ASANTE SAYS:
I present a fact providing solid evidence that West African populations CANNOT (IMPOSSIBLE) be the primary source of African Americans who are almost entirely lactose intolerant as a population according to consistent studies. ^^But there is clear documentation that AAs derive from populations
in Africa that are lactose intolerant. Here is a vast hole in your theory,
and rather than provide substantive support to cover that hole, you
keep avoiding it and ducking the issue. You also are avoiding when I ask
what is the source of your map, on which a great deal of your notion hangs.
You have failed to think through your claim- seeming to seize on the map as
a quick fix, not realizing that there are several other key factors that bear
on the issue. Now that those factors are brought up, you are ducking and avoiding.
It's the same thing that Beyoku has been telling you. This entire "database" of ES is important to an extent in spreading base knowledge of ancient Egypt (i.e "indigenousness" and "Africanity" and what not) and African diversity, but it KILLS any further thinking past those often vague quotes that are provided and I think that I did I great job at illustrating that in our last thread.You spend a great deal of time talking about things NOT related to the
weaknesses of your alleged "original thinking." But anyone can see its diversionary.
If you had really thought through your notion rather than just jump
at someone's map to recycle old diffusionist claims, you would have the
answers. But you don't- so must rely on red herrings. Your so-called
"original thinking" is a laughable mishmash of nonsense you are unable to
back up.
Lactose persistence (tolerance) in fact is relatively low in West Africa, certain sub-
groups excepted such as some Fulani (Stearns and Koella 1998- Evolution in Health
and Disease; Misra 2007- Geography of Health). And African Americans mostly come from
West Africa (Gomez 1998- Gomez, Michael A: Exchanging Our Country Marks)
as credible histories show. When any kind of credible historian or data is looked at,
your "Nile Bantu African-American" (NBA- lol) bubble is a bust.
And the notion of the ES database "killing any further thinking" is ludicrous
nonsense. The data in fact has been continuously expanded, modified and added
to for almost 4 years. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
You didn't even know the significance of the Natufians and their legacy
4 and their impact of your frequent use and false assumptions centered around
labels given to ancient people in the Middle East whom you make mutually exclusive
with black people by using the term "Asiatic". That goes to show that true
understanding is lacking. More laughable nonsense. In fact you are the one that uses my Natufian diagrams,
and they illustrate as anyone can see the OPPOSITE of your claim. Again you
simply do not know what you are talking about, and your fulminations only
serve to expose YOUR lack of understanding of even basic history and anthropology,
like your lubricous "NBA" negroes via Nile Valley "Bantu". Puhleeze..
Why is that layman people on internet boards who more than likely lack
"credentials" can point out the common sense flaws in these peer reviewed
Western studies on a consistent basis but not the Western scholars with the
"credentials" their damn self? Dude, if you had any real grasp of the information in the field you will see
that plenty of "peer reviewed" Western studies in the field point out the
flaws regarding those who would downplay the full scope of African bio-history.
Going back to the 1800s were scholars who questioned the Aryan nonsense imposed
on the Nile Valley.
Why do you have to provide graphics with commentary noting that cranial studies
dealing with ancient Egypt blatantly disregard "undesirable" data? What does that
say about your database then Zaharan? lol.. lol.. my friend- think about what you have written above. On numerous of those
graphics, the errors and bias have been exposed BY OTHER SCHOLARS, AND THEY ARE
SO QUOTED OR DOCUMENTED therein. It is not simply my commentary on them. The commentary
only highlights the hard data that contradicts assorted errors and bias. Hence I
quote Keita exposing bogus claims about ancient Africans, Holliday and Trinkhaus
exposing bogus claims about limb proportions and so on. Every bit of commentary
is backed up with hard data by a credible scholar. Indeed, that is why said
scholars are directly quoted. I don't rely on commentary. People get the citations
in full to see, and check out for themselves. Its not me for example that shows bogus
blood group claims re Africans- I quote scholars and studies that expose such claims.
Again, you are simply fulminating, and really don't seem to understand the info in the field.
It's time for progression and original thinking. I can say with confidence that the
the information in my last thread is SOUND (didn't you and three "vets" TRY to knock to down)? Bwa, ha ahahahahahhahahah... you are exceedingly naive. In fact your "theory" was
roundly debunked and exposed as having numerous holes. It was the "vets" that suggested
some avenues whereby you could salvage something... lmao...
This should be our NEW basis of information not that sock puppet "Keita"
"African diversity" BS that we've been spoon fed for a damn decade now and
with that we are not a step closer to achieving the objective to spreading
the TRUTH! Ego needs to be dropped! Nonsense. You yourself have provided little "new" information. About all
you are doing is recycling old "fleeing negroes from the Nile Valley" diffusionist
memes, circa the 1970s, in new clothing with new labels, but still deeply flawed.
Diffusionists in the past were handicapped by lack of full access to information in those
segregationist days, but you have no excuse these days. The fact that you cannot
even put together a credible argument that isn't riddled with logical holes shows that
you have learned "nothing new."
The thing about your "criticism" that makes me feel some type of way is that
you never acknowledged the fact regarding African American lactose intolerance
and the complete subsequent refutation of West African being the source of our New World population. Here again you expose your own weakness, failure and lack of understanding.
You make these sweeping, cocky claims about "subsequent refutation" but have
put little credible on the table other than a map of unknown provenance and detail.
Once again, your are trying to divert attention from a gaping hole in your claim,
a hole that you keep ducking and avoiding. Let me summarize it for new readers:
Lactose persistence (tolerance) in fact is relatively low in West Africa, certain sub-
groups excepted such as some Fulani (Stearns and Koella 1998- Evolution in Health
and Disease; Misra 2007- Geography of Health). And African Americans mostly come from
West Africa (Gomez 1998- Gomez, Michael A: Exchanging Our Country Marks)
as credible histories show. When any kind of credible historian or data is looked at,
your "Nile Bantu African-American" (NBA- lol) bubble is a bust. ^^If you have hard data and credible scholarship to the contrary how come
you haven't; posted it yet, despite repeated requests? Why continue to
duck, dodge and deal in diversion?
You wanted to respond somehow someway (for some reason) but you made no
relevant points, just saying do better. lol.. dude no one is being fooled by the diversions... But let's again give
you a chance to plug those holes in your notion. I again repeat:
Lactose persistence (tolerance) in fact is relatively low in West Africa, certain sub-
groups excepted such as some Fulani (Stearns and Koella 1998- Evolution in Health
and Disease; Misra 2007- Geography of Health). And African Americans mostly come from
West Africa (Gomez 1998- Gomez, Michael A: Exchanging Our Country Marks)
as credible histories show. When any kind of credible historian or data is looked at,
your "Nile Bantu African-American" (NBA- lol) bubble is a bust. ^^If you have credible information to the contrary, let's see it..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We gotta be better than Zaharan if we're truly genuine in our message
and not just out for "Ego" purposes. Add to the discussion or have a point
for your criticisms for this original thought besides the silly fear of
potentially being "wrong" against some backwoods redneck internet board. More diversions to cover lack of logic, knowledge and work. But since you are
da man who will "do better"- I ask again that you furnish credible information
to the contrary. What's taking you so long?
Lactose persistence (tolerance) in fact is relatively low in West Africa, certain sub-
groups excepted such as some Fulani (Stearns and Koella 1998- Evolution in Health
and Disease; Misra 2007- Geography of Health). And African Americans mostly come from
West Africa (Gomez 1998- Gomez, Michael A: Exchanging Our Country Marks)
as credible histories show. When any kind of credible historian or data is looked at,
your "Nile Bantu African-American" (NBA- lol) bubble is a bust. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You never cite Diop....NEVER! If you were the one behind that "AfricanAmericancenter"
website (which was a major assistance don't get me wrong) then nothing in Diop's legacy
besides mention of his melanin dosage test and or an "Afrocentrism" tag was presented. BWA HAHA HAHAHAHAH.. laughable tripe. You simply do not know what you are talking
about and you cannot even keep your arguments straight in the same post.
Think man, think! The very ES database you wave away as "killing
new knowledge" in fact quotes Diop. Ha haahahahhah aha aha aha hah.. Let me
refresh your conveniently selective memory.
"But it is only the most gratuitous theory that considers the Dinka,
the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African
ethnologist were to persist in recognizing as white-only the blond, blue-eyed
Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans,
and Mediterraneans in particular—the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and
Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries
must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so
should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in
the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a
Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be,
to a European, an attitude that maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the
same race."-- Cheikh Anta Diop, 'Evolution of the Negro world', Presence Africaine (Vol. 23, no. 51, 1964), pp. 5-15.
"But they know very well what a white man is.. every time these
relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is
made to undermine.. telling them [Africans] 'we don't know what a race
is' (Finch interview 1989:366-7; see also Diop 1991: 16-17)-C.A. Diop
I have used the above, and other quotes extensively over the years.
They came in quite well when I hammered the pesky troll "Anglo-Pyramid"
on ES 2 years ago. Let me refresh your conveniently missing memory, for I
saved the exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008146
REPLY TO DJEHUTI: posted 02 August, 2012 01:18 AM
^^Indeed. It is part and parcel of Eurocentric hypocrisy
as exposed by Diop. Diop also notes that European scholars change their tune when the
data is not favorable towards their race models. Suddenly "race"
becomes "unimportant." But at the same time as Keita and pothers
note, they will use the soothing language of "diversity" and "non-race"
while in practice, continuing to use the same stereotypical race
categories. This is the second side of Eurocentric hypocrisy- speaking
the language of "progressivism" to lull the gullible, while continuing
business as usual.
"But they know very well what a white man is.. every time these
relationships are not favorable to the Western cultures, an effort is
made to undermine.. telling them [Africans] 'we don't know what a race
is' (Finch interview 1989:366-7; see also Diop 1991: 16-17)
-C.A. Diop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's where I set up racist Anglo-Pyramid using Diop's work:
Originally posted by Zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
posted 03 August, 2012 11:11 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
^^According to racist hypocrite Anglo Buffoon she is
"black" when being bashed as a low iq criminal African American,
but suddenly becomes "non-black" with white parents
when used to illustrate Diop's observation on Eurocentric hypocrisy.
The hypocrite says women like her are "black" as
an illustration of "ugly black women." But when
the punk ass bich's hypocrisy is exposed he
quickly wants to redefine her as "non black." ------------------
^Racist hypocrite, you have no problem bashing African
Americans like Bailey and calling her black if you
can bash African-Americans as criminals and such, but now that her
picture appears illustrating Diop's take on Eurocentric
hypocrisy, all of a sudden you are calling her "non black".
You had no problem in earlier posts in bashing
women who looked quite similar to Bailey as
"ugly negroids". Now all of a sudden you want to
switch and say she ain't black no longer? Punk ass bich..
And you yourself in earlier posts had no problem stating
that most black americans had a small portion of ancestry
from non-Africans. Yet you still called them black.
Now all of a sudden your hypocrisy is exposed, you
quickly and conveniently switch to calling them
non-black? lmao... Doofus! Don't you realize you
have been set up -- a perfect illustration of the
hypocrisy Diop was talking about.
-------------------------------------------- [/b]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Ivan Van Sertima (his pride and audacity scares you), Theophile Obenga ect it was
nothing but a big celebration of "peer reviewed" white authored sources that half ass
supported "an African origin of ancient Egypt" (the most basic ish and nothing more).
Do you see why that message is self defeating to having pride in black intelligence?
Your entire theory of ancient Egypt is counter to that of Diop, because you are afraid
to assert OUR African groups' true place in history (not through certain "Africanity"
affinities with Horners nor Nilotes).Laughable buffoonery on your part, showing again, you simply have no clue
what you are talking about. In fact I have strongly supported van Sertima on
numerous venues- not blindly supported him. Let me quote from this very same
web forum re Van Sertima- for you seem to have mysterious memory lapses:
(By the way, you can learn from Van Sertima's credible scholarly approach)
-----------------------------------------------------------
egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1580?page=2
Mar 2, 2014 at 10:08pm zarahan said:
Van Sertima himself is careful to qualify that he is making the case for
a theory of pre-Columbian contact between Africans and Native Americans,
and nothing in that theory is meant to cast any doubt on Native American genius
or originality. See pages see pages 149, and 256. HeIn subsequent writings he again
dismisses any notion of African inspiration saying that there was African INFLUENCE,
and that was NOT a catalyst for the rise of civilization in the Americas. He notes the
speculative parts of his thesis, particularly scenario on when African expeditions sailed
for the Americas- whether the alleged first wave from Nubia, or the second wave centuries
later from Mali. ts a thesis of contact. Anyone reading this book carefully can see he is no messiah
pushing a 'black Colombian' gospel. He himself notes certain limitations in the thesis,
but he also shows such contact is technically quite possible, and Thor Hyerdahl
proved it on a practical sense. The presence of African-origin plants such as the bottle gourd
(Lagenaria siceraria) or of African genes in New World cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) shows that there
was some contact between the Old World and the New. Parts of what van Sertima says makes
sense. Its the 2-wave arrival claim- Nubia first, then Mali that is the crux of the issue.
..Where are these mysterious black hordes yearning for "self esteem" via Van Sertima?
And who says they are "representative" of anything larger than individual opinion?
Such claims by Walker, LEfkowitz etc are just another set of bogus strawmen.
Walker cites an article in The Black Collegian in the 1980s that reported favorably
on Van Sertima's research But that article was in 1981, 20 YEARS BEFORE. Yet Walker
tries to insinuate that today's black students or at least those circa 2001 are/were going
around beating some sort of "Black Columbus" drum, as if this theory had such vast
influence that black college students or black folk couldn't critically assess it.
Its yet another example of the nonsensical strawman approach Walker uses.
And "Afrocentrists" never asserted that the "Americas were vacant space"
as claimed by Walker. This is complete nonsense that appears nowhere in
Van Sertima's book. What "vacant space"? One wonders if "critic" Walker
even read Van Sertima's book. WHat a load of BS...
^^The graphic I used in that piece, Asante, sums up your claim- "BS".------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember you said that here Zaharan? You (mainly) and several others went
about trying point out the "holes" in my original thinking (nothing wrong with that) ^^But you find, and found several things wrong when people questioning your
shaky claims, even lamenting how white people on APricity (sic) accept your ARGUMENTS, but
we over here would not. As we indicated to you then, you have to present credible data and
scholarship in support. You don't get a free pass just cuz you black..
I don't think that there is any dispute about reading the dialogue of that
thread that my "theory" prevailed over that hail criticism. ahaha ahhahhaah... declare victory all you want, but in fact your "theory"
was extensively debunked both by Truthteacher and me. And it was people here
who suggested ways to salvage some aspects of it, and tried to guide you on how
to do better. Unfortunately, it appears that you did not learn from that earlier debacle..
Why don't we ALL work on answering these questions since our previous
understanding of our primarily "West African" ancestry has just been demonstrated
to be complete BS through the information provided in the original post? But you haven't demonstrated much at all. In fact your theory is full of laughable
holes. Initially I asked questions for clarification, hoping you would see
the weaknesses, and provide solid data to cover them or bolster the framework.
Truthteacher tried to point out that the South American and Caribbean dimension
also had to be taken into account, But again, rather than learn and adjust,
you simply continue to broadcast your dubious claim. It is an open question
as to why others would do any of the legwork YOU should be doing, and should
have already done on this, especially when you have made little effort to
put credible work on the table- plenty of diversions but little credible.
This is for the progression of KNOWLEDGE...I don't get paid money for this.
It's genuine love for my people and our history and a strong distaste for those who obscure it. Same here. I fight for my people and have been doing so for well nigh 15 years online,
ever since the old "Usenet" days. I have a strong distaste for weak, dubious, and bogus
claims, asserted as if they were credible black history.
We can continue to hammer away at one another- fine- I got no problem doing that when I see erroneous notions and claims about black history, or find constructive avenues of dialog. I again ask you about the apparent contradictions and weakness in your claim:
Lactose intolerance comparison
origin of slaves into North America
(a) Given that AAs primarily come from West Africa as documented by numerous credible
historians (yes including black ones), and (b) given that lactose intolerance is relatively
high in said West African populations (as several credible scientists show), on what grounds
do you continue to assert that African Americans (who are lactose intolerant a high levels)
do not come from West Africa, but are the product of some kind of mysterious "Bantu" migration
from the Nile Valley? Give specific answers. If you have credible data to the contrary
put it on the table for all to see what you got.