of it? NO! So why do we play this game with North Africans? Whether or not or to what degree Berbers are mixed doesn't make a difference. They are native to the lands where they live, they're not going anywhere, there are still significant numbers of people who speak the native African Berber languages. Languages that have no roots in Asia or Europe. Their cultures are still African. They are closer to other Africans in their ways of life than they are to Asians or Europeans. They are Africans. Who the hell said they have to look like you to be real Africans. NEWS FLASH! There's a shit load of African Americans Afro Latinos and Afro Caribbean folks, (like myself), who look more like North Africans than we do like you. Are you going to tell us that because we have lighter skins and straighter hair that we are not part of the African family. Well tough because we are. Whether or not you or anybody else likes it, we are and no amount of mixing can change who our ancestors are. North Africans, regardless of what they may look like or why, are still Africans, geographically, linguistically, culturally and genetically. Your mother is still your mother no matter who your father is and their mother is Mother Africa and they still rest their heads on her breast. It is what it is, plain and simple! |
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Mar 2, 2014 1:32:15 GMT -5
Very telling Vid Truthteacher.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternalsky on Mar 2, 2014 15:10:24 GMT -5
Aren't Berbers mainly just a mix of East Africans (i.e. the Horn of Africa) and Southern Europeans with varying degrees of West African admixture? That would explain the phenotypical diversity of Berbers; they range from looking like white Europeans to Ethiopians to West Africans (so-called "true negroes"). This would make the most sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong on something.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Mar 15, 2014 5:22:05 GMT -5
True Amazigh. These are not Ottoman Turks. Notice the facial structure. Likeness to Native americans and San(excep for the hair).  |
|
