|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Oct 30, 2015 12:28:32 GMT -5
At K5 figS5. Notice that the Luyha, has almost equal proportion of colors. Red, green, yellow and light purple. I don’t think, pygmies, Maasai, Mozabicans and Yorubans were all migrating at the same time into Luyha country. The pattern is indicative of a source population.
Sorry about the confusion
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Oct 30, 2015 15:39:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry but without proper standard citation I don't know where to look for what you're talking about.
Anyway a specific local breeding population will have one predominant color at the K level it arises from out of its diverse progenitor components.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Nov 2, 2015 19:32:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Nov 23, 2015 14:47:08 GMT -5
It is a little bit confusing when the info refers to Yorubas and other West Africans as Bantus when in fact they are no Bantu groups past Cameroon and into West Africa. Yes people from Mozambique are Bantu but Mandeka nor Maasai are Bantus.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Dec 1, 2015 21:19:49 GMT -5
It is a little bit confusing when the info refers to Yorubas and other West Africans as Bantus when in fact they are no Bantu groups past Cameroon and into West Africa. Yes people from Mozambique are Bantu but Mandeka nor Maasai are Bantus. There are bantu-speaking people in Nigeria, or "Bantoid" I should say. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendi_languagesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiv_people |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 1, 2015 22:14:32 GMT -5
My ignorance must be excused. Westerners who don't know any better like to lump all West Africans as Bantus. Unfortunately we are not familiar with the different ethnic groups. It is a little bit confusing when the info refers to Yorubas and other West Africans as Bantus when in fact they are no Bantu groups past Cameroon and into West Africa. Yes people from Mozambique are Bantu but Mandeka nor Maasai are Bantus. |
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Dec 28, 2015 15:32:58 GMT -5
@ Snakepit, those are not Bantu groups. The Bantu boundaries stop on the French side of the Cameroon (which is the east side of Cameroon). I think in Africa, West Africans are known as Soudanic people. @ xyyman, I sometimes refer to your posting when making a point to people, so when they see the Bantu label applied to West Africans, they become dismissive. Other wise you have good work.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 29, 2015 10:20:22 GMT -5
Genetics can answer a lot of our questions....and expose lies. But it can also be manipulated to tell more lies or to distort the field as you sometimes point out as well. It has to be balanced with the archaeological cultural and fossil record. The balanced package Keita talks about.  ^^Some examples of how DNA studies are manipulated to deny or distort African bio-cultural diversity... www.geocities.ws/nilevalleypeoples/index.htm-Use of stereotypical "true" negro types to represent African genetic diversity -Contradictory results from DNA racial studies -Use of limited samples as "representative" of "Africans" versus use of broad data ranges to represent Europeanized populations -Pre-sorting and lumping of samples into racial categories before beginning DNA analysis thus skewing final results -Limited applicability of DNA racial analysis in dicing up closely related population -Exclusion of African data that does not meet pre-determined racial models -Use of misleading labeling such as "Oriental" or "Near Eastern" rather than taking DNA data in local context -Sampling bias- commonly using samples unrepresentative or narrow locations such as only northern Egypt, in Egypt -Inconsistent methodology and failure to look at broader more complex models of population genesis |
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Jan 9, 2016 11:25:29 GMT -5
@ Snakepit, those are not Bantu groups. The Bantu boundaries stop on the French side of the Cameroon (which is the east side of Cameroon). I think in Africa, West Africans are known as Soudanic people. @ xyyman, I sometimes refer to your posting when making a point to people, so when they see the Bantu label applied to West Africans, they become dismissive. Other wise you have good work. If they speak a "bantoid" language, then obviously there's a connection, so you're incorrect in your assertion. Read the links thoroughly again. |
|
HaploEshu
Commoner
Reading between the lines...
Posts: 7 
|
Post by HaploEshu on Jan 15, 2016 9:55:20 GMT -5
Lioness at ES challenge me on this question, M initially reaction was, no, it did not occur but I decided to dig deeper on what really is the “Bantu Expansion”. Typical of my MO I look at the topic strictly from a genetic point of view, first. Which is, is there a clear genetic gradient from the supposedly Bantu homeland along through the Bantu dispersal route? Or is there a separation of Eastern Bantu’s and Western Bantu’s and to my surprise not only is the Eastern Bantu older than the Western Bantu’s but the Bantu expansion may have originated along the Nile and NOT in West Africa as is the popular belief. I am open to any criticism to my observation. So far the Linguistics and the genetics seem to isolate the Bantu origin IN Eastern Africa. Maybe someone will hit me up on the archeological and anthropological evidence of the Bantu expansion starting in Western Africa then spreading South and East. So far I am getting conflicting answers. They are discussed below. I will start off with DNATribes statement made recently that ancestral Bantu population existed in Yemen PRIOR to the Neolithic(ie EEF). Then we have Kivilsid (Gates of Tears paper), Mozambique and Yeminese have closer haplotype matches than Yemen and Ethiopians. When hg-M and hg-N is thrown in the mix the data is skewed giving the appearance that Yemen and Horners have closer genetic affinity. Looking at this paper it hit me like a lightening bolt – that Mozambique Bantus are older than the occupation of Africans IN West Africa. So is the Bantu migration a movement of people of technology? Bantus in South Eastern Africa are older than Bantus in West Africa. There are great questions. Call it synchronicity because i've pondered over these questions too for a long time now. I will review the data you mentioned and give my feedback. But, in the meantime, i will say this: We have to keep in mind that the modern linguistic nomenclature (i.e., on the African continent) was created/devised by Europeans - not by the indigenous speakers themselves. So, "Bantu" is strictly a Western academia invention. I always depart from that precise when reviewing literature in this vein. I admit that i don't have solid proof yet, but i conjecture that these off brand designations (e.g., "Bantu"), under the guise of "science", are partially designed to dissect Africans from advanced cultural centers such as the Nile, or even ancient Ghanata for instance, by strategically using linguistic groups and population genetics to cancel out any of those connections. |
|
HaploEshu
Commoner
Reading between the lines...
Posts: 7
|
Post by HaploEshu on Jan 15, 2016 12:05:53 GMT -5
Genetics can answer a lot of our questions....and expose lies. But it can also be manipulated to tell more lies or to distort the field as you sometimes point out as well. It has to be balanced with the archaeological cultural and fossil record. The balanced package Keita talks about. ^^Some examples of how DNA studies are manipulated to deny or distort African bio-cultural diversity... www.geocities.ws/nilevalleypeoples/index.htm-Use of stereotypical "true" negro types to represent African genetic diversity -Contradictory results from DNA racial studies -Use of limited samples as "representative" of "Africans" versus use of broad data ranges to represent Europeanized populations -Pre-sorting and lumping of samples into racial categories before beginning DNA analysis thus skewing final results -Limited applicability of DNA racial analysis in dicing up closely related population -Exclusion of African data that does not meet pre-determined racial models -Use of misleading labeling such as "Oriental" or "Near Eastern" rather than taking DNA data in local context -Sampling bias- commonly using samples unrepresentative or narrow locations such as only northern Egypt, in Egypt -Inconsistent methodology and failure to look at broader more complex models of population genesis This so on point...we can also add to that list "Afro-Asiatic," "Semitic," "Hamitic," "Cushitic," "Berber," even "Bantu" and "Niger-Congo," are all nomenclatures to distort history, language, and other related studies in favor of an artificially superimposed "Eurasian" population of North/Northeast Africa. Genetic genealogy is contaminated as well. Most studies (sympathizers) attempt to create a genetic wedge within the E-P2 subclades - specifically E-V38* and E-M215*. These "scientists" really think everyone is stupid. |
|
HaploEshu
Commoner
Reading between the lines...
Posts: 7
|
Post by HaploEshu on Jan 15, 2016 12:29:44 GMT -5
I am not the only one who believes the Bantu expansion never occurred. It is all BS made up by Europeans. The more I read the more I realize how much horse manure we have been fed by incompetent European “intellectuals”. It is mind boggling how they can come to a conclusion based upon such flimsy data and we believe it. How did these lying racist get away with in the past. Fortunately the Web has leveled the playing field. Within only 3-years of being on ES I had doubts that the Bantu Expansion actually occurred This guy is challenging them on the Bantu Expansion. Quote from: Bantu Theory’s Many Troubling Issues - By Israel Ntaganzwa, Jan 2015 Abstarct - Considering all these important issues, the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn is that Bantu theory in general is based on pure conjecture, speculation and guesswork to say the least. It is a good theory that was simply accepted at face value and taken for granted based on presumed facts. With so many unresolved issues regarding this theory, linguists must find new and better explanations to prove it and to support it or abandon it altogether. 1. INTRODUCTION Sub Saharan Africa is home to some 500 ethnic groups whose languages are known as Bantu, a term coined by a South African Librarian named W. H. Bleek in 1850. Though there are striking similarities among some of these languages, others are so diverse that their speakers cannot at all communicate. Because of these highly exaggerated similarities, it is assumed that Bantu people might have migrated from one geographic central location which was pin-pointed by Joseph Greenberg as somewhere between Nigeria and Cameroon. Malcolm Guthrie thought that Bantu’s original homeland was Katanga in southern Congo. No one has satisfactorily answered this question. Why? Because this alleged migration never took place.It is another colonial jungle fabricated myth like the discredited hamitic theory, and it is a matter of time that Bantu theory too will be discarded and thrown away. In additional to Bantu’s mysterious land of origin, there are many other issues that are not yet resolved. They include: - Bantu historical evidence - Bantu expansion - Bantu languages diversity - Bantu cultural diversity - Bantu genetic mysteries I CONCUR wholeheartedly. This notion is so prevalent that the most effective ammunition left is EXPOSURE. I've stated over and over again that these linguistic nomenclatures were directly invented by Europeans and CANNOT be embraced as scientific "proof" no matter how much technical fluff is applied to decorate their interpretations. And just like E-P2 is HIGHLY likely the bridge clade of the two main branches of Y-DNA haplogroup E, there is also a bridge linguistic phylum that links the so-called "Niger-Congo" (including "Bantu") with so-called "Afro-Asiatic," "Nilo-Saharan" and etc. I suspect the key is Mande/Hausa. This forthcoming exposure would dismantle the bolts and screws of the racist matrix currently enforce. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 15, 2016 21:18:36 GMT -5
I am open to any critique or comments. I am yet to proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaskata on Jan 18, 2016 7:39:43 GMT -5
snakepit. There is no connection. The source you have listed even says it may or may not be. Bantu is the plural for Antu which means people and person. Every Bantu speaking group of people has the word anthu or antu for person. None in Nigeria do. Who ever made that connection was reaching. According to the source even they can't say for sure and that's because they know they can't back it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by snakepit on Jan 20, 2016 22:01:41 GMT -5
snakepit . There is no connection. The source you have listed even says it may or may not be. Bantu is the plural for Antu which means people and person. Every Bantu speaking group of people has the word anthu or antu for person. None in Nigeria do. Who ever made that connection was reaching. According to the source even they can't say for sure and that's because they know they can't back it up. That's not correct. Try again. |
|
