Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 9:32:42 GMT -5
North Africans don't want anything to do with a pan-African identity. Why is ancient Egypt a "African genesis"? It's in North Africa. It is only sub-saharan africans or african-americans (of partial west african roots) who cling to pan-Africanism (all politicalized). This is because no civilization like Egypt came south of the sahara, so there is an inferiority complex. Secondly North Africans have more 'caucasian' features like smooth hair and thin nose which african-american males especially fap over. Stupid post. Why do European "hang on" to a pan-European identity. Forming the EU (European Union). Even British, American or Finnish people include Ancient Greece as part of their history. Teaching it in schools, making movies and else about them? North African and modern Egyptian promote their pan-Arabism identity too. They also often claim genealogical linkage to Arabia. I often read about modern African culture and empires like those in Yoruba land, Akan, Kongo, Zulu and countless others. Maybe it's time for **YOU** to learn about your history (if you're African which I doubt) and get rid of your own prejudice. African people are obviously historically, culturally and biologically related. We can see it historically, in medicine or archaeologically including many sub-disciplines like linguistic (for example, most Africans are E-P2(e1b1) carriers, All African are A, B or E haplogroup carriers or mtDNA L carrier, etc, all African languages thus people originate in the same Eastern African region, etc). The same is true for Eurasians, East Asians and Native Americans. I just feel sorry for people who only exposure to African history seem to be through these forums or internet websites. Books provide much more depth and knowledge than anything you can find on websites and forums. General books like "African history" "The history of Africa" provide a good overview. Even the book Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 written by American scholar Christopher Ehret provide such a good general overview (even if I disagree with many points in it). Specific books about particular peoples or empires provide more depth and information (like a book about the History of Yoruba people or particular empire). Maybe it's time for you to learn about your history (if you're African which I doubt) and get rid of your own prejudice. This goes for any of us of course. To find books about general or specific African history and empires. Amazon or local libraries are very good. This website is also very good (books edited by African publishers): www.africanbookscollective.com/browse/humanities-social-sciences/history Except your "African" genetic cluster doesn't exist. Genetic variation is mostly clinal, but the slight discontinuities that appear reveal that Hazda, San etc are more or less their own cluster, and North Africans cluster closer with West Eurasians. This is why pan-Africanism is political, not scientific.  blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/genetic-variation-within-africa-and-the-world/#.U5MgcnJdVWUThere is no "African" genetic cluster. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 7, 2014 9:33:42 GMT -5
Its amusing that we have Yurco and Keita claiming there was a barrier around Egypt preventing Middle-Easteners or Europeans moving there in large numbers before Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt, but suddenly around 500 BC large numbers suddenly wandered in... what was preventing them before 500 BC? Firstly, 500 BC is by definition "ancient". Secondly Europeans and Middle-Easteners were in Egypt in large numbers long before the Achaemenid Persian occupation of the 6th century BC. This certainly contradicts Yurco's statement that: "basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times." Let's look first here: "The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, also known as the Saite Period, lasted from 672 BC to 525 BC. During this time many Jews came to Egypt, fleeing the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 BCE). Jeremiah and other Jewish refugees arrived in Lower Egypt, notably in Migdol, Tahpanhes and Memphis. Some refugees also settled at Elephantine and other settlements in Upper Egypt (see Jeremiah Chapters 43 and 44)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Period_of_ancient_EgyptNow let's go back a thousand or so years to the Second Intermediate Period: "It is best known as the period when the Hyksos made their appearance in Egypt and whose reign comprised the Fifteenth dynasty." Yet even some two hundred years before the Hyksos invasion, large numbers of Levant peoples were already settled: "Important Canaanite populations first appeared in Egypt towards the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC, and either around that time or c. 1720 BC, formed an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta.[5] The Canaanite rulers of the Delta, regrouped in the 14th Dynasty, coexisted with the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, based in Itjtawy. The power of the 13th and 14th dynasties progressively waned, perhaps due to famine and plague,[5][6] and c. 1650 BC both were invaded by the Hyksos, who formed their own dynasty, the 15th Dynasty." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyksosAlso between the settlement of large numbers of Jews and the Hyksos, were the Sea Peoples. So what ever mainstream source you look at, Egypt was a melting pot by at least 1800 - 1600 BC. How on earth is this not "ancient"? If i'm not also mistaken Keita clustered a cranial series from the Second Intermediate Period as "middle-eastern". Oddly he then proceeds to claim like Yurco that the ancient's were homogenous. This is all common knowledge, but it doesn't change the fact that the genisis of Egypt was African. Unlike the later Greco-Romans and later peoples,the foreigners who settled in Ancient Egypt did not change the fundamental character of the culture and society, they adopted it. Neither did they come in sufficient numbers to change the physical characteristics of the people fundamentally. For the most part, they settled in the Delta. If you had ever been to Egypt, you would know that the Delta is not part of the Nile Valley. What could have happened in 500? internal population migrations dure to political or economic forces. Migration into the country for same reasons. Whatever the case may be, there was not so large an infiltration that the native African physical types characteristic of the early dynastic periods has been erased as proven by the videos I posted. All you have to do is stand on any street corner in Cairo or Alexandria to see ancient staues walking right in front of you. The fact that they still survive in percentages greater than 50% speaks to the nature of their origins. Even the average mixed population of today is of a physical description that would have caused them to be subject to the laws of segragation in the American South or Aparteid in South Africa, so........ |
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Jun 7, 2014 9:37:06 GMT -5
^^^ truthteacher2007 is an idiot and doesn't even know anything about African history. Best to avoid reading his posts or taken them seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Jun 7, 2014 9:44:35 GMT -5
There is no "African" genetic cluster. Lies based on hot air again. Most Africans are E-P2(E1b1) carriers, a well as A and B carrier and MtDNA L carriers. All African languages originate in the same East African region after the main OOA migrations. Those were posted before. We can also see Eurasian, East Asian and Native American similar clusters.     |
|
karem
Craftsperson
Posts: 74 
|
Post by karem on Jun 7, 2014 9:47:45 GMT -5
What does this mean for modern Egyptians Zarahan ? If you consider their admixture history. - From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007) I think modern Egyptians should be proud to be made of a great admixture of many different people. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 7, 2014 11:31:21 GMT -5
^^^ truthteacher2007 is an idiot and doesn't even know anything about African history. Best to avoid reading his posts or taken them seriously. And yet you can't help but love me. What frustrates you is your inability to refute anything that I say. Do you mean to tell me that the medical accomplishments of the Congo peoples is not true? Is it not true that the Empires of West Africa were highly organized urban societies? Do you mean to tell me that there were no Sub Saharan societies with profund spiritual and philosophies? Exactly where am I in error? Because I'm not a race hater like yourself doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my statements are untrue. Instead of making ad hominem attacks, why not challenge my statements. Since I'm an idiot that shouldn't be too hard for such a smart person like you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 11:34:47 GMT -5
amunra look at north africans in the first diagram you posted - they cluster with Europeans/West Asians. This is exactly what I stated. I am willing to admit there is a loose Sub-Saharan African cluster which appears because of the Saharan geographical barrier (restricting gene-flow) but this shows africans north and south of this don't cluster together. North and Sub-Saharan Africans are seperate clusters, so there is no single "African" race/meta-population/genetic group (call it whatever).
Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994); Rosenberg et al. 2002 and more recent genetic cluster studies show the following 5 major clusters:
1. Sub-Saharan Africans
2. North Africans and West Eurasians
3. East Asians
4. Amerindians
5. Southeast Asians (excluding Australian Aborigines)
Saharan or North Africans cluster with Europeans and West Asians, not Sub-Saharans ('blacks'). So you see pan-Africanism has no support from genetics whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 7, 2014 11:39:04 GMT -5
^^^ truthteacher2007 is an idiot and doesn't even know anything about African history. Best to avoid reading his posts or taken them seriously. GRAMAR CHECK: The correct word for the above sentence is TAKING. "Best to avoid reading his posts or TAKING them seriously. Not TAKEN. You're welcome!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 11:49:45 GMT -5
the only thing genetics has shown for afrocentrists is that east africans like horners are genetically close to other sub-saharan africans and not some seperate "hamitic" or "caucasoid" Eurasian-affinity group. But theories about hamites have been dead for well over 40 years. It is only a handful of idiots on the Anthroscape forum who quote outdated texts about caucasian horners still.
of course though on an individual level there are still horners with arab and foreign mixture, so trying to pass off a light skinned horner (as i've seen some try to do) with straight hair as 'black' doesn't work either.
|
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Jun 7, 2014 11:56:04 GMT -5
amunra look at north africans in the first diagram you posted - they cluster with Europeans/West Asians. I know modern coastal North African cluster with West Asian and Eurasian. On this we agree. It's like my whole point in this thread to mention the many different foreign conquests and immigration into modern Egypt which changed the ethnic and genetic (as well as cultural) make up of the country since dynastic time. Certain populations in usually in the southern part of North African countries like the Tebu, Nubians, etc cluster with African people. This doesn't change anything I said in this thread about pan-Arabism or pan-Africanism or pan-European identity. Before the foreign conquest and mass migration, Ancient Egyptians were mostly indigenous black Africans. The Eurasian component was minimal. Scientifically all studies show continuity of Ancient Egypt at its formative stage with the previous populations coming from Africa, from the south, going backward with Naqada, Badarian, Tasian, Saharan-Sudanese neolithic (wavy-line pottery), and their common origin in Eastern Africa (maybe around Sudan/Nubia). |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 7, 2014 11:56:06 GMT -5
amunra look at north africans in the first diagram you posted - they cluster with Europeans/West Asians. This is exactly what I stated. I am willing to admit there is a loose Sub-Saharan African cluster which appears because of the Saharan geographical barrier (restricting gene-flow) but this shows africans north and south of this don't cluster together. North and Sub-Saharan Africans are seperate clusters, so there is no single "African" race/meta-population/genetic group (call it whatever). Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994); Rosenberg et al. 2002 and more recent genetic cluster studies show the following 5 major clusters: 1. Sub-Saharan Africans 2. North Africans and West Eurasians 3. East Asians 4. Amerindians 5. Southeast Asians (excluding Australian Aborigines) Saharan or North Africans cluster with Europeans and West Asians, not Sub-Saharans ('blacks'). So you see pan-Africanism has no support from genetics whatsoever. Whether or not there is a genetic connection or not is irrelavant. The concept of Pan Africanism was created long before there was a knowledge of DNA. We have long known that we are not a monolith, that we are diverse. We have always known this. It was the European who lumped us together regardless of our cultures or identities. Pan Africanism is a political response to European colonialism and exploitation. Whether we were North Africans, South Africans, East or Central Africans, we all recognized that we shared the same continent as our home and we were all being invaded and exploited by the external European powers. Therefore, it was in our best interest to unify and work together to liberate ourselves from their tyrany. So one can post all the genetic charts they want. It doesn't change the reality of our collective experience as peoples who had to fight to throw off the yoke of domination by the colonial powers. |
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jun 7, 2014 12:03:19 GMT -5
^^^ truthteacher2007 is an idiot and doesn't even know anything about African history. Best to avoid reading his posts or taken them seriously. Can the moderators deal with this pompous dude? He's bringing his insulting and disrespectful crap here. The same crap that helped to ruin ES. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 12:04:47 GMT -5
Its amusing that we have Yurco and Keita claiming there was a barrier around Egypt preventing Middle-Easteners or Europeans moving there in large numbers before Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt, but suddenly around 500 BC large numbers suddenly wandered in... what was preventing them before 500 BC? Firstly, 500 BC is by definition "ancient". Secondly Europeans and Middle-Easteners were in Egypt in large numbers long before the Achaemenid Persian occupation of the 6th century BC. This certainly contradicts Yurco's statement that: "basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times." Let's look first here: "The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, also known as the Saite Period, lasted from 672 BC to 525 BC. During this time many Jews came to Egypt, fleeing the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians (586 BCE). Jeremiah and other Jewish refugees arrived in Lower Egypt, notably in Migdol, Tahpanhes and Memphis. Some refugees also settled at Elephantine and other settlements in Upper Egypt (see Jeremiah Chapters 43 and 44)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Period_of_ancient_EgyptNow let's go back a thousand or so years to the Second Intermediate Period: "It is best known as the period when the Hyksos made their appearance in Egypt and whose reign comprised the Fifteenth dynasty." Yet even some two hundred years before the Hyksos invasion, large numbers of Levant peoples were already settled: "Important Canaanite populations first appeared in Egypt towards the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC, and either around that time or c. 1720 BC, formed an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta.[5] The Canaanite rulers of the Delta, regrouped in the 14th Dynasty, coexisted with the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, based in Itjtawy. The power of the 13th and 14th dynasties progressively waned, perhaps due to famine and plague,[5][6] and c. 1650 BC both were invaded by the Hyksos, who formed their own dynasty, the 15th Dynasty." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyksosAlso between the settlement of large numbers of Jews and the Hyksos, were the Sea Peoples. So what ever mainstream source you look at, Egypt was a melting pot by at least 1800 - 1600 BC. How on earth is this not "ancient"? If i'm not also mistaken Keita clustered a cranial series from the Second Intermediate Period as "middle-eastern". Oddly he then proceeds to claim like Yurco that the ancient's were homogenous. This is all common knowledge, but it doesn't change the fact that the genisis of Egypt was African. Unlike the later Greco-Romans and later peoples,the foreigners who settled in Ancient Egypt did not change the fundamental character of the culture and society, they adopted it. Neither did they come in sufficient numbers to change the physical characteristics of the people fundamentally. For the most part, they settled in the Delta. If you had ever been to Egypt, you would know that the Delta is not part of the Nile Valley. What could have happened in 500? internal population migrations dure to political or economic forces. Migration into the country for same reasons. Whatever the case may be, there was not so large an infiltration that the native African physical types characteristic of the early dynastic periods has been erased as proven by the videos I posted. All you have to do is stand on any street corner in Cairo or Alexandria to see ancient staues walking right in front of you. The fact that they still survive in percentages greater than 50% speaks to the nature of their origins. Even the average mixed population of today is of a physical description that would have caused them to be subject to the laws of segragation in the American South or Aparteid in South Africa, so........ The genesis of ancient Egypt was North African not Sub-Saharan African - as I argued in my first thread. The fact Egypt was originally populated from the south from the Holocene is irrelevant since the inhabitants adapted to the Sahara loosing their "negroid" morphology, and were then partially-isolated from those to the south. The desert formed a genetic barrier, which is why North Africans are closer genetically to West Asians who were moving more in freely from the north. The reality as Snowden and others have described is that ancient Egypt was African, but not "black". Black is a cultural/biological term confined only to sub-saharan africans. |
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Jun 7, 2014 12:11:44 GMT -5
Whether we were North Africans, As usual, your post is full of crap. North Africans, beside actual black Africans living there like the Tebu, Nubians, etc, usually consider themselves part of the Arabic and West Asian world (Pan-Arabism). They see cultural connection, as well as historic and genealogical connection. |
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jun 7, 2014 12:27:24 GMT -5
If you consider their admixture history. - From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007) I think modern Egyptians should be proud to be made of a great admixture of many different people. Agreed. There's no geographic space where new people haven't moved in and mixed with the previous people in said geography over thousands of years. Modern Egyptians are like everyone else--that means mixed. The original Egyptians from the 1st dynasty were mixed too. So were the early Greeks, Romans, Mande of Mali empire, Yoruba of Ile Oyo, Kushites, etc. There were various peoples in all these areas that were eventually put under the same governance and eventually saw themselves as one or closely related groups. Ethnicity/national identity is a social construct and malleable, incorporating new people and even pushing out others over time. There's no ethnic group that survives forever or that has existed since the beginning of AMH. So even the notion of "true" or "unmixed" Egyptian or whatever other group is at best limited to a very short time frame. And a geography (Egypt in this case) cannot stand in the stead of a people. Geographies are static and people are not. |
|
