posted 28 November 2004 05:44 PM            

Thought Writes:

You have provided no proof for the following statement:

“NW Africans and Iberians might have shared a common paternal gene pool some 5,600 years ago.”

Thought Writes:

In fact what the Cruciani et al. paper does say is:

“The relatively young TMRCA (mutation divergence date) of 5.6 ky that we estimated for haplography E-M81 and the lack of differentiation between European and African heliotypes in the network of E-M81 support the hypothesis of RECENT gene flow between northwestern Africa and Iberia.”

{No need to go deeper into this subject.}

Thought Writes:

Cop-Out!

{It's nice to see that you are taking your stuff from Stormfront.}

Thought Writes:

posted 28 November 2004 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
No i'm just starting to think you guys are related to Stormfronts.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 28 November 2004 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
If U6 accounts for only 10% of NW maternal mtDNA contribution so what accounts for the rest?

As hinted above, the presence of haplogroup U6 in Iberia may signal gene flow from NW Africa, and those of the subhaplogroup U6b1 recent gene flow from the Canary Islands. Haplogroup U6 is present at frequencies ranging from 0 to 7% in the various Iberian populations, with an average of 1.8%. [b]Given that the frequency of U6 in NW Africa is 10%, the mtDNA contribution of NW Africa to Iberia can be estimated at 18%, with a 95% confidence interval of 8%-26% (estimated by sampling with replacement 10,000 times in populations having the same sample sizes and U6 frequencies as Iberia and NW Africa). This is larger than the contribution estimated with Y-chromosomal lineages (7%, 95% confidence interval 1%-14%, Bosch et al. 2001). However, it should be noted that the variance due to genetic drift is not included in the estimates, and this may have had a larger effect on U6, which has a much lower frequency in NW Africa than its Y-chromosome counterpart, E3b2*. In the same way, we can estimate the Canarian female contribution to the Iberian Peninsula: the subhaplogroup U6b1 is present at a frequency of 13% in the Canary Islands, and reached a frequency of 0.2% in the Iberian Peninsula. Thus, the mtDNA lineages of the Canary Islands contributed 1.5%, with a 95% confidence interval 0-4.7%, to the genetic pool of Iberia. The presence of lineages belonging to the U6b1 haplogroup in the Iberian Peninsula suggests recent gene flow from the Canary Islands, due to recent migration or to the enslavement and deportation of the native Canarians (also called Guanches) at the time of conquest by the kingdom of Castile (15th century).[/B]

---

posted 28 November 2004 07:40 PM            

Thought Writes:

From your 1998 Rando et al. study:

Thought Posts:

“The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic.”

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Northwest African populations reveals genetic exchanges with European, Near-Eastern, and sub-Saharan populations

1998

J. C. RANDO
F. PINTO
A. M. GONZÁLEZ
M. HERNÁNDEZ
J. M. LARRUGA
V. M. CABRERA
H.-J. BANDELT

posted 28 November 2004 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Another study said that U6 originated in the Near East 30,000 ago.

---

posted 28 November 2004 10:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Source please!

---

Here:

1. The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14563219

2. Another recent genetic study from Tunisian Berbers indicates that the Berbers are more heterogeneous than the Arabs but despite this heterogeneity, no significant differences were found between Berber and Arab samples, suggesting that the Arabization was mainly a cultural process rather than a demographic replacement.

Also some Berber groups (the Tuareg, the Mozabite, and the Chenini-Douiret) are outliers within the North African genetic landscape. This outlier position is consistent with an isolation process followed by genetic drift in haplotype frequencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15180702

posted 28 November 2004 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Here:

1. [b]The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14563219

2. Another recent genetic study from Tunisian Berbers indicates that the Berbers are more heterogeneous than the Arabs but despite this heterogeneity, no significant differences were found between Berber and Arab samples, suggesting that the Arabization was mainly a cultural process rather than a demographic replacement.

Also some Berber groups (the Tuareg, the Mozabite, and the Chenini-Douiret) are outliers within the North African genetic landscape. This outlier position is consistent with an isolation process followed by genetic drift in haplotype frequencies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt =Abstract&list_uids=15180702

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 28 November 2004).][/B]

---

Again, what is the point of spending so much energy on U6 and the so-called Capsian diffusion, which has very little relevance to Berber language origins in East Africa? However, here is another look at the haplogroup U, from the American Society of Human Genetics, Reidla et al., 2003:

...First, haplogroup X variation is completely captured by two ancient clades that display distinctive phylogeographic patterns: X1 is largely restricted to North and East Africa, whereas X2 is spread widely throughout West Eurasia...the split between "African" X1 and "Eurasian" X2 subhaplogroups of X is phylogenetically as deep as that within the branches of haplogroup U that also differ profoundly in their phylogeography. Thus, subhaplogroup U6 is largely restricted to North Africa (as X1), whereas subhaplogroup U5 is widespread in West Eurasia (as X2). The phylogeographic patterns and the coalescence times that we obtained here suggest that the basic phylogenetic structures of the mtDNA haplogroups in West Eurasia and North Africa are as ancient as the beginning of the spread of anatomically modern humans in this region.

So while it is certainly probable that the U6 predecessor came from the near east, the relatively small presence of this haplotype among Berbers, doesn't help you in coming to the conclusion that their common language base traces its roots to anywhere else, other than East Africa. So let us now get back to the issue of "relevance".

posted 29 November 2004 09:32 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

So while it is certainly probable that the U6 predecessor came from the near east, the relatively small presence of this haplotype among Berbers, doesn't help you in coming to the conclusion that their common language base traces its roots to anywhere else, other than East Africa. So let us now get back to the issue of "relevance".

---

Who cares about the language?

Also you cannot confuse maternal lineage (mtDNA) with paternal lineage (Y-chromosome). They are seperately distributed.

The Berber maternal lineage is predominantly European and Near Eastern in origin.

quote:

---

The majority of the maternal ancestors of the Berbers must have come from Europe and the Near East since the Neolithic. The Mauritanians and West-Saharans, in contrast, bear substantial though not dominant mtDNA affinity with sub-Saharans.

---

Also the Kabyle, M'zabite, Rifians, Shawia (Chaouïa), Tamazight and Tubisian Toureg are outliers of the mtDNA genetic landscape.

posted 29 November 2004 09:45 AM            

I did not write the post you are responding to, Supercar did.

So you are misquoting me by appending my name to it.

You have also done the same thing to Ausar, Thought and others.

Your rudeness and childishness in this regard is simply horrid. Loser/trolling of the most miserable sort.

The forum moderator Ausar has also asked you to stop engaging in this childish conduct to no avail. And frankly I do not know why he even allows you to continue posting here.

posted 29 November 2004 01:01 PM            

The majority of the NW African maternal DNA came in the Neolithic from Europe and the Near East.

Also most Tunisian Berbers would not be confused for east Africans, rather for Arabs.

You could hardly tell a NW Berber-African from an NW Arab-African just by looking at him.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 29 November 2004).]

posted 29 November 2004 02:33 PM            

Thought Writes: The 10% U6 paleolithic contribution is NOT the major part of Berber mtDNA.

{What about the rest of the maternal ancestry?}

Thought Writes:

About 8% Sub-Saharan (East and West) and the rest is of European and Near Eastern origin, brought with the Arab conquest of North Africa.

posted 29 November 2004 02:38 PM            

Thought Writes:

Are you saying that Amazigh language is irrelevant to Amazigh identity and that the Capsian Stone Age tool kit is more relevant to MODERN Amazigh than there language?

{Also you cannot confuse maternal lineage (mtDNA) with paternal lineage (Y-chromosome). They are seperately distributed.}

Thought Writes:

Agreed?

{The Berber maternal lineage is predominantly European and Near Eastern in origin.}

Thought Writes:

Agreed?

{Also the Kabyle, M'zabite, Rifians, Shawia (Chaouïa), Tamazight and Tubisian Toureg are outliers of the mtDNA genetic landscape.}

Thought Writes:

Ok?

posted 29 November 2004 02:45 PM            

Thought Writes:

Tuareg are Berbers, they LOOK “East African”. The Siwa are Berbers and they LOOK “East African”.

{The majority of the NW African maternal DNA came in the Neolithic from Europe and the Near East.}

Thought Writes:

There is NO evidence of any major Eurasian mtDNA imputs IN THE NEOLITHIC. Most Eurasian mtDNA entered NW Africa with the Arab conquest and with the Cartheginains and Goths (Germans).

{Also most Tunisian Berbers would not be confused for east Africans, rather for Arabs.
You could hardly tell a NW Berber-African from an NW Arab-African just by looking at him.}

Thought Writes:

That is because Arabs brought Eurasian heliotypes into NW Africa with the Arab conquest. Please read Nebel et al.

posted 29 November 2004 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

About 8% Sub-Saharan (East and West) and the rest is of European and Near Eastern origin, brought with the Arab conquest of North Africa.

---

I agree with you, except one thing.

According to the study you posted from 1998, the whole mtDNA make-up of the Berbers was analyzed.

Since i'm not a geneticists i do not pretend to know exactly what they are talking about.

However there is evidence that light skinned humans ("Caucasians") were living in NW Africa since Upper Paleolithic times.

Also the Afro-Asian L3 super-haplotype spread from east Africa some 70,000 years ago.

Moroccan Berbers were found to be virtually identical to Iberians but the Neolithic Near Eastern diffusion to NW Africa seems to be the dominant influence.

The Touaregs (a physically diverse Berber group), Western Saharans and Mauritanians were found to be in an intermediate position.

You can read the full PDF article (867 Kb)from blackwell-synergy:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1469-1809.1998.6260531.x/abs/

posted 29 November 2004 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

Thought wrote:

Are you saying that Amazigh language is irrelevant to Amazigh identity and that the Capsian Stone Age tool kit is more relevant to MODERN Amazigh than there language?

---

posted 29 November 2004 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Orionix:
Who cares about the language?

---

"What a tangled web we weave"! Was it not you who attributed Berber origins to Capsian culture? Was it not you, who attempted to look at "Berber" as an ethnic group, rather than diverse people who share a common language base? Was it not you who keeps looking at a stone age pre-historic era, which has little relevance to the spreading of the Berber speaking groups? Was it not you, who implied that entire NW African populations are all Berbers? Was it not you, who claimed that linguists aren't sure of the origins of Afroasiatic language?
Needless to point out, that these ridicously ill-informed conclusions are the result of not being able to take language into consideration as a central issue, along with biohistory.

posted 29 November 2004 09:06 PM            

Thought Writes:

There is NO evidence of light skin populations living in NW Africa since the Upper Paleolithic! There have been NO melanin studies or limb ratio studies on Upper Paleolithic NW Africans. What we do know is that Europeans did not totally lose their tropical adaptation until the Mesolithic period.

Thought Posts:

Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans

T.W. Holliday,
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, United States

Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayer et al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia. This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective of overall limb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of 'tropical' indices in the context of more 'cold-adapted' limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.

{Moroccan Berbers were found to be virtually identical to Iberians but the Neolithic Near Eastern diffusion to NW Africa seems to be the dominant influence.}

Thought Writes:

posted 29 November 2004 09:31 PM            

Limb attentuation and skin color seem to correlate.

Brace et al.
1996

posted 29 November 2004 10:31 PM            

"Descent Most Berber segmentary groups are patrilineal, i.e. descent and inheritance go through the male line. The Tuareg of the central Sahara are a matrilineal exception with inheritance etc., descending through the female line (which results in higher status for women, though political leadership is still exercised by men even here)."

Thought Writes:

It is of interest that Berber culture is patrilineal, given the fact that most Berber male lineages can be traced back to East Africa during the Holocene.

posted 30 November 2004 01:58 AM            

AMOVA analysis were also applied to the whole African data set, using several designs:

1. Taking all the African populations separately, 79.2% of the variability occurs within populations, whereas 20.8% of the variability occurs between populations.

2. Grouping the populations by main geographic areas, 10.6% between groups, 12.5% between populations within groups, and 76.9% for variance within groups.

3. Considering the main groups of African languages (Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan), similar values were obtained for the variation within groups (76.8%), but 18.9% was found to occur between populations within groups, with the remaining 4.3% corresponding with differences between groups. (This last was not significantly different from 0; P = .068.)

4. When populations were grouped into Bantu versus non-Bantu, a similar apportionment of genetic variation was found: 74.9% within populations, 17.2% among populations within groups, and 7.9% among groups.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v71n5/024272/024272.html

Also i have posted evidence which confirm that the major maternal DNA contribution in the NW African gene pool is of European (haplotype U6 and haplogroup V) and Near Eastern origin (haplotype L3e).

posted 30 November 2004 02:38 AM            

quote:

---

Thought wrote:

It is of interest that Berber culture is patrilineal, given the fact that most Berber male lineages can be traced back to East Africa during the Holocene.

---

Seems to me like you made a broad generalization there.

posted 30 November 2004 03:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Also i have posted evidence which confirm that the major maternal DNA contribution in the NW African gene pool is of European (haplotype U6 and haplogroup V) and Near Eastern origin (haplotype L3e).[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 30 November 2004).]

---

Sight Writes:

posted 30 November 2004 03:04 PM            

Sight Writes:

How so, please elaborate?

{Anyway, fact is that the Neolithic Capsian people were diverse ("racially")}

Sight Writes:

Race is a construct and the Capsian issue has no relation to the Berber issue. By the way, what are the components within the "Capsian" culture that make it "Neolithic"? Thanks.

posted 30 November 2004 03:34 PM            

Posted earlier by S. Muhammad:

The oldest remains of Homo sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 4000 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region.

"Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of 'Caucasoids' (or European-like) generally attached to them. However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions...

"From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. Now, as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived a few thousand years BC in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and at Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans.' Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature.

posted 30 November 2004 04:18 PM            

expressing the absurd
"However today we know that race has little scientific standing. The concept behind race is meaningless in molecular population genetics. When people argue over who is white and who is black there is no science which can back up their claims."

(should have) meant to say...
However today we know that racism has little scientific standing. The concept behind racism is meaningless in molecular population genetics. When people argue over what race is superior and who is inferior there is no science which can back up their claims.

Most intelligent people recognize that there are racial groups, ethnic groups, language groups, and actually two human sexes...

posted 30 November 2004 04:45 PM            

quote:

---

"Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of 'Caucasoids' (or European-like) generally attached to them. However, all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions...

---

--My, my you look just like your children!

Humans originated in Africa, and according to Gloger's Law, these first humans were Black folks. Most of the physical variations we see within the human family today, originated first within this original black population. It is Europeans who have Tutsi features, not the other way around. It is logical, captain...

posted 30 November 2004 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
It is Europeans who have Tutsi features, not the other way around. It is logical, captain...

---

posted 30 November 2004 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Wally:

--My, my you look just like your children!

Humans originated in Africa, and according to Gloger's Law, these first humans were Black folks. Most of the physical variations we see within the human family today, originated first within this original black population. It is Europeans who have Tutsi features, not the other way around. It is logical, captain...

---

"Africa" is not a racial term and it doesn't mean black.

African Americans usually associate Africa with "black people". It's not the meaning.

Race is a social construct so that doesn't mean that they corresponded to the socially constructed label "Negroids". "Whites" did not evolve from "Blacks".

All humans evolved from Homo Sapiens who lived in east Africa some 115,000 years ago. Today we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

posted 30 November 2004 07:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
"Africa" is not a racial term and it doesn't mean black.

African Americans usually associate Africa with "black people". It's not the meaning.

Race is a social construct so that doesn't mean that they corresponded to the socially constructed label "Negroids". "Whites" did not evolve from "Blacks".

All humans evolved from Homo Sapiens who lived in east Africa some 115,000 years ago. Today we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 30 November 2004).]

---

posted 30 November 2004 07:23 PM            

quote:

---

Keino wrote:

You are hopelessly lost in your denial. Try selling that to any anthropologist, geneticist, or even scientist. The facts won't change because you don't like them. You can continue to live in your fantasy delusional world of black whites, no-race and so forth.

---

No you are the racist.

You believe Africa is synonymous to black, not to mention that the native Amazigh of North Africa (except Egypt) were by the majority not black.

posted 30 November 2004 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Orionix:
"Africa" is not a racial term and it doesn't mean black.

---

By gosh, I think he got it!

quote:

---

Orionix:
African Americans usually associate Africa with "black people". It's not the meaning.

---

How about because, the majority of African populations are tropically adapted people, who are socially described as "blacks"?

quote:

---

Orionix:
Race is a social construct so that doesn't mean that they corresponded to the socially constructed label "Negroids". "Whites" did not evolve from "Blacks".

---

Fair enough. So now, we can at least acknowledge that the socially described "Whites" evolved from tropical adapted humans, who are now socially described as "blacks"!

quote:

---

Orionix:
All humans evolved from Homo Sapiens who lived in east Africa some 115,000 years ago. Today we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

---

No kidding. I think he got it again!

posted 30 November 2004 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

Supercar:

How about because, the majority of African populations are tropically adapted people, who are socially described as "blacks"?

---

True except the native Berbers who are socially described as dominantly "white".

quote:

---

Supercar:

Fair enough. So now, we can at least acknowledge that the socially described "Whites" evolved from tropical adapted humans, who are now socially described as "blacks"!

---

I always acknowledged this.

quote:

---

Supercar:

No kidding. I think he got it again!

---

What are you talking about?

posted 30 November 2004 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:

"Africa" is not a racial term and it doesn't mean black.
--You poor thing... You won't find anyone on this forum, present company excluded, who would make such an absurd assertion that Africa means black...

African Americans usually associate Africa with "black people". It's not the meaning.
--We African Americans usually associate Africa with our people. We have real-life relatives there you know. I suppose they're black folks, yeah.

Race is a social construct so that doesn't mean that they corresponded to the socially constructed label "Negroids".
--If I visited Japan, say, the people there would not need an anthropologist or knowledge of the 'social construct' "Negroid" to know that I wasn't Japanese, and that I probably was from somewhere in Africa, maybe the U.S...

"Whites" did not evolve from "Blacks".
--I think the proper term an anthropologist would use would be "filiation"

All humans evolved from Homo Sapiens who lived in east Africa some 115,000 years ago.
--Yes, like I told you, Black folks...
Today we are all Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

---

posted 30 November 2004 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Orionix:
True except the native Berbers who are socially described as dominantly "white".

---

Your continued stance of treating "Berbers" as an ethnicity has been a doomed failure as exemplified in this thread, and it will continue to be a futile attempt. Berbers are ethnically diverse, with a common language base.

posted 30 November 2004 09:07 PM            

Thought Writes:

Your underlying assumption is that African-Americans use the term “Black” in a racial sense. Have you ever consider the idea that perhaps the African-American understanding of the term is more complex than that?

{Race is a social construct so that doesn't mean that they corresponded to the socially constructed label "Negroids".}

Sight Writes:

I have not met any African-Americans that refer to themselves as “Negroids”.

posted 30 November 2004 09:12 PM            

Sight Writes:

Yes, I do. What is racist about that?

{not to mention that the native Amazigh of North Africa (except Egypt) were by the majority not black.}

Sight Writes:

Based upon genetics and linguistics they were of tropical African extraction. Genetic evidence indicates that all African populations carry Y-Chromsome lineages that emerged from Sub-Saharan Africa within the last 10,000 years. Supra-Saharan Africans share mtDNA with Europeans and Near eastern populations and based upon the study of the mutation dates of these mtDNA lineages they were brought into Africa within the last 1300 years.

posted 30 November 2004 09:18 PM            

quote:

---

True except the native Berbers who are socially described as dominantly "white

---

Berber has also been associated with Black for most of the history of European culture.

Again:
Both Berber and Moor are Greek words that were used often interchangably...and moor comes from Mouros which means 'dark or black'. So how silly it is to pretend that Berbers have been dominently 'socially white', whatever that means.

Phenotypically Berber today are white/black & other, ethnically diverse, so Keino is quite correct in that you are deluding yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.

What Berbers have in common, is a language, a culture and a lineage that happens to stem from a common Black East African origin. And any Berber who is educated, and self aware is PROUD of that fact, no matter his/her skin color.

It is really very beautiful if you stop to think about it. Regardless of their color Berber is African, and are related biologically, culturally and historically to all of Africa, just as is Bantu. And that is a provable fact of history, archeology, genetics, linguistics and culture.

And ironically, Orionix: Your efforts to make the Berber into stone-age Europeans has actually been very helpful in terms of illustrating just how AFRICAN and beautiful Berber is.

posted 30 November 2004 09:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The original Berbers were Black, and were seen as such by the Kememu (the Black natives of ancient Egypt; whose Old Kingdom references to the Siwa are the earliest historical account of Berber peoples).
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 November 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

On that note here are a couple of important points of note.

Thought Posts:

Arredi et al.
2004

"The TMRCA of haplogroup E3b2 (E-M81) was estimated to be 4.2 ky"

Luis et al.
2004

"This proposal is in accordance with a population expansion involving E3b2-M81 believed to have occurred in northwestern Africa 2 ky. The CONSIDERABLY OLDER linear expansion estimate of the Egyptian E3b2-M81 (5.4 ky ago) is also compatible with this scenario."

posted 30 November 2004 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
It is really very beautiful if you stop to think about it. Regardless of their color Berber is African, and are related biologically, culturally and historically to all of Africa, just as is Bantu. And that is a provable fact of history, archeology, genetics, linguistics and culture.

---

Keita. et al.
2004

"Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of "race" (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khosianoids). But Y-Chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35 and PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across great geographical expanse. African peoples with a rang of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y Chromsomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar."

posted 01 December 2004 04:16 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Ah, but Orionix as always forgets or chooses not to remember his previous lessons.

---

The only lessons you give are Afrocentric lessons. Do you really think i buy this ****?

quote:

---

Rasol:

The original Berbers were Black, and were seen as such by the Kememu (the Black natives of ancient Egypt; whose Old Kingdom references to the Siwa are the earliest historical account of Berber peoples).

---

You wish!

The earliest Amazigh native to the coastal Maghrib were not black.

The blacks coexisted with them later on and came mainly from the cental Saharan zone.

The coastal Maghrib was never black. Also Africa doesn't mean black. Only African Americans believe in that.

quote:

---

Rasol:

Berber has also been associated with Black for most of the history of European culture.

---

That is not true.

quote:

---

Rasol:

Again:

Both Berber and Moor are Greek words that were used often interchangably...and moor comes from Mouros which means 'dark or black'.

---

Again, you wish if you interpret this in terms of black.

The Moors were originally from SE Morocco.
They were a diverse group of people and the majority were just brown i'd say.

quote:

---

Rasol:

So how silly it is to pretend that Berbers have been dominently 'socially white', whatever that means.

---

I agree that they are not exactly white.

However the earliest coastal Amazigh were not black and their maternal DNA is predominantly non-African.

The original inhabitants of the Canary Island were descended from these early humans.

quote:

---

Rasol:

Phenotypically Berber today are white/black & other, ethnically diverse, so Keino is quite correct in that you are deluding yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.

---

Today they are but the Upper Paleolithic ones who lived in the coastal Maghrib were not black.

Moroccan Berbers represent the earliest inhabitants of NW Africa called the Aterians. The Guanches were descended from the same people.

The Kabyle, Rifians, Tamazight, Mozabites and Shawia are all descended from these early inhabitants of the coastal Maghrib.

quote:

---

Rasol:

What Berbers have in common, is a language, a culture and a lineage that happens to stem from a common Black East African origin.

---

Today they are physically diverse but the ones i mentioned are native to the coastal Maghrib and they happenned to be non-black.

quote:

---

Rasol:

And any Berber who is educated, and self aware is PROUD of that fact, no matter his/her skin color.

---

Many Amazigh see themselves as African but African doesn't mean black for them and many others.

It is just not the meaning. Also many others see themselves as Arab. You could hardly tell a Tunisian Berber from a Tunisian Arab.

quote:

---

Rasol:

It is really very beautiful if you stop to think about it. Regardless of their color Berber is African, and are related biologically, culturally and historically to all of Africa, just as is Bantu. And that is a provable fact of history, archeology, genetics, linguistics and culture.

---

Africans are diverse and most Berbers are native to Africa.

quote:

---

Rasol:

And ironically, Orionix: Your efforts to make the Berber into stone-age Europeans has actually been very helpful in terms of illustrating just how AFRICAN and beautiful Berber is.

---

My point is that there were humans living in coastal NW Africa already in the Upper Paleolithic (30,000 years ago) and these early humans happenned to have light skin.

posted 01 December 2004 04:40 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

The Black natives of ancient Egypt; whose Old Kingdom references to the Siwa are the earliest historical account of Berber peoples.

---

No actually there are much older archaeological documents including the Aterian, Ibero-Maurasian and Capsian industry makers.

The Siwa are predominantly of ancient Nubian origin.

posted 01 December 2004 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

The Siwa are predominantly of ancient Nubian origin.

---

posted 01 December 2004 09:33 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol:

Nubia is geography. Berber is langauge. Berber originates in Nubia

---

Not exactly.

Following this logic than Egypt is geography also. Also the origin of the Berbers is not Nubia.

posted 01 December 2004 11:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Wrong again of course Orioinix. Egypt is a Nation and national reference, not geographical (and actually includes a part of Nubia, btw). One of the reasons your views are so incoherent Orionix is that you don't ever grasp the meaning of ANY of the terminologies that you use, and moreover you obviously don't want to, since that means abandoning your entire ridiculous argument; ie - the dead horse that we are beating.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 December 2004).]

---

posted 01 December 2004 11:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Wrong again of course Orioinix. Egypt is a Nation and national reference, not geographical (and actually includes a part of Nubia, btw). One of the reasons your views are so incoherent Orionix is that you don't ever grasp the meaning of ANY of the terminologies that you use, and moreover you obviously don't want to, since that means abandoning your entire ridiculous argument; ie - the dead horse that we are beating.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 01 December 2004).]

---