The the HLA study was already poster, but some people have been claiming it was flawed something about a geneticists saying "It should have been dismissed because it lacked scientific merit".
"No independent multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena's results and that Tunisian paper wasn't independent, they took their pseudo results from the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Evidence that Arnaiz-Villena's paper is nothing more then pseudoscience can also be seen in the fact that no other independent studies conducted by genetic scientists who tried to duplicate these dubious results found in the Arnaiz-Villena "paper" COULD DUPLICATE THEM."
"There is no evidence to support that any large scale of black Africans were the Greek region to change the genetic phenotypes of the Greek population with 'black admixture' which is why your ridiculous theory that Greeks are black Africans is beyond belief. "
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Courtesy of Refuting "Racial Reality" re Greeks
There is a fraudulent claim, promulgated by Racial Reality and Dienekes Pontikos, that the Arnaiz-Villena study HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks (abstract and link to full study below) has been retracted or scientifically refuted. Rest assured, the study is perfectly valid. It would be helpful here to discuss the study that was retracted, and the reason why. It is The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations (which contained some cross-referenced Greek data in a neighbor-joining dendogram and a correspondence analysis), and it was retracted solely and strictly for political reasons, as this Observer article makes crystal clear:
(Keep in mind we are dealing with the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians at the moment, which was retracted, and not the one on the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness, which was not retracted. The two must not be confused.)
Observer wrote: Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians Robin McKie, science editor Observer
Sunday November 25, 2001
A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.
Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'
British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'
The journal's editor, Nicole Sucio-Foca, of Columbia University, New York, claims the article provoked such a welter of complaints over its extreme political writing that she was forced to repudiate it. The article has been removed from Human Immunology's website, while letters have been written to libraries and universities throughout the world asking them to ignore or 'preferably to physically remove the relevant pages'. Arnaiz-Villena has been sacked from the journal's editorial board.
Dolly Tyan, president of the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, which runs the journal, told subscribers that the society is 'offended and embarrassed'.
The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.
But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.
Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.
He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.
'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.
'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'
In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.
One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'
It is worth exploring a few quotes from the above article, as they are very revealing:
Observer wrote: Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
This shows the politics at work in certain circles of genetic research.
Sir Walter Bodmer wrote: British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'
The fact that the journal initially published the paper shows the journal found nothing wrong with it scientifically. Indeed, all papers must pass peer review to be published. It also, apparently, saw nothing politically objectionable, until it received all those letters from people objecting to the supposedly politically incorrect wording.
Apparently, later on, in an attempt to discredit the study "scientifically," three scientists wrote in to Nature Magazine. Racial Reality and Pontikos claim it somehow "challenges" that the study was pulled for political reasons. This is utter nonsense, as the Observer article makes the political reasons for the withdrawal very plain. The three scientists are expressing their own opinions only, and their "lack of scientific merit" idea, which falls very weakly and definitely untrue, was not the reason for the retraction. This can be seen when viewing their own comment at the end of the article: "We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit." In actuality, this "scientific refutation" is a thinly veiled and weak attempt, containing nonsensical and straw-man arguments, to discredit the study solely and strictly because of its politically controversial remarks.
Here is the article. Note that what Dienekes Pontikos quotes on his site is only a portion of the article, and this is done to make it seem, to the unsuspecting reader, as though it pertains to the Greek study, or to Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in general, which it most certainly does not; if the scientists truly had a problem with the Greek study, they would have written specifically about it, and if they truly had a problem with Arnaiz-Villena's methodology in all his studies, they would have written about that. They didn't, and to reiterate, their comments about the Palestinian/Jewish study are invalid, and this will be explained below. This deception is also found on Racial Reality's own site, and he has added it to Wikipedia's article on admixture in Europe, calling it the "Arnaiz-Villena Controversy." Note also that there is no controversy in the scientific community over the study on Greeks at all; such controversy exists only in the minds of the two aforementioned southern European White Nationalists. I have made requests to have the misinformation removed from Wiki, but it hasn't happened yet. Racial Reality dodges the bullet by rewording it slightly, while still saying essentially the same thing. So, I have given up. Dear Reader, please take what you find on Wiki with several grains of salt; it is notorious for falsification, and I frankly don't think this problem will ever be resolved:
Quote: Nature 415, 115 (10 January 2002); doi:10.1038/415115b
Dropped genetics paper lacked scientific merit
Sir – Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting.
The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to "examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present ... conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews".
They conclude: "Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times."
It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people.
Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons.
Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
Neil Risch Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
Alberto Piazza Department of Genetics, Biology and Biochemistry, University of Torino, Via Santena 19, 10126 Torino, Italy
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
It is clear that the three above scientists are catering to popular political sentiments, and that is a damned shame. Let's examine what they say:
Three Scientists wrote: Even a cursory look at the paper's diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics.
The DRB1 locus is apparently a good one to research, since it is used quite often by different researchers. It may only be one locus, but a relationship between populations at even one locus is still a relationship. Arnaiz-Villena, et al., say data obtained by using this locus is informative and discriminating, indeed more discriminating than data from mtDNA and Y-chromosomes. However, Arnaiz-Villena et al. always use other loci in addition to DRB1, and draw conclusions from all the data. So, the claim that conclusions are drawn from testing one locus (even though it is a good one) is false and a straw-man argument.
The claim the locus is under selection is vague and indefinite. Which alleles are under selection at this locus? There is no information stating that any of the ones tested are. Are all alleles found at this locus under selection? There isn't enough information to regard this seriously.
At any rate, selection plays no role in the Arnaiz-Villena studies, since the frequency of the alleles are not being used to estimate level of admixture. For example, no one is saying that allele from Population B exists in Population A at a rate of 4%, therefore there is admixture of Population B into Population A at a rate of 4%. This is the only case selection can have an adverse effect, because if an allele is expanded due to its being beneficial, its rate in a population will likely exceed the true admixture rate. If one is calculating admixture rate, one is likely to get inflated results.
However, the mere presence of any allele specific to one population in another cannot occur by any other means than admixture. Selection can never cause the presence of such an allele.
The study we are dealing with here, the one on Palestinian / Jewish relatedness, apparently included calculations of genetic distances at the DRB1 locus. Genetic distances are calculated by comparing the frequencies of alleles in various populations. The aim of calculating genetic distances is to determine relatedness of populations. Again, alleles under selection would have no effect on calculating relatedness, only on calculating level of admixture. If a certain foreign allele is introduced into a given population and becomes very beneficial in it, it causes those with the allele to survive, at the expense of those who don't have it. Eventually, many people will have this allele, even though it may have been introduced via a very small admixing population. However, as people without the allele die off, and those with it increase in number, it follows that the relatedness of the population to the population from which the beneficial allele came increases, of course, without the admixture increasing. Therefore, a calculation of genetic relatedness would reflect this elevated relatedness, without revealing true admixture. But if one is only calculating relatedness, it is not a problem and is quite accurate. This is precisely what Arnaiz-Villena, et al. are doing in this and their other studies.
The "DRB1 locus is under selection" attempt to discredit the study goes out the window.
Interestingly, Y-chromosome and mtDNA analysis is essentially the same as using a single HLA locus with its respective alleles, as mentioned to me by Dr. Arnaiz-Villena in private correspondence. Even more interestingly, Y Chromosomes and mtDNA are also subject to selection, since they are linked to diseases. Yet these are frequently used to calculate admixture estimates, and no one seems to complain:
Arnaiz-Villena, et al., in 'Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective' (abstract below) wrote: Other molecular markers, like mtDNA and Y Chr. are widely used for this type of research. They are also subject to selection since they are linked to diseases [...].
At any rate, the role selection plays is not necessarily significant in all cases, according a geneticist I recently spoke to. He explained that the four west African strains of HbS, which are definite indicators of sub-Saharan admixture when found elsewhere, are beneficial to those with malaria, and so selection would increase the frequency of the gene in malarial areas without the admixture increasing. However, in places like Sicily and southern Italy, the frequency of the HbS gene is still quite low, and generally not significantly different from estimates of African admixture using mtDNA, Y-chromosomes, or autosomal genes.
Let's face it: genetecists aren't going to use a marker or locus that isn't reliable. Period. To reiterate, Dr. Arnaiz-Villena has pointed out (in private correspondence) that HLA DRB1 is more discriminating than mtDNA or Y-chromosomes are.
Continuing with the dissection of the three scientists' article:
Three Scentists wrote: The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans;
Indeed, as shown by the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis at the DRB1 locus shown in this Palestinian/Israeli study, Greeks are closely related to sub-Saharans. This is beyond question or challenge. This does not necessarily mean that overall, Greeks and sub-Saharans are similar. But a close relationship at even only one locus (already shown so far by two distinct methods of analyzing that locus) shows that admixture occurred. However, apparently the three scientists decided to ignore the actual study on Greeks (abstract & link below), because that study shows a relatedness in the samples between Greeks and sub-Saharans using several methods (including two ways of analyzing another locus entirely -- DQ), not just the neighbor-joining dendogram and correspondence analysis of DRB1 shown in the study on Palestinians and Jews, although those would certainly be sufficient; indeed, either one at the DRB1 locus alone would be sufficient. (This deliberate negligence on the part of the three scientists isn't surprising, because, as mentioned above, they criticized the basing of the main conclusions in the Israeli/Palestinian study -- that Palestinians and Israelis are related -- on only the DRB1 locus; this was most certainly not the case, since other loci were tested, and the conclusions were based on the similarities of all results.) Most convincingly, in the actual Greek study, several sub-Saharan-specific alleles were clearly found in the Greek population at the DRB1 locus when a direct search for alleles was undertaken. There is absolutely no getting around this. Sub-Saharan alleles could not be present in the Greek population without admixture having occurred. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of genetics and an ounce of common sense can see this. Alleles specific to one population do not appear in another by magic; only by admixture (as stated above).
Three Scientists wrote: and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans.
Firstly, according to another study, HLA Genes in Arabic-speaking Morrocans, the scientists (including Arnaiz-Villena) create what is definitely a similar tree to the one in the retracted study, and never mention that Japanese are related to sub-Saharan Africans, only that they are outliers together (along with Greeks, who really do have a relationship with sub-Saharans):
Quote: Greeks are almost outliers together with Japanese and San (Bushmen).. . In fact, a gradient from Western (both African and European) to Middle Eastern Mediterraneans is observed, placing distinctly Greeks, Japanese and San (Bushmen) as outliers.
Three Scientists wrote: It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups.
Often, genetics will reveal something we didn't previously know about a population. This isn't so puzzling. In fact, it happens all the time, on both individual and populational levels. But in the case of the Greeks having sub-Saharan admixture and Jews / Palestinians being related, the studies are in concord with others. There will be more on the Greek study itself below. It is only being mentioned here because of the cross-referenced data in the study on Palestinians and Jews.
Three Scientists wrote: Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute.
This is a very silly and ignorant thing to say, since, as mentioned above, all studies must pass peer review before being published in scientific journals. As mentioned, the study on Palestinians and Jews passed peer review, proving it contained no glaring scientific errors, contrary to what the three scientists who wrote to Nature want us to believe.
An e-mail reply to my query to one of the three claiming a scientific weakness for the study is as follows:
One of the three scientists, in an e-mail reply wrote: Thanks for writing. I was rather surprised by the following statement in the article you recommend that I read : 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article”. I am not a Jew, but I have great respect for them, and I don’t think they are so ordinary, but I am one of those few geneticists that look at culture rather than genes. I am also scared by the amount of antisemitism I see around. Is the sentence above another bit of it? If so, it is better to not spread it around. The Arnaiz article was refused on the basis of a mistake made by Arnaiz Villena or his colleagues that introduced into a scientific article politics about a very sad conflict that has been going on for decades now, and that we would all like to come to a reasonable end as soon as possible, ideally one dignified for both sides. Arnaiz apologized, and so I suppose he has been forgiven for it and I am not sure the issue deserves continuing comment.
Quite surprising and revealing, isn't it? The scientist, who confirms the retraction of the study was political, actually thinks culture should be included in genetic investigations. Doing this can certainly prevent one from learning the truth about a population's genetic structure, since given genes do not necessarily correspond to a given culture. I must confess I am quite disappointed in this well-respected scientist, and will henceforth be somewhat wary of his work.
As mentioned above, that the study passed peer review shows nothing was wrong with it. This, together with the facts that: the study was indeed not pulled for scientific reasons; that no other scientists complained about the study scientifically; that no other scientists complained about other similar studies employing the DRB1 locus; and that the three scientists themselves complained about no other similar studies using the DRB1 locus, helps to show the study is scientifically sound. The fact that other scientists had written in to support Arnaiz-Villena after the retraction, further proves the study's validity:
Observer wrote: In the wake of the journal's actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their heavy-handedness.
One of them said: 'If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used in his article. This is a very sad business.'
Sad business, indeed. Interestingly, the scientist who wrote the e-mail reply above thinks the above quote is Anti-Semitic, and should not be spread around. It is not, and is simply factual. This would equally apply to any other group (or individual) else with an ideological interest in the outcome of a genetics study.
So, to summarize, the study on the relatedness of Jews and Palestinians is perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint. The retraction was for political reasons, and the supposedly scientific objections by a few scientists are easily taken apart, and indeed are merely disguised attempts to show their dislike of the study for political reasons only.
-----
Now, it is time to move on to the study on the Greeks, which is called HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Again, keep in mind that this study has not been retracted or challenged.
Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2001 Feb;57(2):118-27. Related Articles, Links
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Dimitroski K, Pacho A, Moscoso J, Gomez-Casado E, Silvera-Redondo C, Varela P, Blagoevska M, Zdravkovska V, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
PMID: 11260506 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Here is the link to the full article of the above abstract:
The study found a clear relationship between Greeks and sub-Saharan populations. A neighbor-joining dendogram at the DRB1 locus shows this. Correspondence analyses using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies data and low resolution HLA-DR and DQ (DQ, incidentally, is another locus) allele frequencies data support this. Genetic distances with HLA-DR and DQ generic typings support this. HLA-DRB1 genetic distance calculations support this. And finally, eleven DRB1 alleles were found to be shared by Greeks and sub-Saharans when a direct allele search was undertaken. These alleles, when not found in any real quantities in other populations geographically close to Greece, were searched for in other locations, and were found to exist mainly in Ethiopian and West African populations. Some are only found in Greeks and sub-Saharans, while a few are sporadically found in other populations, mainly around the Mediterranean (the Croatian island of Hvar and Lebanon) and Hungary. African ancestry in any of these populations should not be surprising. (Incidentally, two are found in Amerindians, who have been shown by other methods to have sub-Saharan admixture. One is found in Pacific peoples, who have also been shown to have low levels of sub-Saharan admixture by other methods.) This shows an introgression of sub-Saharan alleles into the Greek population. Again, the only way for alleles from one population to enter another one is by admixture. Selection cannot cause this. The DRB1 locus' being subject to selection has no bearing on these results (see above).
(It should also be noted that the idea put forth by one individual that the HLA alleles in question are Greek alleles and the sub-Saharan populations carrying them do so because of Greek admixture doesn't hold even a drop of water. This is because Greece's neighbours were tested for the alleles and were found not to have them to any significant degree. Since Greek colonists settled in many parts of the Mediterranean, if the alleles had been Greek in origin, they would be present in Greece's neighbours, like Italians, Turks, etc., at appreciable rates. Also, there is no historical evidence of significant Greek settlement in these sub-Saharan areas, particularly the West African ones. But there is indeed evidence of significant presence and settlement of sub-Saharans in Greece.)
Other tests that show other results should not surprise. There is another study, called High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population, by Petlichkovski, et al., 2004, which tests the same DRB1 locus and apparently doesn't report sub-Saharan material (see below on this), and finds Greeks to be similar to Macedonians and other southern Europeans (using genetic distance calculations). In the study itself (not in the abstract) the Arnaiz-Villena study is addressed, and it is mentioned that their results are not in agreement with those of Arnaiz-Villena, and the reasoning used is that the sampled populations were different. This makes perfect sense. The authors didn't try to discredit the Arnaiz-Villena study, which they couldn't do, anyway, because results are results. But isn't it strange that those with ideological investments in the purity of Greeks or other Mediterraneans who claim to object to the use of the DRB1 locus don't object to this study, and freely quote it, conveniently ignoring, of course, what is stated in boldface above? If that doesn't make things clear, nothing will! Incidentally, Racial Reality, who frequently berates those who don't look beyond abstracts into the studies themselves, should have taken his own advice in this case, as he is one of those who fraudulently quotes this study as "proof" of a lack of African ancestry in Greeks.
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The observed closest standard genetic distance between the studied Macedonian population and the Greek population (SGD = 2.777, GD = 6.35) is not in concord with that published by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (21), who point out the close genetic relatedness of the Macedonian population to that of the Cretans and to the great genetic distance between the Macedonians and the Greeks coming from Attica, Cyprus, and northern Greece. Papassavas et al. (22) reveal a significant decrease of both DRB1*1104 and *1601 allele frequencies in the Cretan population used for the genetic distance analysis by Arnaiz-Villena et al., compared to their results. Bearing in mind the differences in the allele frequencies in the Macedonians in our study and those in the study of Arnaiz-Villena et al., we believe that the discordance of the observations in both the studies investigating the HLA polymorphism is probably due to the selection of different subject populations.
Specifically, this sentence from the abstract is used by Greek white nationalists in an attempt to fraudulently "prove" there is no sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks (as if this could really be done, since the Arnaiz-Villena Greek study, amongst others, has shown conclusively the opposite) is as follows:
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
The key word here is included, since the included African populations were not the sub-Saharan ones Arnaiz-Villena mentioned had a relationship with Greeks (Oromo, Amhara, Nuba, Fulani, Rimaibe, Mossi), but instead, were Egyptians, Moroccans, Algerians (all North Africans), and Mandenka (sub-Saharan, but from Senegal) -- populations which Arnaiz-Villena also found to be distant from Greeks. Quoting from inside the actual Petlichkovski study:
Petlichkovski, et al. wrote: As expected, the included African populations (Moroccans, Egyptians, Mandenka, and Algerians) were grouped on the opposite side of the tree.
As we can see, Pontikos and Racial Reality are distorting things once again!
Now it is time to address additional claims made by some that the words of M.A. Jobling, M.E. Hurles, and C. Tyler-Smith, from their book Human Evolutionary Genetics, Garland Publishing: New York, 2004 (as quoted by Greek Nationalist Dienekes Pontikos) somehow refute the Greek study (which they don't). Once again, we are being misled, since the study being referred to is the one on Palestinians and Jews, even though they specifically refer to the Greek correspondence analysis reproduced in it from the original Greek study. I have this textbook, and the only mentioning of Arnaiz-Villena in the references is with regard to the Palesinians/Jews study. I am keeping this discussion in the Greek section of this article, incidentally, since it deals with Greek data, despite its coming from the other study.
Jobling, et al. [according to Dienekes] write:
Quote: As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.
Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1]
Click here for larger version.
In actuality, Dienekes leaves out much of the text (surprise, surprise) so that the true reason of the inclusion of the correspondence analysis is not revealed, which is to show how different interpretations are often (not just with this diagram or this study) possible when it comes to results, with opposing camps going at it, as it were. Here is the full quote from that particular section, from pages 11-12:
In many fields, as time passes, opinion upon how data should be interpreted changes. Indeed, there are often differences in opinion about data interpretation at any one time. This is particularly true of genetic data on human diversity. Debates described in Chapters 8 and 10, on the origins of modern humans and the genetic impact of the spread of agriculture in Europe, illustrate this. Particular methods of analysis, with different underlying paradigms, can be adopted by opposing "camps" within a particular field, and reconciliation becomes difficult. Some methods for analyzing diversity data seem particularly open to different interpretations. As an example, Figure 1.5 illustrates the arbitrariness of different possible population groupings based upon DNA sequence diversity at an HLA locus. Often an objective way to choose between different interpretations is not obvious (though objective methods are discussed later in this book), and in its absence, simple assertion often fills the vacuum.
[the following is the caption under the correspondence analysis]
Figure 1.5: Grouping populations – take your pick. Relationships between populations based on DNA sequence diversity data at the HLA-DRB1 locus, displayed as a correspondence analysis plot (similar to principal components analysis; see Chapter 6) in which clustered populations are genetically similar. (a) Populations, with names indicated; (b, c, d) Three alternative groupings of the populations (there are others). The grouping chosen by Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001) is (d) (adduced as support for a sub-Saharan origin for the Greeks) but is essentially arbitrary. Why is it preferred to alternative groupings shown in (b) and (c)? If the population origins were unknown when the groupings were made, would it affect the outcome? Note that this locus is generally regarded as being under strong selection. Adapted from Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001).[Q1]
Let me reiterate that the correspondence analysis being questioned is the one that contains Greek data in the retracted (for political reasons) study on Palestinians on Jews, not anything from the actual Greek study, even though the correspondence analysis is identical. Jobling, et al. do not (and cannot) take issue with Arnaiz-Villena's findings of sub-Saharan alleles in the Greek population, as shown in the Greek study itself. The alleles don't lie. Also, they don't (and can't) question the fact that the population distances were closest between Greeks and sub-Saharans at that and another locus, as shown in the Greek study itself. This, too, does not lie. The issue of the DRB1 locus being under selection has been addressed above, and is a non-issue, since Arnaiz-Villena was not attempting to actually quantify sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks or influx of sub-Saharans to Greece; he merely points out that admixture occurred, and that it is more than just an infinitessimal amount, since in the Greek study itself genetic distances show closeness at a few loci, and since quite a few (eleven) sub-Saharan alleles at the DRB1 locus were reported in Greeks in that study.
Jobling, et al. are only using the Greek correspondence analysis in the Palestinians/Jews study to illustrate how groups are chosen in diagrams, and they mention that choosing them objectively is not always done. They use Arnaiz-Villena, et al. as an example because they feel that since A-V knew the population origins, it may have skewed their objectivity with regard to a single diagram based on the DRB1 locus (this is their opinion only, and by no means are they stating this is the only time elements of studies have been called into question by those who happen to have different opinions). As stated above, this correspondence analysis is but one of many methods A-V use to determine sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks in the actual Greek study itself. But Jobling, et al. themselves admit that the population origins were known beforehand, which proves they aren't questioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness at all. They are only questioning the supposed non-objectivity of the population groupings of one correspondence analysis. (In the Greek study itself, as stated above, there is another correspondence analysis, using HLA-DR and DQ [another locus] allele frequencies data, that isn't mentioned at all by Jobling, et al., since they aren't addressing that study at all, yet it comes up with essentially the same results.) Jobling, et al. actually aren't specifically questioning the grouping of Greeks with sub-Saharans in the correspondence analysis under scrutiny, either, since one of the alternative groupings they show, (b), also does this. Furthermore, since Greeks and sub-Saharans cluster together in the charts, it makes sense to group them together. This part really isn't arbitrary, and there is nothing wrong with Arnaiz-Villena's grouping them together. This aside, the Jobling, et al. book, incidentally, is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it.
No one is saying Greeks are primarily sub-Saharan in their overall genetic makeup. They are Europeans, after all. But that sub-Saharan admixture has been shown to exist genetically in Greeks (here at the HLA level) should not arouse skepticism. In fact, owing to Greece's former empire and contact with Egypt and other parts of Africa during this time; the mingling of various peoples in Roman-era Greece; the same mingling of peoples of different ethnicities (including sub-Saharans) in Greece during the Turkish period; and Greece's geographical location near Africa, the finding of a relatedness between Greeks and sub-Saharans due to the former's absorption of the latter does not by any stretch of the imagination contradict geography and history.
Other studies using markers other than HLA have also found sub-Saharan genetic material in Greeks. This flatly contradicts the claim by Racial Reality and Pontikos that sub-Saharan admixture in Greeks is unsupported by other studies.
The study Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects finds sub-Saharan Y-haplogroup A in a sample of 27 Greeks from the island of Lesvos (Mitilini) (data in full study, not in abstract).
Also, the Benin-originating strain of the HbS (sickle-cell) marker (#19) is found in Greeks. It could only have gotten there through admixture, whether indirect (through North Africans, for example, as the authors of the study suggest) or direct (through the influx of sub-Saharans at various times in Greek history). Either way, the end result is irrefutable post-Diasporic sub-Saharan ancestry:
Quote: Hemoglobin. 1991;15(6):459-67. Related Articles, Links
The origin of the sickle mutation in Greece; evidence from beta S globin gene cluster polymorphisms.
Boussiou M, Loukopoulos D, Christakis J, Fessas P.
Unit for Prenatal Diagnosis, Laikon Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Study of the Hpa I polymorphism 3' to the beta-globin gene in the Greek population revealed absence of the site in 238 beta S chromosomes, in contrast to a much larger sample of chromosomes carrying the beta A gene, where this site was consistently positive. Subsequent haplotype analysis of the beta-globin gene cluster in 82 beta S chromosomes demonstrated that 79 (96%) belonged to haplotype #19, while the three exceptions (all Hpa I negative) could be explained by a delta-beta recombination event. Haplotype #19 was never encountered in a parallel study of the 83 beta A chromosomes. Comparison of the above results with similar surveys in other parts of the world and consideration of various historical events suggest that the beta S mutation was introduced into Greece over the last few centuries by the Saracen raids and/or by settlements of North African slaves brought in by the Arabs, Franks, Venetians, or Ottoman Turks, who have occupied the country over the last millennium.
PMID: 1687685 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Here is yet another study that finds a beta-thalassaemia allele specific to Africans in Greeks:
DNA haplotype heterogeneity of beta-thalassaemia in Greece: feasibility of prenatal diagnosis.
Athanassiadou A, Zarkadis I, Papahadjopoulou A, Maniatis GM.
We have carried out DNA haplotype analysis of 69 beta-thalassaemia patients in Greece and 42 of the parents using seven standard polymorphic sites. Our data show a high degree of heterogeneity of the chromosomal background in which beta-thalassaemia occurs in Greece, suggesting a high degree of heterogeneity in the beta-thalassaemia mutations involved. Haplotype I is found here to represent 45% of total beta-thalassaemia mutations detected, a proportion well below the 67% reported in earlier studies with Greek-American patients. Nine different haplotypes are detected and the ones carrying beta(+) mutations are the majority, including those which are linked to beta(+) mutations associated with a thalassaemia intermedia phenotype, and which constitute 11% of all haplotypes. One of these haplotypes (---- ) has never before been reported to occur in non-Africans, whether in beta thal or beta A chromosomes, and it is found here to be of African origin rather than the product of recombination. In 21 families haplotype analysis showed that prenatal diagnosis for a second child was feasible in 81% of the cases. Use of the AvaII-psi beta polymorphic site as well as the seven standard ones brought this proportion up to 90%.
PMID: 3620356 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
In addition, sub-Saharan Chromosome 7 markers have been found in Greeks. These Chromosome 7 markers are cystic fibrosis mutations that are specific to sub-Saharans; Greeks are the only Europeans in which these sub-Saharan mutations are found:
Quote: Tissue Antigens. 2002 Aug;60(2):111-21. Related Articles, Links
Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile.
Publication Types: Historical Article
PMID: 12392505 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
The above study is another by Arnaiz-Villena, using the data from his main study on Greeks. The information on the Chromosome 7 markers comes from Dork, et al., 1998. Here is the quote from inside the above Arnaiz-Villena study:
Quote: Other Negroid genes have also been found in Greeks. They are the only Caucasoid population who bears cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans (Chromosome 7). See Dork, et al. In Am. J. Hum. Genet., 1998: 63: 656-682.
Anthropologists, studying old remains of Greeks, sometimes found sub-Saharan-like individuals:
J. Lawrence Angel, in American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 1/2 (Feb. - Apr., 1972) [review of Frank Snowden's "Blacks in Antiquity" book] reports:
Quote: In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date.
An interesting quote from Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times, Journal of Human Evolution, 1972 (1) pp. 307-313:
Quote: Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction off body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians [. . .]
Frank Snowden, who passed away in 2007 at age 96, had researched the presence of blacks in the ancient Greece from the standpoint of art and literature. His findings include:
Quote: Both the literary and archaeological evidence points to a not infrequent crossing between blacks and whites. Nothing in the observations on such unions, whether marriage or concubinage, resembles certain modern strictures on racial mixture.
Of course one reason for the color bar which recently existed in the West was the belief that it was race mixing which led to the collapse of Greek, Roman, and other civilizations. . . .
No laws in the Greco-Roman world prohibited unions of blacks and whites. Ethiopian blood was interfused with that of Greeks and Romans. No Greek or Roman author condemned such racial mixture. . . . The scientists Aristotle and Pliny, like Plutarch, commented as scientists on the physical appearance of those born of black-white racial mixture but included nothing resembling certain modern strictures on miscegenation. . . . It is safe to assume, therefore, that in course of time many Ethiopians were assimilated into a predominantly white population. (Blacks in Antiquity, 193-195)
With respect to the number of blacks in ancient Greece, Snowden states:
Quote: Even though we cannot state, in the manner of modern sociologists and historians,the ratio of Blacks to Whites in either Greece or Italy, we can say that Ethiopians were by no means few or rare sights and that their presence, whatever their numbers, constituted no color problem. (Blacks in Antiquity, 186)
Snowden also mentions:
Quote: Black-white sexual relations were never the cause of great emotional crises and many blacks were physically assimilated into the predominantly white populations of the Mediterranean world.
...the number of references to Ethiopians in Greek literature of the fifth century BC, on the appearance of mulatto children following the presence of blacks in Greece in the army of Xerxes, and on the many artistic representations of the mid- and late-fifth century BC reflecting this anthropological evolution.
It is worth clicking on his name above and reading the article. His two books, Blacks in Antiquity and Before Color Prejudice, are excellent works and are highly recommended. They do not contain Afrocentric drivel, and Snowden cites all his sources and makes logical conclusions. In fact, the Arnaiz-Villena study's results of Ethiopian alleles in the Greek population correlate to Snowden's research, since most of the sub-Saharans Snowden speaks of originated in the Ethiopian region. So, history is corroborated by genetics, and vice-versa. Even most of the specific geographical regions match up, e.g., the Athens area, Cyprus, Aegean Islands, etc.
Snowden has been studying this field since the 1940's, and wrote a few articles at that time. One is called The Negro in Ancient Greece and is available online in PDF form. (I have the original article, as well as The Negro in Classical Italy, and will soon scan them both in.)
Here is another Arnaiz-Villena study mentioning the Greek-sub-Saharan relatedness:
Quote: Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;62(9):1051-61. Related Articles, Links
The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garcia J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, 28041, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
The usko-Mediterraneans peoples are defined as ancient and present day populations that have lived in the Mediterranean/Middle-East/Caucasus area and have spoken a Basque related language. The present day existing populations show an HLA genetic relatedness which is more or less close according to geographical distance. The Greek sample is an outlying in all genetic analyses, because Greeks have a significant genetic input from sub-Saharan Ethiopians and Blacks. This probably occurred in Pharaonic times. Present day comparisons between genes and languages show a lack of correlation: Macedonian, Palestinians, Kurds, part of Berbers, Armenians, and Turks belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, but they do not speak a language included in the old Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian group. This is due to an "elite"-imposed culture and language. Other ethnic groups speak an "old Mediterranean language" or "usko-Mediterranean language" modified by Roman Latin (i.e., Spanish, Italians), or by other not fully explained processes (Jews). Therefore, the correlation between genes and languages may exist at a macrogeographical level, but not when more precise microgeographical studies are done, as shown in the present "usko-Mediterranean" peoples model.
PMID: 11543906 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
The following study was done by other scientists and confirms the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus (this study, incidentally, and the Petlichkovski (2004) study above, show that the Greek study is indeed cited by other scientists, and not merely northern European White Nationalists and Afrocentrists, contrary to what Racial Reality and Pontikos would have us believe; the fact that we site it here on our respectable site also disproves those claims, since we are a group who seek the truth and demand all sources):
Quote: Eur J Med Genet. 2006 January - February;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10. Related Articles, Links
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their Relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa1ed A, Boukef K.
National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
PMID: 16473309 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
There is more. AncestryByDNA, using autosomal markers, mentions that the average Greek and Italian type with approximately 5% sub-Saharan genetic material. Even though in some cases with respect to certain population groups, for an individual, a low reading such as this may be negated by the confidence interval, in Greeks and Italians low levels of sub-Saharan admixture are consistenly found, making them signature results for these populations. This means they are not stastical "noise," but true results.
That Greeks have some sub-Saharan admixture isn't open to question. The HLA alleles and genetic distance calculations (and neighbor-joining dendograms and correspondence analyses) speak for themselves, as do the other sub-Saharan markers described above, along with the cranial and skeletal, as well as historic, data.
But there is even more.
Sub-Saharan-originating Y-group E-M78 (a derivative of sub-Saharan-originating E3b) is found at relatively high levels in Greeks (and some other Mediterraneans), which suggests, in addition to the more recent admixture, a very ancient sub-Saharan contribution to the Greek genepool (Semino, 2004 and Cruciani, 2004). The fact that the most prevalent form of E-M78 found in Greeks is a later, mainly local (Mediterranean) variation is irrelevant, since the parental E-M78 originated in eastern Africa, as did all of its ancestral markers. Various descendants of E3b, E-M78's ancestor, are shown to exist in many Mediterraneans in this study (though all are simply marked "E3b"), which also shows sub-Saharan Y-group A in Cypriots (although it isn't specified whether these are Greek or Turkish, so, perhaps it is a cross-section; Greek-identified Cypriots are far more numerous). East-African-Specific M1 has also been reported in Greeks (Richards, 2000 and supplementary data).
We rest our case. It must be remembered, this posting is not about "proving" Greeks are "really Black" because of a minor amount of sub-Saharan ancestry. This is about showing sub-Saharan admixture occurred in Greece, and this is evidenced by different kinds of genetic research and supported by history and anthropology. More importantly, it is about refuting fraudulent claims (by those with ideological investments in Greece's "Whiteness") that Arnaiz-Villena's Greek information is invalid or unsound, or that the study on Greeks has been refuted or retracted. Arnaiz-Villena's study on Greeks is perfectly sound scientifically, as are all of his others. And, despite that there are some geneticists (usually those who specialize in mtDNA or Y Chr.) who don't have much faith in HLA studies, there are a great deal of geneticists who find HLA to be a very reliable and discriminating tool for studying population relationships, and the number of studies employing HLA for this purpose are legion. Indeed, some of those who specialize in HLA find mtDNA and Y Chr. to be less reliable.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - Is that you, coming around to the Afrocentric view?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^That is called genetics (or in your terms "the white mans bullshit"), something you know very little about to understand lil Mikey, now go play in the corner.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
But Mindlessone, didn't you read THIS part??
This is more-or-less the AFROCENTICS position.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.
quote:
But of course, as with above and below, the White man will find ways to miss-interpret his own data.
This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Mindlessone - Having taken a ride with the Black mans truth; you are now probably hungering for your normal "White mans Bullsh1t". In which case the first article above should take good care of you.
Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians
* Robin McKie, science editor * The Observer, Sunday 25 November 2001 11.24
A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.
Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.
Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.
quote:
So all together now;
The modern so-called Jew, the modern so-called Palestinian, the modern so-called Arab, the modern so-called Berber, the modern so-called Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian. They are ALL fuching TURKS!!!!
That's not just me saying it, the genetics also say it!!!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
mindlessone, where are you?
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Global African Supremacy writes]"There is no evidence to support that any large scale of black Africans were the Greek region to change the genetic phenotypes of the Greek population with 'black admixture' which is why your ridiculous theory that Greeks are black Africans is beyond belief.
[Marc writes]
Ancient Greek history occurs in three phases and, believe me, the terminology to identify them is obtuse and convoluted; I believe it is so to hide the African origins of Greece (for example, it is touted that Alexander was from Macedonia – but Macedonia was black before and during Alexander’s time. Black Cleitus [below], one of his generals, came from there: see page 2). I have modified it and explain it as follows.
The first period is the Archea Period extending from Paleolithic and Neolithic times down to near 1000 BC. The second being the Ionian Period which emerged in the latter phases of the age of the Archea.
The third, and last being the Dorian Period which began near 1200 BC when Eurasia became colder and northern dwellers migrated south to find warmer lands. They brought on such destruction (witnessed by charred ruins throughout the mainland and islands) that it took a full millennium for Greece to begin to rebuild again.
ARCHEA – the brown-skinned peoples: Sir Arthur Evans (1781 – 1854), in “The Minoan and Mycenean Element in Hellenic Life” wrote that: “The people whom we discern in the new dawn are not the pale-skinned northerners – the ‘yellow-haired [peoples] – but essentially the dark-haired, brown complexioned race.”
The IONIANS See pages 1, 3, and 6.
DORIANS: The ancestors of today’s population.
One more point. Alexander began untutored but was educated by Aristotle and raised by the younger sister of one of his generals, Cleitus the Black of Macedonia. Here is a picture from Runoko Rashidi’s site of Black Cleitus:
Black Cleitus’ sister was named Helenice. With Cleitus being African (black / Negro) his sister could only have been by physical appearance African. Now, her name was Helen. We see Helen was therefore an African / black / Negro name. And Hellenism somehow may very well trace its origin also to black peoples due to the burden and debt of Alexander.
Why? Alexander’s best and most trusted and loved commander was Cleitus yet he killed him in a fit of rage:
Ten years after the Battle of the Granicus, Alexander’s men rebelled at the never-ending series of wars they were embarked upon. It was Black Clietus who gave voice to their concerns. In a drunken fit of fury, Alexander killed him on the spot. Alexander’s own men might have killed Alexander right then, if not for what Alexander did next. He took to his bed, refusing to eat for days and tore out his hair, all the while loudly lamenting that he could never face Hellanice (his nurse) again, after all her sons had died fighting under his banner, and he himself had killed her brother.
What Alexander ushered in through Helenism were the teachings and culture taught him by Aristotle and nurtured in him by the woman who raised him whose brother he killed.
The great irony here is that Helenism may be a tribute and instution of the black African. If so, what a gas.
[Global African Supremacy writes]"There is no evidence to support that any large scale of black Africans were the Greek region to change the genetic phenotypes of the Greek population with 'black admixture' which is why your ridiculous theory that Greeks are black Africans is beyond belief.
[Marc writes] The pages here deal primarily with the populations of the Archea and Ionians (descendents, I’d say, of the Archea who ushered in a new cultural era). And, a description of the Mediterranean race (of Archea and Ionian) I like is the following:
Smith wrote: “At the outset of my remarks on the story bones have to reveal I should like to emphasize a statement made by Prof. Giuseppe Sergi in his remarkable book on the Mediterranean Race. So striking is the family likeness between the early Neolithic peoples of the British Isles and the Mediterranean and the bulk of the population of both ancient and modern Egypt and East Africa, that a description of the bones of an early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to the inhabitants of Somailand.”
In: Grafton Elliott Smith, The ancient Egyptians and the origin of civilization, (Books for Libraries Press, New York, [1923] 1970), p. 65.
[2] Alexander was from Macedonia but Macedonia before him was African. His father migrated to and lived among the Africans of Macedonia and evidently wooed them to become part of the war machine of he and his son who laid to waste the beautiful ancient world that perished under their sword. http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-20.html
I don't think this is the image of Clitus Niger I saw this in the BLKYN Museum and it was not labeled as such if there is new info on the sculpture then please share with us..as a matter o fact your source did not make that claim please take another look bro.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Brada. You are completely right. I recognize everything you say as totally correct. I wrote the following letter to Runoko this morning:
____________________[Beginnning]
From: Marc Washington [mailto:best@mail.datanet.hu] Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:12 AM To: 'TravelwithRunoko-owner@yahoogroups.com' Subject: Clietus the Black
Brother Runoko. Lovely picture you posted of your daughter last November.
dealing with Cleitus the Black is a picture with a caption under it reading “Black man – ancient Greece.”
Is this a picture of Cleitus himself or rather one chosen to represent that fact that he was black like the sculpture?
Thanx in advance,
Marc
_____________________[End]
I spent well-over an hour searching the net for either verification that the picture posted was Clietus or another image of Clietus would be presented. Didn't find a thing.
You are right in all you stated.
Have you come across either a sculpture or painting of him within a century of his death?
I still hold, though, that based on the archeological evidence found in Macedonia and its nearby neighbor, Bulgaria, with whom it shared borders that the population and culture Clietus and his sister lived within were "African" [poster 2 above](same as saying Archea Period of Greece) and that Helen was a name not indigenous to Alexander's people but Clietus' That Helenism was basically a black thought, culture, and civilization draped in white.
. .
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Marc W
quote: Have you come across either a sculpture or painting of him within a century of his death?
No!! sorry bro, but maybe the best place to search is where Bactria used to be for he was King there,maybe some Museum in the area may have something but my guess we won't find anything.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
Brada. Do you mean Macedonia for the place Clietus' ruled? (I didn't know he was also a king)
heck the geographical location at page bottom on Bactria - not near Bulgaria.
On the other hand, the following definition tells of him being Macedonian. Macedonia bordered Bulgaria which I have a page on Bulgaria showing it was, by the physical appearance of the people, (not geographically) African.
Cleitus, son of Dropidas, known as ‘The Black’, was one of the ‘old guard’ Macedonians.
YOUR MAIN POINT: Your main point is that a sculpture might most likely be found in a museum of the place of his birth (but the Brits and French stole and got all the most rare and valuable old art!!!). Though you don't think it exists and you may be right.
___________
Bactria: The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC, also known as the "Oxus civilization") is the modern archaeological designation for a Bronze Age culture of Central Asia, dated to ca. 2200–1700 BCE, located in present day Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan, centered on the upper Amu Darya (Oxus), in area covering ancient Bactria.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
No Marc W not the place of his birth I mean Bactria in Asia he was King there, and all of Alexander's top Generals were carving out Kingdoms for themselves..so Alexander was a sorta King of Kings on the march.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Oh. You were talking about Alexander, with all his killing NOT Great but Hitleresque; and the unfortunate model for Caesar who with the enslavement of millions of Guals and the killing of as many as he enslaved was just as Hitleresque.
I thought you were speaking about Clietus.
. .
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Marc W I am talking about Clitus
Clitus KING OF BACTRIA AND CAVALRY LEADER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT (c. 300 B.C.
CLITUS, FOSTER BROTHER of Alexander the Great and commander of Alexander's cavalry, was the son of Dropides and Lanice, the nurse of Alexander. Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and Curtius, writers of antiquity, speak of him as Clitus Niger-Niger being Latin for "Negro." In those days one's surname was often given to him because of his color or some physical characteristic. There were other Clituses in Alexander's army and fleet. In any case, Alexander's having a Negro general was not extraordinary. A much later conqueror, Napoleon, had as his favorite cavalry leader a Haitian Negro, the celebrated General Alexandre Dumas. Clitus was many years older than Alexander and had been a general under Alexander's father, Philip of Macedon. When Alexander succeeded to the throne and started off on his conquests in Asia, Clitus went as his commander of cavalry and so distinguished himself that he was made King of Bactria. At the great battle of Arbcia in which Darius, King of Persia, met the Greeks with 40,000 cavalry, 1,000,000 infantry, and 200 scythe-bearing chariots, Clitus saved the day by saving the life of Alexander. At the height of the battle, Alexander, who was a conspicuous figure with his golden buckler and helmet's crest and his plumes of unusual size and whiteness, was attacked by a score of the enemy among whom were two Persian generals, Rhoesaces radates. Alexander dodged Spithradates and struck at with his spear, but the weapon snapped in two on breastplate and Alexander was compelled to draw his sword. "But," says Plutarch, "while he was thus engaged with Rhoesaces, Spithradates rode up, raised himself on his horse, and with all his might came down with a barbarian battle-axe upon Alexander's helmet. Alexander's crest was broken off together with his plumes. Alexander's helmet could barely and with difficulty resist the blow, so that the edge of the battle-axe touched the topmost hair of his head. But while Spithradates was raising his arms for another stroke, Clitus, black Clitus, got the start of him and ran him through the body with his spear." Alexander and Clitus had, nevertheless, sharp differences of opinion. Clitus was very devout and Spartan in his habits while Alexander was much the opposite, and when in Asia he saw Alexander adapting the luxurious style of living of the rich there instead of adhering to the simpler, more healthful ways of his native lanai, he was disturbed lest Alexander become as soft as the people he had conquered. Moreover, Alexander, who was surrounded by flatterers, was becoming too boastful. Clitus, out of his deep affection for him, reproached him for these defects and tried to change him. Alexander resented this and a breach developed between the two. One day while Alexander was at Samarkand, a present of unusually fine and luscious Greek fruits arrived or him and he sent for Clitus to share it with him. The messenger found Clitus at the temple, sacrificing to Dionysius, and when coming fresh from this shrine he saw Alexander at the banqueting table intoxicated and surrounded by sycophants, he was deeply disturbed, but nevertheless drank the wine Alexander offered him. When Clitus had entered, the poets were chanting verses lauding Alexander above the gods. One of them now began to ridicule those generals of Alexander who had suffered defeats from the Persians and even to satirize Macedonian skill at arms. This highly displeased the Macedonian commanders but pleased Alexander, who by this deflation of his own people hoped to win over the conquered Asiatics to his support. The Macedonian commanders, however, not daring or wishing to offend Alexander, pretended to be pleased too. Clitus alone dared to differ. He said, "The defeated Macedonian generals are far superior to those who are mocking them. www.marcusgarvey.com/wmview.php?ArtID=447 -
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Really interesting. A lot of new information there for me.
The following not addressed to you, Brada. Just general comments.
Above it is written Cleitus that "was the son of Dropides and Lanice, the nurse of Alexander."
In quite a few other accounts, it is noted that Lanice is also known as Hellenice. I think it's important to note, as mentioned, that this identifies the name Helen with the indigenous blacks and not Alexander's people. That the honor given Hellenism most likely is misplaced belonging not with Alexander and the murderous invaders killing millions of peaceful farmers but to the "African" civilization predating him that he took so much from. Even his soldiers were, it seems, mostly Africans fighting other Africans. Sad old story.
Also, above it is said that Clietus was Hellenice's son whereas other places say he was her older brother. That is of no consequence.
HOWEVER, I realize that you aren't arguing with me about anything. You have given objective information and I have made comments not so much related to what you posted but to the thrust of the eight web pages I posted showing African presence in the Mediterranean. Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
Alexander's father Phillip
. .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Brada. I tried your suggestion to look for Clietus in a Bactrian museum. I browsed with the key words:
I found surprisingly found both a coin and at another site a bust of Alexander where he looks more African or mixed:
As compared to the most common image showing him as white:
And, his father does not have the ruler-straight hair of whites, but is shown with very curly hair. Now, centuries later, such hair would be ruler-straight as if the earlier genes for curly hair over time were whitened away. Curly hair is the hair, in my view, of people with mixed heritage. Here is his picture:
His mother, on the other hand, if pictures are to be believed, had gently wavy hair – also not “ruler-straight”:
She seems to have been the most likely person to have messed him up (made him a murderous meglomanic (sadly followed by those patterning themselves after him: Caesar, William the Great, Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin).
His mother tried to convince him that his father was not Philip but Zeus thereby entitling him to be treated as a god. This haughty attitude is what so badly turned Clietus against him as Alexander adopted the Persian custom of allowing those below him in rank to bow to him – and bowing was a thing reserved for the gods. The Greeks hated this newly gained practice of Alexander. But, it seems as though it came from his mother. I’d say she was foreign to Greek customs. Not wholly indigenous.
Her lips a bit large and hair wavy, she looks as if she could have been from mixed parentage and Alexander, full-lipped, widish nostrils, heavily curly hair in the first two images, surely looks mixed.
Alexander was sick or at the least, terribly misanthropic and I’d say devoid of human compassion and sociopathic:
We learn, too, that he conquered and killed with epic abandon, unable to sate his lust for innocent blood. He exhibited the noblest virtues of friendship and chivalry, and he butchered his closest companions out of raging insecurities. He was enlightened, intelligent, and temperate; he was insane and addicted to violence and alcohol. These studied portraits of Alexander as both a sensitive youth and a psychopath could not be more controversial and contradictory.http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10059/10059.ch01.php
And this is the man worshipped by Western society. He is called Great. For what? Being a mass murderer?
Black or white, he was a mass murderer and a great bane and shame to humankind having established the mold and mindset of bloddy, Western, militaristic civilization.
, ,
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Guys: from the time of Darius.
The Bactrians appear to be White people. Of course there is the possibility that they could have been straight haired Blacks.
Bactria - A country between the range of the Hindu Kush and the Amu Darya; its capital Bactra was located in what is now Afghanistan.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Was Clitus from Bactria or simply given rule over it by Alexander after Alexander conquered Bactria?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I think that's the point being missed Bro AlTakruri that he was made ruler over the Bactrians and one cannot assume because the unpainted sculptures of the Bactrians had straight hair or hook nose they were "White" they could look like straight haired Asians possibly dark,like some present day Indi Afghani folks.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Sorry Mike I missed your statment.
quote:Guys: from the time of Darius. The Bactrians appear to be White people. Of course there is the possibility that they could have been straight haired Blacks.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: But Mindlessone, didn't you read THIS part??
This is more-or-less the AFROCENTICS position.
**Sighs** You're slow lil Mike, the study you picked (along with all of the others) has been out for years, and already dissected on ES.
Every intelligent folk around here knows there was gene flow into southern Europe from Africa and SW Asia, most likely beginning with the introduction of agriculture into Europe.
We know that because about 25% of Greeks carry a derivative of the E haplogroup, and 25% descending from HG J, which also fits with the archaeological and anthropological data of a migration into Europe which spurred the "Neolithic revolution" there.
You would know this if you'd step out of your fantasy land and tried learning something for a change.
You're like Cylde Winters when it comes to genetics, you simply don't understand it, and wind up coming to the most outrageous conclusions from it, but then when no ones agrees with your nonsense, you insistently wine that "its the white mans bullsh1t".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Though their's isn't the final say so on how we determine who's black nowadays, the ancients didn't see Bactrians as Aithiops or Kushiym.
Among the blacks of Africa there is helixical, bushy, curly, wavy, and straight hair. Hair texture outside of Africa falls in all those natures. Hair is no certain determiner of a non-African people's blackness. Isn't straight and wavy hair the norm for northern and central EurAsian peoples with some having naturally curly hair as well? Straight hair in Asians? It's on the heads of the blackest Indians to the whitest Japanese. One can't assume any Asian's colour by basing it on the nature of the hair. What is there to say? Arguments can be made either way without definitive conclusions.
I don't know. It just seems to me that some USA blacks stretch out making every ancient civilization and culture black. We see a few of those who do so here despise continental African peoples, cultures, and civilizations from their hairstyles to their architecture to their emperors.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: ... the Bactrians [] one cannot assume because the unpainted sculptures of the Bactrians had straight hair or hook nose they were "White" they could look like straight haired Asians possibly dark,like some present day Indi Afghani folks.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Hi Bro. al Takruri.
As mentioned by someone earlier, before man became man, his hair was straight as with the apes and over time became kinky where the Australian aborigine with often straightish hair may represent that early phase of human hair.
Aborigines aside, I don't want to appear dogmatic but I think before the races started mixing (mostly from 3000 years ago?) there were two types of hair: Africans (Negritoes) worldwide with kinky hair and whites just beginning with a nucleus of people in the Steppes (and before they began radiating outwards in all directions) with ruler-straight hair.
You discuss various wavy-curly hair types as characteristic of given peoples.
I think when we see wavy-curly types as compared to kinky or straight that we are seeing hybrids between African and white (see, e.g., footnote); with the exception being that sometimes straight hair is seen by African peoples whose hair is naturally kinky (1, 5, 7) but have straightened it (2, 6, 8) as in the following:
From what I have seen, the whole world was virtually all Negritoes (Akenaten was tall) mostly a millennium before the time of Christ but also into the first centuries of the Roman Empire:
Then, whites started migrating from the Steppes (mostly from 3000 years ago as into Italy) and their mixing with Negritoes produced wavy-curly hair in the world.
Then there are the Monguls who I believe began history as San / Khoisan but living in Mongolia and throughout Asia along with the Pygmy. Until the time of Ghengis and Kubla Khan during the European Middle Ages, these people still mostly had kinky hair I believe.
When whites from the Steppes migrated to Asia and started producing offspring with them, I think that is when today's golden-colored Asians got their straight hair.
That's my take on the situation. If you cringe at this, I can respect your feelings as you are vastly read and have voluminous information of ancient history and its people at your finger tips. And, I know the above model is flawed and don't expect that you would give it much merit.
Best regards,
Marc
_________________________________ FOOTNOTE on transitional skull-types mixing Mediterraneans (I say Negritoes) with intruders/whites:
The following is paraphrased but the original author uses the terms non-Mediterranean people, intruders, two generations, transitional skull types.
“The pre-Greeks were mainly Mediterranean (Marc’s note: Negrito) … the intruders … seem to have been Iranian and Alpine types … Whether we regard the newcomers as a special elite group among those who had already entered Greece at the beginning of the second millennium B.C. it is clear that they are non-Mediterranean people … Such diversity is exactly the result that one can expect when intruding outsiders arrive and subject natives: new marriages, polygyny and concubinage resulted in a genetic mixture within two generations ... as seen in the transitional skull types.” Janusz Makkay, The early Mycenaen rulers and the contemporary early Iranians of the Northeast, (Makkay, Budapest, Hungary, 2000).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That is because it is true!!. . . In most cases. To surmise from the many threads like yours about a year ago and the recent St Tigray’s –
It is very simple. In many of these civilizations the builders WERE black negroid people. Indus, Americas, Vietnam etc. these negritos are still there today. They are no longer the majority.
Where the confusion/debate is – what to classify them as. Because they are indigenous to the area does that make them non-African?
This is the point Afro-holic DON’T get.
Any sensible and knowledgeable individual will agree they are black and “negroids”.
In some neophyte afro-centric mind they visualize modern Africans from Africa travelling the world building these civilizations, which is NOT the case.
But a more mature Afro-centric like me, is now beginning to classify all these people as Africans . . .regardless of their genetic makeup. . .or when they left the continent. They look like me . . .they are my people. THAT IS THE POINT. They remained virtually unchanged since they left the continent.. . . therefore they are Africans.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: It just seems to me that some USA blacks stretch out making every ancient civilization and culture black. . . .
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
MindoverMatter718 - So are you formally admitting that the founding European civilizations were built by Black People?
And if that is the case, then why the two year delay in doing so?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Hello Marc
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: I don't want to appear dogmatic but I think before the races started mixing (mostly from 3000 years ago?) there were two types of hair: Africans (Negritoes) worldwide with kinky hair and whites just beginning with a nucleus of people in the Steppes (and before they began radiating outwards in all directions) with ruler-straight hair.
One of the earliest anthropologists proposed just such a scheme, that there are only two races. One race with helixical hair (compressed lumen and big clumpy pigment granules) and the other race of all othe kinds of hair.
I think it's the East Asians who have ruler straight hair (round lumen). Europeans' hair is very slightly wavy for the most part.
quote: You discuss various wavy-curly hair types as characteristic of given peoples.
I think when we see wavy-curly types as compared to kinky or straight that we are seeing hybrids between African and white (see, e.g., footnote); with the exception being that sometimes straight hair is seen by African peoples whose hair is naturally kinky but have straightened it ...
Yes, curly-wavy hair appears naturally in both white people and black people so it cannot be used as a determiner of a peoples blackness. Though not many, there are black south of the Sahara Africans who have naturally straight hair, no artificial straightening involved. I have seen a handful of Xtian Ethiopians with long straight hair dark brown hair and a few Somalis with mid to long straight raven black hair.
On average, yes, one can say that the majority of a given people tend to have a certain nature of hair that can be used to characterize them but there will be exceptions negating a blanket pronouncement.
quote: ... whites [...] mixing with Negritoes produced wavy-curly hair in the world.
... Monguls [...] began history as San / Khoisan [...] mostly had kinky hair ...
... whites [...] producing offspring with them, [...] is when today's golden-colored Asians got their straight hair.
That's my take on the situation. If you cringe at this, I can respect your feelings as you are vastly read and have voluminous information of ancient history and its people at your finger tips. And, I know the above model is flawed and don't expect that you would give it much merit.
I don't cringe but I do find it highly speculative and the available resources can neither prove nor disprove what you say about hair but genetics does go against the grain of some of your ideas about descent.
You certainly have a right to your opinion and you present yourself above personal reproach. So what it matters if I disagree with you? You have a conclusion, you calmly and without racialist rant and rave show how you arrived at it and that is good. Thirty five years ago I would've written just about the same. I just feel your methodology is now a bit outmoded (as is mine at times). I don't place as much stock in Haddon, Churchward, Dixon, Coon, Childe, etc., as I once did.
Don't let your detractors drag you down into the muck they live in. Ignore them and keep working at the high respectable level all expect when they read material with the Marc Washington brand.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Dolphins and whales are indigenous to the sea. Dolphins and whales look like fish of the sea. But dolphins and whales are not fish.
Africans are African. Most Africans are black. Asians are Asian. Many Asians are black. Being black doesn't transform an Asian into an African. Being black doesn't make any indigenous people African.
Their ancestors left Africa at the same time or even earlier than non-blacks ancestors did. They all left Africa before any of the advanced cultures and civilizations developed. Their high cultures and civilizations owe nothing to direct connection to Africa unless it can be clearly shown by a multidisciplinary methodology that Africans visited settled or traded with them.
But have it your way. We can sing Peter Tosh's African (click and listen) all day and make a good modern cultural and sociological unity but have it my way it rings hollow as a discernable biology or history fact. You walk your way and I'll walk mine. We'll meet somewhere with Black Stalin's sentiment in Caribbean Man.
quote: Don't care where you come from As long as you're a black man, you're an African No mind your nationality You have got the identity of an African
'Cause if you come from Clarendon (You are an African) And if you come from Portland (You are an African) And if you come from Westmoreland, you're an African
So don't care where you come from As long as you're a black man, you're an African No mind your nationality You've got the identity of an African
'Cause if you come Trinidad (You are an African) And if you come from Nassau (You are an African) And if you come from Cuba, you're an African
So don't care where you come from As long as you're a black man, you're an African No mind your complexion There is no rejection, you're an African
'Cause if your plexion high, high, high If your complexion low, low And if your plexion in between, you're an African
So don't care where you come from As long as you're a black man, you're an African No mind denomination That is only segregation, you're an African
'Cause if you go to the Catholic (You are an African) And if you go to the Methodist (You are an African) And if you go to the Church of God, you're an African
So don't care where you come from As long as you're a black man, you're an African No mind your nationality You have got the identity of an African
'Cause if you come from Brixton (You are an African) And if you come from Weesday (You are an African) And if you come from Wingstead (You are an African) And if you come from France (You are an African) And if you come from Brooklyn (You are an African) And if you come from Queens (You are an African) And if you come from Manhattan (You are an African) And if you come from Canada (You are an African) And if you come from Miami (You are an African) And if you come from Switzerland (You are an African) And if you come from Germany (You are an African) And if you come from Russia (You are an African) And if you come from Taiwan (You are an African) And if you come from Haiphong ...
quote: You try with a federation De whole ting get in confusion Caricom and then Carifta But some how ah smelling disaster Mister West Indian politician I mean yuh went to big institution And how come you cyah unite 7 million When ah West Indian unity, I know is very easy If you only rap to yuh people and tell dem like me, dem is...
One race (de Caribbean man) From de same place (de Caribbean man) Dat make de same trip (de Caribbean man) On de same ship (de Caribbean man) So we must push one common intention Is for a better life in de region For we woman, and we children Dat must be de ambition of de Caribbean man De Caribbean man, de Caribbean man
You say dat de federation Was imported quite from England And you going and form ah Carifta With ah true West Indian flavour But when Carifta started running Morning, noon and night all ah hearing Is just money speech dem prime minister giving Well I say no set ah money, could form ah unity First of all your people need their identity, like...
One race (de Caribbean man) From de same place (de Caribbean man) Dat make de same trip (de Caribbean man) On de same ship (de Caribbean man) So we must push one common intention Is for a better life in de region For we woman, and we children Dat must be de ambition of de Caribbean man De Caribbean man, de Caribbean man
Caricom is wasting time De whole Caribbean gone blind If we don't know from where we comin' Then we cyah plan where we goin Dats why some want to be communist But then some want to be socialist And one set ah religion to add to de foolishness Look ah man who doh know his history He have bought no unity How could ah man who do know his roots form his own ideology, like...
One race (de Caribbean man) From de same place (de Caribbean man) Dat make de same trip (de Caribbean man) On de same ship (de Caribbean man) So we must push one common intention Is for a better life in de region For we woman, and we children Dat must be de ambition of de Caribbean man De Caribbean man, de Caribbean man
The Federation done dead. And Carifta going to bed But di cult of Rastafari Spreading through the Caribbean It have Rastas now in Grenada. It have Rastas now in St. Lucia. But to run Carifta. Yes, you getting pressure If Rastafari movement spreading And Carifta dying slow. Den is something dem Rastas on dat dem politicians don't know dat dey
One race (de Caribbean man) From de same place (de Caribbean man) Dat make de same trip (de Caribbean man) On de same ship (de Caribbean man) So we must push one common intention Is for a better life in de region For we woman, and we children Dat must be de ambition of de Caribbean man De Caribbean man, de Caribbean man
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Because they are indigenous to the area does that make them non-African?
... classify all these people as Africans . . .regardless of their genetic makeup. . .or when they left the continent. They look like me . . .they are my people. THAT IS THE POINT. They remained virtually unchanged since they left the continent.. . . therefore they are Africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sage. I never said these people were modern Africans.
They are Black people. . . with negroid features.
To many that classification is . . . Black African.
Bottom-line: To the bigots and/or casual observe these people will be classifed as . . . AFRICAN and/or"NEGROES
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW - being of West Indian parentage I am fully aware of Black Stalin and Peter Tosh of the Wailers Stalin I am not to fund of his material.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You see, that's the whole damn problem.
Black not too long ago, and for millenia untold, never carried this negro hogwash.
Black encompassed all the Old World folk of Africa, southern Arabian peninsula, the shores of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, and Coral Sea without any of the ancient and medieval writers calling all their inhabitants Africans.
Now in the last 40 years since black replaced negro for USA descendants of Africans black has taken on the restricted meaning of negro.
I reject this folly and those who imposed it and those who accept and promote it. I retain and promote the time honored meaning of black without it necessarily having anything to do with Africans remotely or directly.
I don't pander to bigots and/or casual observers. I strive for the higher orders and I educate not capitulate. Simon can say African=black=negro all day long but I don't play Simon Sez. Anybody who wants to can go and play Simon's game but don't waste time trying to get me to play it or even recognize it as possibly valid 'cause it ain't happenin'.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: But Mindlessone, didn't you read THIS part??
This is more-or-less the AFROCENTICS position.
**Sighs** You're slow lil Mike, the study you picked (along with all of the others) has been out for years, and already dissected on ES.
Every intelligent folk around here knows there was gene flow into southern Europe from Africa and SW Asia, most likely beginning with the introduction of agriculture into Europe.
We know that because about 25% of Greeks carry a derivative of the E haplogroup, and 25% descending from HG J, which also fits with the archaeological and anthropological data of a migration into Europe which spurred the "Neolithic revolution" there.
You would know this if you'd step out of your fantasy land and tried learning something for a change.
You're like Cylde Winters when it comes to genetics, you simply don't understand it, and wind up coming to the most outrageous conclusions from it, but then when no ones agrees with your nonsense, you insistently wine that "its the white mans bullsh1t".
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - So are you formally admitting that the founding European civilizations were built by Black People?
And if that is the case, then why the two year delay in doing so?
Mindlessone - I was busy, so I must have missed your reply. Please be kind enough to repost it, Thank you.
Posted by Recovering Afro-holic (Member # 17311) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Africans are African. Most Africans are black.
Agreed!
quote: Asians are Asian. Many Asians are black.
Let's see here...
And...
I'm sure you can find all the Asian countries on the Luschan skin color diffusion map. It does not look like "many asians are Black." Hell! As a matter of fact it seems there are more light skinned people on the planet than dark skin. I wonder why that is? Perhaps the natural selection of breeding in the light skin has something to do w/ it.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You see, that's the whole damn problem.
Black not too long ago, and for millenia untold, never carried this negro hogwash.
Black encompassed all the Old World folk of Africa, southern Arabian peninsula, the shores of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, and Coral Sea without any of the ancient and medieval writers calling all their inhabitants Africans.
Now in the last 40 years since black replaced negro for USA descendants of Africans black has taken on the restricted meaning of negro.
I reject this folly and those who imposed it and those who accept and promote it. I retain and promote the time honored meaning of black without it necessarily having anything to do with Africans remotely or directly.
I don't pander to bigots and/or casual observers. I strive for the higher orders and I educate not capitulate. Simon can say African=black=negro all day long but I don't play Simon Sez. Anybody who wants to can go and play Simon's game but don't waste time trying to get me to play it or even recognize it as possibly valid 'cause it ain't happenin'.
If I may be allowed to translate the above Mumbo Jumbo, Hockus Pockus Bullsh1t.
Ya, we may be Black skinned, but we have nothing to do with those nappy headed etc. etc. Niggers to the South.
To the aspiring writers out there, note that I said in less than one paragraph, what it took the great one, over three paragraphs to "Almost" say.
When looking for a job in print publications, brevity is very important.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Al Takruri, while differing on some issues, I hold in high regard your scholarship, thinking, dignity, and opinions and can only wish I had your vast understanding of genetics. Your views have been formed over decades of reading, thinking, and evaluating and that is to be respected.
[Recovering writes:] It seems there are more light skinned people on the planet than dark skin. I wonder why that is? Perhaps the natural selection of breeding in the light skin has something to do w/ it.
[Marc writes:] Or, for Alexander who sickly killed millions of Celts / Moors / Guals and others for fun and pleasure …
Six million people had been living in Gaul (Marc writes: the Guals were, by physical appearance, African) before Caesar arrived in 58 BC; one million had been killed and one million had been sold as slaves when he left in 50 BC. Caesar himself wrote in his Commentaries on the War in Gaul that peace had been brought to the whole of Gaul. It is not hard to see that this was the peace of a graveyard. http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar05.html
Many of the remainder he cheerfully had kill one another as gladiators, brothers and kin though the Guals were to each other. __________
These peoples were African:: In 66AD, the Romans massacred the Samaritans, killed or sold into slavery more than 100 thousand of them. During the seige of Jerusalem in 70AD.
On to the slaughter of the Muslims by Richard’s broken promise: The Franks, on reaching the middle of the plain that stretches between this hill and that of Keisan, close to which place the sultan's advanced guard had drawn back, ordered all the Musulman … Richard watches the massacre. From a 15th century illustration prisoners, whose martyrdom God had decreed for this day, to be brought before him. They numbered more than three thousand and were all bound with ropes. The Franks then flung themselves upon them all at once and massacred them with sword and lance in cold blood.
And the Spanish conquest:A skeleton discovered at a ruined pyramid in Tlateloco in Mexico City February 10, 2009. Archaeologists have discovered a mass grave with four dozen neatly lined up human skeletons in the heart of Mexico City, revealing clues about the Spanish conquest that killed millions in battle and disease. The 49 bodies, all lying face up with their arms crossed over their chests, were discovered as investigators searched for a palace complex in the Tlatelolco area, once a major religious and political center for the Aztec elite.
An archeologist works over a skeleton at the site of a mass grave found in a ruined pyramid in Tlateloco neighborhood in Mexico City, Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009. Archeologists digging in a ruined pyramid in downtown Mexico City found a mass grave that may hold the skeletal remains of the last holdouts among the Aztecs who fought the Spaniards.
Returning to Alexander and the Phoenicians/Canaanites/Hebrew/African: Alexander the Great took Tyre in 332 BC following the Siege of Tyre. Alexander was exceptionally harsh to Tyre, executing 2000 of the leading citizens, but he maintained the king in power.
The rise of Hellenistic Greece gradually ousted the remnants of Phoenicia's former dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean trade routes, and Phoenician culture disappeared entirely in the motherland. However, its North African offspring, Carthage, continued to flourish, mining iron and precious metals from Iberia, and using its considerable naval power and mercenary armies to protect its commercial interests, until it was finally destroyed by Rome in 146 BC at the end of the Punic Wars.
As for the Phoenician homeland, following Alexander it was controlled by a succession of Hellenistic rulers: Laomedon (323 BC), Ptolemy I (320), Antigonus II (315), Demetrius (301), and Seleucus (296). Between 286 and 197 BC, Phoenicia (except for Aradus) fell to the Ptolemies of Egypt, who installed the high priests of Astarte as vassal rulers in Sidon (Eshmunazar I, Tabnit, Eshmunazar II). In 197 BC, Phoenicia along with Syria reverted to the Seleucids, and the region became increasingly Hellenized, although Tyre actually became autonomous in 126 BC, followed by Sidon in 111. Syria, including Phoenicia, were seized by king Tigranes the Great from 82 until 69 BC when he was defeated by Lucullus, and in 65 BC Pompey finally incorporated it as part of the Roman province of Syria.
Downfall of Phoenicians:
For much of the 8th and 7th centuries the town was subject to Assyria, and in 585-573 it successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar II. Between 538 and 332 it was ruled by the Achaemenian Kings of Persia. In this period it lost its hegemony in Phoenicia but continued to flourish. Probably the most famous episode in the history of Tyre was its resistance to the army of the Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, who took it after a seven-month siege in 332, using floating batteries and building a causeway to gain access to the island. After its capture, 10,000 of the inhabitants were put to death, and 30,000 were sold into slavery (like what Romans did in Palestine). Alexander's causeway, which was never removed, converted the island into a peninsula.http://phoenicia.org/cities.html
Murder and onslaught in England. This during the days of the negrito Celts / Moors: [i]When William and his army invaded in 1066 they continued their conquest campaign towards western and northern England, leaving a fair amount of destruction in their wake. The term 'waste' or 'wasted' appears many times in the Domesday Book, most often describing settlements the army had passed through and left their mark on during their conquest, although the term was also used sometimes for manors simply not paying geld for one reason or another.
Some of this is hyperbol (and the indian writer didn’t realize that the ancestors are (by phenotype) African. (I don’t want to put any web pages up but they are in the “America” sub-folder in the NATIONS OF THE WORLD folder at my site.
One reason there are so few blacks in the world today is that hundreds of millions have been killed by assualt and disease over the last two millennium – over 50 million thrown overboard during the period of American slavery alone.
. .
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington:
One reason there are so few blacks in the world today is that hundreds of millions have been killed by assualt and disease over the last two millennium
That is racist eugenics propaganda. What allowed for the holocaust of Americans ("Native" Americans) was disease and genocidal policies of certain European nations and there colonial descendants but some were worse than others
quote:DOES THE FOLLOWING SOUNDS FAMILIAR? 90-95 % OF THE INDIAN POPULATION OF MEXICO PERISH? THERE ARE NO MORE MEXICAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BUT JUST MESTIZOS?
"The Mestizo Concept: A Product of European Imperialism"
quote:Note: the professor errs when he writes the "ten percent of the Mexican people who are regarded as indio" . . . this is not accurate. The CIA gives Mexican Indigenous population a 30% who are said to be of PURE BLOOD. But this too is not accurate if we take the concept of a Mestizo as follows:
(4) "As a cultural concept, referring to a mixture of customs, ways of behaving, and so on."
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Marc, you need to realize that you are simply repeating 19th century racial theories which revolves around the weakness of certain "races". And as I said what happened in the Americas could only have happened because of disease which the people had no immunity to
H. Strickland Constable. 1899, Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View
quote:The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the burrows, or burying places, in sundry pats of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland, and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races.
Harper's weekly 1899 Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The Europeans cannot be absolved of the widespread and systematic murder of the peoples whose lands they have confiscated whether by overt military or outlaw gunfire or covert dirty biological warfare.
There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Poor pathetic little hate filled boy, calm down before burst a ventricle or have a heart attack or something. You must learn to compose yourself and curb your jealousy. Don't get upset because I'm such a wonderful thing. Just try to jettison your racist attitude toward south of the Sahara blacks and the pure wool on their heads.
Oh, did I forget. Yeah,that's right. It was you just now using nappy as if its a negative quality. But that's nothing new. You're the guy ashamed of the locked hair ancient North and East Africans used to syle. Ignoble, isn't that the word you had for it? And unkempt. So unlike the Persians your epitome of "black" nobility.
And what was your assesment of south of the Sahara architecure? Won't you refresh us on that? What say? You say that had no architecture? Is that right? And what of the emperor who commanded the respect of all of western, north central, and northern Africa? Just a "dumb nigger," isn't that what you think of Mansa Gonga Musa?
So just take your failed attempt at projection and your MTV music video attention span lack of mental capability back to whatever manhole cover you all crawled out from under and bunk in with the rest of the diseased sewer vermin there. Understand you are not even worthy to wipe my ass.
Ciao my pal. This is all your al~Takruri attention seeking is getting rewarded for a good long while.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: If I may be allowed to translate the above Mumbo Jumbo, Hockus Pockus Bullsh1t.
Ya, we may be Black skinned, but we have nothing to do with those nappy headed etc. etc. Niggers to the South.
To the aspiring writers out there, note that I said in less than one paragraph, what it took the great one, over three paragraphs to "Almost" say.
When looking for a job in print publications, brevity is very important.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
alTakruri - So does that mean that you are DENYING my allegation?
I mean all you have to say is YES, all Blacks are Africans, and I embrace all Blacks as equals and as brothers.
It is no secret that I don't think much of what Sub-Saharan's have done and ARE doing. But I still recognize them as me and me as them, do you?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
But for the last two millennium?
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: On to the slaughter of the Muslims by Richard’s broken promise:
Two millennium of genocide according to Marc but where do the Muslims (many of whom were dark folk) who invaded Europe come into play within that time period?
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Alexander was from Macedonia but Macedonia before him was African. His father migrated to and lived among the Africans of Macedonia and evidently wooed them to become part of the war machine of he and his son who laid to waste the beautiful ancient world that perished under their sword.....
...I found surprisingly found both a coin and at another site a bust of Alexander where he looks more African or mixed:
I can't even grasp the idea. An "African" Alexander the Great who waged destruction to an "African" Macedonia. The very idea contradicts itself
And according to some Charles II, who's reign saw the first racial laws passed in the colonies, was a black man!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: alTakruri - So does that mean that you are DENYING my allegation?
I mean all you have to say is YES, all Blacks are Africans, and I embrace all Blacks as equals and as brothers.
It is no secret that I don't think much of what Sub-Saharan's have done and ARE doing. But I still recognize them as me and me as them, do you?
alTakruri - So does the silence mean that you admit to speaking out of both sides of your mouth?
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Europeans cannot be absolved of the widespread and systematic murder of the peoples whose lands they have confiscated whether by overt military or outlaw gunfire or covert dirty biological warfare.
There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
I hope you include your Jewish brethren in this, I know how apologetic you can be sometimes.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
European Jews were part and parcel to European wrought destruction. Who do you think launched the CBW against the Native Americans in the Old West?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Europeans are a continental defined breeding population. Muslims on the other hand are not a breeding population.
Other than Euros what people have crossed oceans and tried anhilating the people they found there in order to confiscate their land.
The USA west is the best example. "The only good Injun is a dead Injum." "Ten little nine little eight little Injuns ... two little one little NO LITTLE INJUN BOYS!"
And oh, can you say T a s m a n i a ?
Over millenia you ask? What did Crusaders do? Did they kill non-combatants all long the way to and in the Levant?
Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places. What did the Portuguese do when they landed in Swahili cities? How does it go? Something like "they fell on their knees in prayer and then fell on the non-combatant natives."
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
But for the last two millennium?
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: On to the slaughter of the Muslims by Richard’s broken promise:
Two millennium of genocide according to Marc but where do the Muslims (many of whom were dark folk) who invaded Europe come into play within that time period?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Sorry GlobalAfrikanSupremacy but allow me to go OT for a second..Bro AlTakruri about Black Stalin's lyrics..perhaps the one thing I would like to slap my parents generation for is to let confederation fail..thanks in no small part to that Jamaican ego just imagine how far we would have been by now unified markets setting our own prices sharing technologies and know how not to mention easy travel..man that makes me mad..Ok I am thru ranting.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
In: László Gyula, Vértesszőlőstől Pusztyszerig, (Gondolat, Budapest, 1974), p. 25.
Markellion, you seem to have been taken aback by the claim that whites have been committing mass-murder on Africans for 2000 years. You rightly point-out that blacks have also committed mass-murder on blacks. I believe Africans lived with greater peace at one time but have become caught up in the powerful wave of violence that subsumed them thousands of years ago.
But, Markelion, you make the claim that blacks kill blacks as if to justify the fact that whites killed blacks. I daresay whites killed a hundred times more than blacks. What would your estimate be?
Actually, whites have been committing mass murder on Africans for more than 2000 years and a millennium before Alexander. In the text below the pictures, it establishes that Gual (an African land) had hundreds of towns and villages. These destroyed by Caesar. This example given to show that blacks had tens of thousands of towns and villages in Europe, the Middle East and all over. Once.
When William (the Conqueror he liked to call himself) came in the 10th century, in the Doomsday Book, it speaks of him destroying tens of thousands of towns (of Celts, Africans).
And when the Turks invaded Anatolia and the Middle East from 2900 BC to 2100 BC, they also destroyed hundreds of towns. To this day, the Middle East is full of countless mounds underwhich are the remains of towns, cities, and villages destroyed during those early days. Those mounds are the silent graves full of secrets and societies that have been forgotten and abandoned.
The Asian part of Eurasia (Africans lived throughout) stretches for thousands of miles of poverty in all directions where with Africans it was prosperous and thriving in all directions across the entire subcontinent 4000 years ago. Neither whites nor blacks talk about that. It’s only the oppressive poverty of Africa today that shackles so many minds and not the great glory of the unexcelled past.
Unexcelled prosperity: The amazing thing is that the invaders and destroyers never restored the region to the heights of its former glory and prosperity and the region is full of poverty. But, under the African, it thrived. It was they who gave the modern world its religion, concept of cities, and agropastoralism. Mass-murder has been going on in recorded time since (I stand corrected) not 2000 years but closer to 5000 years.
It seems horrendous to speak about it. Well. Imagine what it was like to have lived through it. To see what you built with your heart, mind, and hands laid to waste by a people only wishing for your death and destruction and with the means to bring it about. It was brought about.
HOW IS THIS 5,000 YEARS OF MASS-MURDER CALCULATED, VERIFIED Look at the images below. Those are the African faces of people who once lived in that land. But no more.
The three pages below establish the fact that Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and Anatolian populations were one time (by physical appearance) African. This, before the invasion of whites to those areas from the Caucasus.
GUAL BEFORE CAESAR: the Guals were a single people known by various names: Celt / Moor / Halstaat / Phoenician (so therefore Hebrew, Canaanite, African, negro) / influx from Carthage and North Africa.
In Caesar’s time the population of Free Gual was about seven millions. They cultivated land, raised cattle and had some manufactures. Tney had villages, roads, and bridges, and in the north and northwest – the districts bodering the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean – they were skillful seamen (Marc’s note: this is where they are also known as Moors I would believe as the Moors were seagoing back and forth between North Africa and Europe). For sailing in the channel they had leathern skiffs moved by oars, but on the west coast they had large vessels with sails made of leather, or the skins of animals, and in these ships the Celts often made long voyages on the ocean [pp. 50 – 51] (Marc’s note: these would be the ancestors of the Moors who travelled to and traded with Mexico, California, South America, the North American coast before Columbus).
M. Clark, Story of Casear, (American Book Company, New York, 1898).
GUAL AFTER CAESAR A LAND HE ATTACKED AND WASTED THOUGH HE WAS UNPROVOKED. A WAR OF FUN AND PLEASURE:An ancient author tells us that, ‘in less than ten years war in Gual, Caesar took eight hundred citiesm conquered three hundred nations, and fought battles with three millions of men.’ (p. 22)
M. Clark, Story of Casear, (American Book Company, New York, 1898).
This is an example of how deeply settled the African was in Eurasia with tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of towns and cities (nation-states) not to mention the countless villages. All these destroyed except that the major Medieval cities they built are still with us today in Prague, Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland.
The crusades still make it within the last one millennium as opposed to Marc Washington's claim that it was two and the crusades still don't fit into the idea that "there are so few blacks in the world today". This is simply eugenics propaganda
I don't think the Portuguese did as much permanent damage on that coast in the way that later European powers did and Portuguese also seemed to have respected the local language
"Portuguese Conceptual Categories and the "Other" Encounter on the Swahili Coast" by Jeremy, Prestholdt
quote:page 5 of article
Portuguese administrators came to depend on Swahili-speakers. In the sixteenth century, several Portuguese factors even employed Swahili elites as political and economic advisors.[9] This dependence was not only born out of an ignorance of East Africa, but also as a result of the ease with which many Portuguese could interpret the Swahili world conceptually, materially, and religiously. The Portuguese found a familiar Islamic civilization on the East African coast and, able to effectively communicate within it through dialog and/or coercion, attempted to manipulate it for narrow economic proposes. Yet Swahili-speakers, lacking military supremacy, used their paradoxically privileged position to impede Portuguese commercial relations with non-Swahili and, in some cases, even to further their own aspirations. Thus, despite fierce rivalries in Iberia and abroad, Portuguese familiarity with Islam and what they perceived as general Muslim material and social worlds precipitated close relations with the Swahili such that over the course of the sixteenth century Portuguese perceptions, language, relations, and investments in East Africa were filtered through the lens of Swahili society......[10]
Bellow notes on page 18 of article
....In terms of language, Manuel de Faria e Sousa noted that Arabic, for example, was not widely spoken between Kirimba and Sofala: “the language of those people cannot be harsh, being mostly compounded of the soft letters 1 and m” (Theal, 1898(1):22). The Portuguese generally described Arabic dialects as “harsh,” while Swahili, or the “language of the coast of Melinde,” was described as “soft”. M. de Figueroa described Swahili as “clearer than Arabic” (Figueroa, 1967:62). By the seventeenth century, Portuguese accounts made strong distinctions between ‘mouros da costa’ (Swahili) and‘mouros da Arabia’ (Omanis or Yemenis). See, for example, “Carta de Março de 1622” (Livros dos Monções: Liv. 16, fol. 411), Leaé (c. 1696), and n.a., Relação da perda e restauração de Mombaça(c.1698). Portuguese narrators invariably described ‘mouros da Arabia’ in scathing terms, especially after the Portuguese loss of Muscat, while ‘mouros da costa’ were treated in a more even-handed fashion.
Also see this article:
"Ambassadors, Explorers, and Allies: A Study of African-European Diplomatic Relationships, 1400-1600" by Andrea Felber Seligman
Yes the Portuguese everywhere were brutal and destructive (and the article did talk about that) but other European powers were even worse. At a later time the British also had "friendly relations" and even pretended to be fighting the slave trade while still encouraging it
What the Spanish in the New World did was the worse atrocity in the history of mankind until other Europeans came and outdid them.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: "The Myth of the Vanishing Race"
quote:DOES THE FOLLOWING SOUNDS FAMILIAR? 90-95 % OF THE INDIAN POPULATION OF MEXICO PERISH? THERE ARE NO MORE MEXICAN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BUT JUST MESTIZOS?
"The Mestizo Concept: A Product of European Imperialism"
quote:Note: the professor errs when he writes the "ten percent of the Mexican people who are regarded as indio" . . . this is not accurate. The CIA gives Mexican Indigenous population a 30% who are said to be of PURE BLOOD. But this too is not accurate if we take the concept of a Mestizo as follows:
(4) "As a cultural concept, referring to a mixture of customs, ways of behaving, and so on."
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The USA west is the best example. "The only good Injun is a dead Injum." "Ten little nine little eight little Injuns ... two little one little NO LITTLE INJUN BOYS!"
And oh, can you say T a s m a n i a ?......
....Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places.
1. All the Americas were populated not just the "USA west". This deals with the stereotype that they didn't start exterminating "Injuns" until they had already expanded west. Not saying you said that just that it seems to be how things are portrayed
2. It was not because Africans were tougher it was because of immunity to disease. This deals with another stereotype of Americans (Native Americans) being fragile and just disappeared as the white man came. By pointing out the importance of disease I'm not playing down the atrocities committed by Europeans just showing how it was able to happen.
Africans were the greatest competitors in the world economy and this is why everything was done to crush them
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! So. . . . .you agree that black people built all these civilizations. Brevity. Just don't equate negro, African and black.
The point remains - they looked like blacks from Africa and NOT the current dominant groups.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You see, that's the whole damn problem.
Black not too long ago, and for millenia untold, never carried this negro hogwash.
Black encompassed all the Old World folk of Africa, southern Arabian peninsula, the shores of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, and Coral Sea without any of the ancient and medieval writers calling all their inhabitants Africans.. . . .'cause it ain't happenin'.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes, Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out.
From the outset in 1446 when Senegalese naval forces defeated and killed every member of Nino Tristão's crew Africans who stood up to Euro raiders proved to be equal to the task. The colonization in the late 19th early 20th century was effected in large part through African regiments under command of Euro officers. At least this is the case for Sahel&Gulf of Guinea West Africa.
Euros admit that in southern Africa it was the Gatlin(sp) gun that accounted for victory not superior military tactics.
As for the USA the Native Americans who gave the Euros the most hell were under military commanded of African Maroons and Outliers who joined the Seminole nation.
Frailty of Native Americans? I don't know a thing about that and never wrote or implied any such thing. That's your words.
Myself I don't put words into my correspondents mouth causing them to waste time denying something they never said in the first place or making other readers imagine they hold a position that they never put forth. I leave such tactics to those who are out to win a debate rather than explore the intricacies of a given topic.
Maybe not you so much but many posters constantly raise strawmen poisoning uncareful readers' minds against a contributor for the "mad dog" effect. You know, point the finger shout mad dog and let others throw the stones.
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The USA west is the best example. "The only good Injun is a dead Injum." "Ten little nine little eight little Injuns ... two little one little NO LITTLE INJUN BOYS!"
And oh, can you say T a s m a n i a ?......
....Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places.
1. All the Americas were populated not just the "USA west". This deals with the stereotype that they didn't start exterminating "Injuns" until they had already expanded west. Not saying you said that just that it seems to be how things are portrayed
2. It was not because Africans were tougher it was because of immunity to disease. This deals with another stereotype of Americans (Native Americans) being fragile and just disappeared as the white man came. By pointing out the importance of disease I'm not playing down the atrocities committed by Europeans just showing how it was able to happen.
Africans were the greatest competitors in the world economy and this is why everything was done to crush them
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No, that's not the point, that's your[]/i point. [i]The point was qualifying all blacks as Africans, which they are not. And no, I'm not Afrocentric, I do not agree that blacks built "all these civilizations" (whatever that means).
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! So. . . . .you agree that black people built all these civilizations. Brevity. Just don't equate negro, African and black.
The point remains - they looked like blacks from Africa and NOT the current dominant groups.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: You see, that's the whole damn problem.
Black not too long ago, and for millenia untold, never carried this negro hogwash.
Black encompassed all the Old World folk of Africa, southern Arabian peninsula, the shores of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, and Coral Sea without any of the ancient and medieval writers calling all their inhabitants Africans.. . . .'cause it ain't happenin'.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I rest my case. Semantics. As i said. These were Black people who built these civilizations. And not modern Africans.
These people had features that some "conventional" scientist/anthropolgist call negroid.
Hence the argument that Black Africans built these civilization.
eg. Andamans, New Guineans, most will classify them as Black Africans . . . .without knowing there genetics and/or history.
When do we stop call them Africans. I assume AA are not AA but black by your premise. And at what SHADE do they CEASE to be BLACK????
Obama is therefore not BLACK neither AA.
Just messing wth you Sage. We all have the same objective here. To uncover the truth.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: . . . .
Black not too long ago, and for millenia untold, never carried this negro hogwash.
Black encompassed all the Old World folk of Africa, southern Arabian peninsula, the shores of the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal, South China Sea, and Coral Sea . . . . . .
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Markellion. You spoke of the Indians of North America. These are the first “Indians” of North America.
What civilizations are you referring to? Blacks didn't build all civilizations.
Are you aware that negro≠all blacks according to the disciplines that broached and still use the term?
Again this negro/negroid thing is dysfunctional. That terminology is used to limit black as one subset of West Africans. Check physical anthro out. Nile Valley Africans, Horn Africans, baNtu Africans, Khoe and San Africans, West Africans (Fulani for one), and Saharan Africans are neither negro nor negroid per physical anthropologists from Ratzel right up to those on teams reporting population genetics.
One should fully know what a term connotes before acquising and basking in it. I strongly urge, nay I command thee(hahahah), study Richard B. Moore's pamphlet The Name Negro its Origin and Evil Use.
Black Americans are Africans because historically we know they entered the Americas en masse starting 500 years ago (not to discount pre-16th century contact -- Abu Bakari's expedition had to have left descendants if it's flotilla description given by Mansa Gonga Musa is accurate).
Obama by USA standards is black. His physical features exist among Africans. I can't discount the fact that hybrids are as much one as the other parents offspring. Technically a hybrid is neither one nor the other. Socially speaking I accept a hybrids avowed affiliation even at the expense of half their "composition."
Missing with me, eh? I'm trying to adapt to this chit chat mode yu newer members have made of these forums so I'm an easy mark because I still take my African studies very seriously.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I rest my case. Semantics. As i said. These were Black people who built these civilizations. And not modern Africans.
These people had features that some "conventional" scientist/anthropolgist call negroid.
Hence the argument that Black Africans built these civilization.
eg. Andamans, New Guineans, most will classify them as Black Africans . . . .without knowing there genetics and/or history.
When do we stop call them Africans. I assume AA are not AA but black by your premise. And at what SHADE do they CEASE to be BLACK????
Obama is therefore not BLACK neither AA.
Just messing wth you Sage. We all have the same objective here. To uncover the truth.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:When do we stop call them Africans. I assume AA are not AA but black by your premise. And at what SHADE do they CEASE to be BLACK????
Good point, one I think Great Jew failed to address without contradicting his original argument. You're right, at some point it does boil down to semantics.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes, Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out....
Frailty of Native Americans? I don't know a thing about that and never wrote or implied any such thing. That's your words.
I didn't mean that you meant to imply that but I disagree that Americans (Americans meaning natives) were exterminated because of Europeans simply having superior military strength. If it were not for disease how could Europeans come in and be so successful in seizing land that was already occupied? The difference was Africans had immunity to these diseases while Americans didn't.
And the situation in the Americas was not just conquering people it was exterminating whole populations. The difference can't simply be explained by saying Africans are strong. The Americans that The U.S. army was fighting were already greatly depleted by disease, taking that into consideration they would be many times stronger if it were not for disease. If it were not for disease the U.S. would have never even been established
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The problem is we know that Europeans went around and eventually dominated the world, but don't really consider how so there is an over exaggerated sense of the almighty power of the white man. People talk about white supremacy existing before it really did, like Marc who said that extermination of dark skinned people has been going on for 5,000 years. This in itself reinforces 19th century racial theories, he doesn't mean to but he makes dark skinned people look fragile
The Spanish were extremely brutal but they were not the most brutal people in the Americas. There are still plenty of dark skinned people left in the places they ravaged. And yet this is the image we normally see of the most genocidal Europeans when they came to America:
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Listen carefully. This has got nothing to do with Amerinds and its starting to irk me that you keep tieing this to that, Africans were too tough for Europeans to exterminate.
Now if you want to talk about Amerinds of either continent losing out solely to the effects of disease go ahead but I think the history of armed conflict and continual armed struggle involving Amerinds and Euros tells a different story.
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes, Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out....
Frailty of Native Americans? I don't know a thing about that and never wrote or implied any such thing. That's your words.
I didn't mean that you meant to imply that but I disagree that Americans (Americans meaning natives) were exterminated because of Europeans simply having superior military strength. If it were not for disease how could Europeans come in and be so successful in seizing land that was already occupied? The difference was Africans had immunity to these diseases while Americans didn't.
And the situation in the Americas was not just conquering people it was exterminating whole populations. The difference can't simply be explained by saying Africans are strong. The Americans that The U.S. army was fighting were already greatly depleted by disease, taking that into consideration they would be many times stronger if it were not for disease. If it were not for disease the U.S. would have never even been established
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
This is Bullshit there is no way Palestinians are related to Askenazi i dont trust any of u European or African American Western Scholars bullshit
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
Living in the United States for the past 15 years have showed me that Americans and European and WEstern scholars are all full of **** genetics how can i trust these racially motivated europeans african americans educated fools.
I went on a Yemeni website Bab Al Mandeb and there are so many bullshit arab socalled scholars who are also aligned with european scholars who have the most stupidest **** ever.
I have come to the conclusion that all Americans are Stupid individuals and WEstern thought is Bullshit Kara fe Kara walahi
Posted by AswaniAswad (Member # 16742) on :
What happen in tasmania mark
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places.
This statement is what ties this in with Americans because you said they had to go to other places. What I'm saying is Europeans did not possess the capacity to exterminate Americans except because they had disease on their side. The disease thinned out the population and allowed for armed conflict to finish it off
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
AswaniAswad - The problem with you Turks, is that so many of you are so out-of-touch that you don't even know that you are Turks.
Palestinian delegation
Jews
AswaniAswad - PLEASE POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCE!!! Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The fact that there were fierce conflicts makes the idea that firearms were the Europeans' main advantage extremely unlikely. If these firearms were such an advantage Europeans would be able to easily win all battles and yet still have a large conquered population that would take tremendous work to exterminate
Firearms of course evolved over time and became tremendously more effective than they were at the beginning. The problem is how the United States could be established in the first place and then start expanding because they would have had to subdue all the Americans on the East coast first and make there way west. At the very beginning Europeans didn't have as powerful weapons
I don't know much about weapons but this is what wikipedia says concerning controversy on the Battle of the Little Bighorn:
quote:Debate over effectiveness of cavalry weapons
Lakota and Cheyenne bows and arrows gave a deadly advantage over the troopers on the ridge due to the exposed terrain of the battlefield. Unlike the valley, the heights above the Little Bighorn River are considered completely unsuited for mounted troops. Custer's men were essentially trapped on higher ground, from which direct fire at the Indians through the high, dense brush would have been difficult. On the other hand, the Lakota and Cheyenne were able to shoot their arrows from heavy sagebrush below the ridge by aiming their arrows upward over obstacles at the puffs of smoke from the troopers' weapons. Their large volume of arrows ensured severe casualties. Many of the slain troopers were found with numerous arrows protruding from their bodies. Many also had crushed skulls, likely from the Indians' stone-headed war clubs.[52] Historians have not determined when the latter injuries occurred. Some accounts of the Indian wars describe Indian women coming onto the field after a battle and systematically bashing in the heads of the enemy dead and wounded alike.....
...Modern documentaries suggest that there may not have been a "Last Stand," as traditionally portrayed in popular culture. Instead, archaeologists suggest that, in the end, Custer's troops were not surrounded but rather overwhelmed by a single charge. This scenario corresponds to several Indian accounts stating Crazy Horse's charge swarmed the resistance, with the surviving soldiers fleeing in panic
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
AswaniAswad - Regardless of what you Turks call yourselves and each other, you all still live on the Black Mans land.
One day he will get his act together, and come to take it back.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [b]AswaniAswad - The problem with you Turks, is that so many of you are so out-of-touch that you don't even know that you are Turks.
So Palestinians are Turks too. Jesus Christ. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Hey turkey boy, if it was anyone else but you, I would go into it. But then again, if it was someone else but you, that wouldn't be necessary.
You are such a stupid ignorant little boy, why don't you find something else to do. You are way out of your league here.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Hey turkey boy, if it was anyone else but you, I would go into it.
Believe me, you did us all a favor by not "going into it" mike. Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[al Takruri writes]
Are you aware that negro≠all blacks according to the disciplines that broached and still use the term?
Again this negro/negroid thing is dysfunctional. That terminology is used to limit black as one subset of West Africans. Check physical anthro out. Nile Valley Africans, Horn Africans, baNtu Africans, Khoe and San Africans, West Africans (Fulani for one), and Saharan Africans are neither negro nor negroid per physical anthropologists from Ratzel right up to those on teams reporting population genetics.
[Marc writes]:
What you say is new information for me and meaning certainly must be considered in using terms. Ignorance of meaning, even if well-intended, still can cripple or doom ones effort if a term is mis-used. And you note that the word negro does not equal black as it has historically been used.
In my use of terms, I try to stick to people who have some combination of full facial features and woolly/wiry hair that I use the word "African" to denote.
By saying "some combination" I make certain assumptions like woolly hair and full facial features are things whites and Asians will never be found with (unless they have an African parent or grandparent). Whites will never have a full nose or lips.
In my case, I have very thin lips so that someone might ostensibly use that as a white feature (my great grandfather during slavery was French). However, I have woolly hair and a full nose so some combination of those features so am "African" in physical appearance.
My use of terminology to describe "Africans" has gone through a metamorphosis over the last ten years. It started out using black. Then, eight years ago I used Negro. Then four years back I started using African (woolly hair, full facial features). In the last year, sometimes I am tempted to use a group of three words together: African / Negro / black. But, 99% of the time stick with African.
I think that using some combination of woolly hair and full facial features includes just about everyone I'd like to refer to and would hope that Nile Valley Africans, Horn Africans, baNtu Africans, Khoe and San Africans, and others would be included in my definition - I would include them in my definition of African.
I try to compensate for the old definitions by defining my use of terms. I hope it is to some degree useful.
I fully accept that the definitions you give hold and can be limiting.
In closing, though, I'd like to say that I like your, what would I call it, a poetic-prose style in writing science and essays in "verse." I can see some scholars three decades from now or a hundred years hence quoting you in their books of genetics, history, or anthropology using your verses. That would be cool.
[Markellion writes] People talk about white supremacy existing before it really did, like Marc who said that extermination of dark skinned people has been going on for 5,000 years. This in itself reinforces 19th century racial theories, he doesn't mean to but he makes dark skinned people look fragile.
[Marc writes]: Markellion. I am not replying to you with hostility here. However, to me, the perception of fragility vs. strength is a non-issue.
I have not been so explicit in my explanation for why Africans have suffered so terribly and fatally (they are no longer to be found in the Middle East, the Americas, etc.) the white onslaught over the last 5000 years.
Here are the tragic reasons.
HOSPITABLENESS: First, I read time-and-time again about how whites found African peoples in the first historic meeting of the races in Hawaii and the South Pacific, South Africa, etc., etc. is with friendship.
In South Africa, for instance, back in near 1440 whites sailed around the southern tip of South Africa to land their boats and were greeted by an orchestra, you can say, of over 100 flutists, women, who welcomed them.
In Hawaii (the original people looked like anyone you'd see in Harlem), they initially welcomed Captain Cook with boat loads of gifts.
The anecdotal Thanksgivings story speaks of the Indians welcoming the starving Pilgrims with a banquet of food.
In each case, whites took this hospitality as a sign of stupidity and gullibleness and rather than being moved to friendship, like Cortez, took it as a sign that the wealth they had in terms of land and resources, would be easy pickings. And they simply slaughtered Africans. You can find paintings of whites in Africa in villages just shooting anyone moving, anyone in sight.
DWARFS: African peoples blanketed the face of the earth in the centuries leading to Christ and those immediately following him. But, everywhere you went, they were the size of dwarfs: 4'8" to 5'2". Whites, on the other hand, were big-boned, towering giants.
In the bible, in the confrontations of the Celts in Ceasar's army who had to face the white colonists in some area of Belgium, to Mesoamerica, you have this huge size diffrential. In Prague, too, when John Huss (Celt) confronted the Germanic tribes taking over Catholicism, you saw this huge size diffrential.
For the last six years or so, I have been collecting pictures showing, for instance, white missionaries in Southeast Asia or somewhere with (by physical appearance) Africans. I have the pictures to prove that the reality of eventual wars was huge whites against dwarf Africans who stood no chance. Especially as the Germanic tribes that overtook Europe and using Celt/Moor ships and navigational knowledge as Portuguese, Spanish, French, and British covered the earth following in the path Africans laid out in the seas. They took over Africa, the Americas, Australia and the South Pacific.
This size diffrential spelled the fate of the African.
DISEASE: And, of course, disease.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington:
[Markellion writes] People talk about white supremacy existing before it really did, like Marc who said that extermination of dark skinned people has been going on for 5,000 years. This in itself reinforces 19th century racial theories, he doesn't mean to but he makes dark skinned people look fragile.
[Marc writes]: Markellion. I am not replying to you with hostility here. However, to me, the perception of fragility vs. strength is a non-issue.
I have not been so explicit in my explanation for why Africans have suffered so terribly and fatally (they are no longer to be found in the Middle East, the Americas, etc
What do you mean "blacks" are not found in the Middle East? See, these are just assumptions and these assumptions just happen to fit with 19th century racial theories. Again, I'm not saying you mean "blacks" are fragile but what you say allies itself so closely to 19th century racial theories that it is shocking.
Ironicly you are erasing huge chunks of history with the assumption that there has been holocaust for 2,000 or 5,000 years. The thing is you don't even realize that you are repeating stereotypes about dark folk being fragile. In the bellow change licentious to docile and this applies to you:
"Unnatural and ever prejudicial Constructions of Race and Colonial Hierarchies by British observers" in 19th century Zanzibar Electronic pages 13
quote: In a discussion of race and colonial discourse, Homi Bhabha has described the stereotype as "a form of knowledge and identification that facilitates between what is always 'in place', already known, and something that must be anxiously repeated As if the essential duplicity of the Asiatic or the bestial sexual license of the African that needs no proof, can never, in discourse, be proved." In dual character as that which is already known and yet dependent on being anxiously repeated suggests an important aspect of the racial stereotype that is revealed in its use and function in many colonial sources......
page 14
"....We always already know that blacks are licentious, Asiatics duplicitous The stereotype becomes an element of unproven prior knowledge that needs no proof of its veracity for its employment as explanation for racialized difference.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Hey turkey boy, if it was anyone else but you, I would go into it.
Believe me, you did us all a favor by not "going into it" mike.
Yes, I know that you feel that way. But you have to try and understand that a NORMAL person would WANT to have something that they did not know or understand, explained to them.
But for you, having to learn something "NEW" would mean that you didn't originally know it. That in turn, would destroy your delusional belief that you know and understand things. Without that delusional cloud around you, you would be left bare. Leaving you no choice but to accept that what I said about you was true.
Quote: "You are such a stupid ignorant little boy, why don't you find something else to do. You are way out of your league here."
So yes, I can see why you would be happy that I didn't go into it.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
[Markwllion writes] What do you mean "blacks" are not found in the Middle East?
[Marc writes] You're implying there are and if that is so, I am happy to be proven wrong.
. .
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
This is incredibly annoying Mike said the same thing "there are no blacks in Iraq" and yet I remember him before that quoting on more than one thread about "blacks" in Iraq. Its like you subconsciously block out evidence that is contrary to your delusions
What about all of dana marniche's posts?
I was reading an article yesterday about how a dark skinned Indian was discriminated against because he reminded people of terrorists
The bellow is just some random thing I found:
Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacksupremacist123: The the HLA study was already poster, but some people have been claiming it was flawed something about a geneticists saying "It should have been dismissed because it lacked scientific merit".
"No independent multiple-marker analysis has ever duplicated Arnaiz-Villena's results and that Tunisian paper wasn't independent, they took their pseudo results from the Arnaiz-Villena paper. Evidence that Arnaiz-Villena's paper is nothing more then pseudoscience can also be seen in the fact that no other independent studies conducted by genetic scientists who tried to duplicate these dubious results found in the Arnaiz-Villena "paper" COULD DUPLICATE THEM."
"There is no evidence to support that any large scale of black Africans were the Greek region to change the genetic phenotypes of the Greek population with 'black admixture' which is why your ridiculous theory that Greeks are black Africans is beyond belief. "
It was a single locus study where the methodology was criticized. But it has not been "refuted". Although there was another study i read where the Greeks (based on the same single locus) clustered with European/Mediterranean folk and not Sub Saharan peoples. Although, Mindovermatter is right, that sample included new genetic data on the Greeks and also did not sample the same Africans that were supposed to be close to Greeks.
But all in all, there is not much too it as far as quantifying admixture is concertinaed.
Also the good news which you can counter white supremacist crap is that study shows the influx of those genes into the Greek gene pool being PRIOR to classical Greece, not after. Because they will just say that the Greeks mixed with black slaves and that's how the civilization collapsed.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
markellion - You are quoting OUT of Context. Posted by SirInfamous (Member # 16497) on :
quote:The study Clinal patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects finds sub-Saharan Y-haplogroup A in a sample of 27 Greeks from the island of Lesvos (Mitilini) (data in full study, not in abstract).
That's a half truth, it's true 1 man in 27 in Lesvos did carry haplogroup A. Although the whole study featured included 154 individuals from continental Greece and 212 from Crete, Lesvos and Chios. In total, Greeks from thirteen separate locations were examined thus giving the most complete picture of variation so far.
The only Y chromosomal lineage Greeks had which denoted recent black African admixture was the one in Lesvos. The number is 1 out of 366 in total Greece.
The study
Di Giacomo et al. (2003) Clinal Patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects.
[Quote}For the last six years or so, I have been collecting pictures showing, for instance, white missionaries in Southeast Asia or somewhere with (by physical appearance) Africans. I have the pictures to prove that the reality of eventual wars was huge whites against dwarf Africans who stood no chance. Especially as the Germanic tribes that overtook Europe and using Celt/Moor ships and navigational knowledge as Portuguese, Spanish, French, and British covered the earth following in the path Africans laid out in the seas. They took over Africa, the Americas, Australia and the South Pacific.
This size diffrential spelled the fate of the African.[/quote].
These are strange observations to make. And the wars in Indo-China? [b]The diminutive Vietnamese first routed the French at Diem bem Phu(1954) and when Uncle Sam rushed in with a "let me show you how" attitude--Sam himself was routed and had to flee. It was the weapons differential plus a totally inhumanly cruel ethics that led to the European occupation then confiscation of all the world's continents--except that part of Asia occupied by China.
Note parenthetically that "thin lips" is an unevolved primate[chimps, orangutans, etc.] trait rather than being a "white feature".
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: It was the weapons differential plus a totally inhumanly cruel ethics that led to the European occupation then confiscation of all the world's continents--
But the important thing is that the weapons differential developed only within the last few centuries. Why do people allow the idea of white European supremacy going on for thousands of years go unchallenged? You address the other incorrect things he says but completely ignore his white supremacy going on for thousands of years idea
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Does anyone see any commonality between certain "Afrocentric" theories and the bellow?
H. Strickland Constable. 1899, Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View
quote:The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the burrows, or burying places, in sundry pats of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland, and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races.
Harper's weekly 1899
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Well, Markellion. The artist's rendering is one imaginative interpretation for Iberian history and the successions of peoples.
From the archeological record going back 40,000 years, we have the following:
I don't have the foggiest of what you're talking about. How you derive any of it from a logical sequence of my above posts is beyond me. You should go back, read my first post second post and so on, and digest what it is I proposed.
Anyway they tried to wipe out Africans in different places in Africa, Namibia comes to mind. You'd be better off asking questions or requesting clarification when I tell you you're not getting what I'm saying rather than run off wrongly assuming what I meant.
Africans were too strong for Euros to wipe out. Why does it hurt so much to admit that as fact? I'm talking prowess in military endeavors that kept Euros from exterminating them. Numbers and technology filter in. Euros had superior arms yet couldn't take out the Akan. It took psychology for Euros win what they called the Gold Coast and its interior.
You do know the part Africans played in Euro armies in WWI and WWII.
I got your point. I don't agree that disease was what lost Amerinds their land and population. My take is militant actions by whites did the deed. One of these militant actions was CBW after they saw effects of natural malady.
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places.
This statement is what ties this in with Americans because you said they had to go to other places.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The Europeans went to other places this statement is what brings up the Americas. There was a difference between what happened in Africa and what happened in the Americas. The question is what is the factor that made the situations different? Was it because Africans were stronger which would then mean that the people of the Americas were weaker.
Just because there was fighting going on doesn't mean the Europeans' greatest advantage was in war (in the early centuries) their advantage was in disease. How can a bunch of white people just come in and exterminate land that is already inhabited?
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The following is from wikipedia but the history is well known enough that most people are familiar with what happened.
Europeans were using the disease to their advantage their main advantage (at least in early centuries) was bio warfare. Bio warfare is more cowardly and despicable than traditional warfare with weapons
quote:Using an estimate of approximately 50 million people in 1492 (including 25 million in the Aztec Empire and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of an astonishing 80% by the end of the 16th century (8 million people in 1650).[2] Latin America would only recover its 15th century population early in the 20th century...
.....The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[4] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Francis Jennings argues, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."....
....Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans.[12] They reject both of the earliest European immigrants' explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first explanation was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves. The most notable account was that of the Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas, whose writings vividly depict Spanish atrocities committed in particular against the Taínos. Historians have noted there simply were not enough Spanish to have caused such a large population decline (though this does not exonerate many Spanish incomers from having committed grossly inhumane acts against the native peoples). The second European explanation was a perceived divine approval, in which God removed the natives as part of His "divine plan" to make way for a new Christian civilization. Many native Americans viewed their troubles in terms of religious or supernatural causes within their own belief systems.
Posted by Bob_01 (Member # 15687) on :
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: This is Bullshit there is no way Palestinians are related to Askenazi i dont trust any of u European or African American Western Scholars bullshit
The study that was published on Human Immunology was removed. Palestinians are not related to Askenazim peoples, but rather to those located to the region. Including that, would be sub-Saharan Africans, who if studies were well calibrated, would probably be more related to Black Africans than to those populations.
The problem with many population studies is the samples are limited and are dishonestly developed to produce more "white" hits. Variability in Africa is the greatest and I'm certain, Palestine would be part of that umbrella as well. That is, the indigenous people of the region, in other words.
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by AswaniAswad: Living in the United States for the past 15 years have showed me that Americans and European and WEstern scholars are all full of **** genetics how can i trust these racially motivated europeans african americans educated fools.
I went on a Yemeni website Bab Al Mandeb and there are so many bullshit arab socalled scholars who are also aligned with european scholars who have the most stupidest **** ever.
I have come to the conclusion that all Americans are Stupid individuals and WEstern thought is Bullshit Kara fe Kara walahi
So in other words anything that does not fit your Islamocentric garbage is European and racially motivated...LOL..This coming from the same people that will trace their lineage to some plagerizing illiterate Desert Camel Driver..LOL..Oh the Irony..LOL..
Posted by GlobalAfrikanSupremacy (Member # 16906) on :
Marc Washigton you present so much bullsh*t it's getting to be annoying. I looked at some of your previous post, and you claimed the vikings were Black. What a joke. In reality, the vikings were mass-murdering, mass-raping, barbaric white people.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
My apologies Sage, if I was dis-respectful. I do take Africana seriously. They don't come blacker than me, and I am not talking skin tone.
But within my "chit chat" serious questions are ask.
BTW - I stopped used the word "negro" over 20ya, in my teens. I rarely use the word AA but African Decent to describe my people in the diaspora. So don't tell me about the meaning of negro
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Missing with me, eh? I'm trying to adapt to this chit chat mode yu newer members have made of these forums so I'm an easy mark because I still take my African studies very seriously.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Global. There are two phases of the so-called Vikings. Where the mass-murdering and rape is concerned, you are primarily speaking of phase two of the Vikings after the society of the original peoples, a dwarfish African peoples living in Scandinavia, had been invaded and taken over during the course of some centuries.
The seafaring tradition the African phase of the Vikings was no different from that of the so-called Celts during the time of Caesar who in later centuries would be called the Moors. And, the high-browed plank boats of the African phase of the Vikings was no different from the ships Africans have used for thousands of years ago during the wet phase of the Sahara and also at the time of ancient Egypt.
[b]The ship on the right in the blue rectangle with the tall gondolier from the Sahara you will see it totally identical to Scandinavian boats in the red rectangle. These boats were used during the time also of the Saami shaman you will see a picture of at page bottom below - and these were the ancestors of the African phase of the Vikings:
The ships of the white phase of the Vikings were built by the Lapp/Saami (really only also Celts of Scandinavia with seafaring traditions like those in the first picture). This quote proves whites had Saami (by phenotype African) build their ships:
It has to be noted that it is highly probable that at least the Late Iron Age sewn boats of Northern Norway were all built by Saami boat builders. The Saami proficiency in sewn boatbuilding is attested by the famous Icelandic historian Snorri Sturlason, while dealing with the 12th century pretenders the Norwegian throne. Two 24-oared sewn shipes were built for King Sigurd Slembadiaekn, when in the North. Even a poem was composed on the elegant swiftness of the ships. The Sea Saamis of that area are known from the 16th century onwards in written sources to build boats regularly for their Norwegian neighbors due to their privileged and original position of occupying the inner, forested parts of the fiords, whilts the fishing and herding Norwegians lived off the treeless outer islands. The building of sewn boats ceased completely around 1700 in the southern parts but in Finnmark the tradition was carried on for about two centuries.
This is the mask of a 1st century BC Saami / Lapp shaman who was ancestral to the foundation phase of the Vikings - the (by physical appearance) African Vikings.
The African phase of the Vikings with its art, its masterful ships, its culture so well-adapted to the harsh colds of Scandinavian and northern winters, the African phase was the phase of high-civilization.
You are speaking about the second phase taken over by the tall, blond-haired ruthless people of conquest and destruction.
. .
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
DP
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
Jari. Regardless of how you feel about issues to use terminology like "Islamocentric garbage" has no place at this forum.
. .
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You just refuse to get it. They tried in different places within Africa. That's my statement in its context as first stated ("Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places.") and further elucidated ("they tried to wipe out Africans in different places in Africa").
As this is a forum for Egyptology & Africana that's where my focus lies. I didn't, nor can you make me, compare the African response to Euro invaders to that of the Americas in my statement Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out.
Now you may not like it and so deny it or squiggle to other people to deflect it but it remains a fact that Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out.
Since you don't feel it's true and maybe you wish they had, I invite you to falsify that Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: The Europeans went to other places this statement is what brings up the Americas. There was a difference between what happened in Africa and what happened in the Americas. The question is what is the factor that made the situations different? Was it because Africans were stronger which would then mean that the people of the Americas were weaker.
Just because there was fighting going on doesn't mean the Europeans' greatest advantage was in war (in the early centuries) their advantage was in disease. How can a bunch of white people just come in and exterminate land that is already inhabited?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
My first post on this matter, I indite Euros for being the world's greatest mass murderers and land grabbers. Try falsifying that instead of deflecting the focus off of Euros and onto Amerinds vs Africans taking the mind off century spanning Euro global atrocities.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Europeans cannot be absolved of the widespread and systematic murder of the peoples whose lands they have confiscated whether by overt military or outlaw gunfire or covert dirty biological warfare.
There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
It is easy to get confused about what someone is saying over the internet but what I mean is that strength was not the factor that made the difference
What was the factor that made the difference between what happened in the Americas and Africa? It was disease. Your statement said that difference was strength.
Your statement is similar to saying Africans were taken to the Americas as laborers because they were stronger than Native Americans.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: My first post on this matter, I indite Euros for being the world's greatest mass murderers and land grabbers. Try falsifying that instead of deflecting the focus off of Euros and onto Amerinds vs Africans taking the mind off century spanning Euro global atrocities.
Your first statement was a response to me when I said Marc's thinking reflected 19th century racial theories about the natural inferiority of "dark folk" "had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races."
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Marc, you need to realize that you are simply repeating 19th century racial theories which revolves around the weakness of certain "races". And as I said what happened in the Americas could only have happened because of disease which the people had no immunity to
quote:H. Strickland Constable. 1899, Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View
The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the burrows, or burying places, in sundry pats of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland, and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races.
Harper's weekly 1899:
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I also stated
quote:
Other than Euros what people have crossed oceans and tried annihilating the people they found there in order to confiscate their land.
I stand by it and await its falsification.
I gave examples for extermination
quote:
1 - The USA west is the best example. "The only good Injun is a dead Injum." "Ten little nine little eight little Injuns ... two little one little NO LITTLE INJUN BOYS!"
2 - And oh, can you say T a s m a n i a ?
3 - What did Crusaders do? Did they kill non-combatants all long the way to and in the Levant?
4 - Africans were too tough for Euros to wipe out they tried in different places. What did the Portuguese do when they landed in Swahili cities? How does it go? Something like "they fell on their knees in prayer and then fell on the non-combatant natives."
And good examples they are.
The best example is North America were the idea of extermination was so much a part of the Euro psyche they had that common saying and even a children's song extolling extermination of the true Native American Man.
North America remains the best example of Euros crossing an ocean and confiscating a landmass and decimating the already occupying population.
But its not the only example. The second best one is Australia, again, an entire continent and its people.
A third example is not so forceful as evidence because Tasmania is just one relatively small island to itself but again it was confiscated and its people decimated.
The Crusades were thrown in because maybe it was the first example where Euros set off to take over land outside Europe but the population devestation was not limited to the Levant or Near East since the Crusaders did a good job wiping out fellow Europeans of "pagan" and "heretical" Xian faiths as well as whatever Jews were along the way, iirc.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There have been no greater global mass murderers than Euros.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Quit dancing and apply to my request: I indite Euros for being the world's greatest mass murderers and land grabbers. Try falsifying that.
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: My first post on this matter, I indite Euros for being the world's greatest mass murderers and land grabbers. Try falsifying that instead of deflecting the focus off of Euros and onto Amerinds vs Africans taking the mind off century spanning Euro global atrocities.
Your first statement was a response to me when I said Marc's thinking reflected 19th century racial theories about the natural inferiority of "dark folk" "had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races."
quote:Originally posted by markellion: Marc, you need to realize that you are simply repeating 19th century racial theories which revolves around the weakness of certain "races". And as I said what happened in the Americas could only have happened because of disease which the people had no immunity to
quote:H. Strickland Constable. 1899, Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View
The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the burrows, or burying places, in sundry pats of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland, and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races.
Harper's weekly 1899:
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Yes and it was because of bio warfare. They would not have been able to do this without disease.
My point in posting those cartoon on the top of the 2nd page was to show that most of the atrocities occurred later in history because I was saying Marc's idea of atrocities being done against dark skinned people for 5,000 years is eugenics propaganda. My point isn't to downplay the atrocities but to fight eugenics propaganda. However atrocities are being done
quote:Originally posted by markellion: The crusades still make it within the last one millennium as opposed to Marc Washington's claim that it was two and the crusades still don't fit into the idea that "there are so few blacks in the world today". This is simply eugenics propaganda
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Either put down the Ouzo or pass me some Arack.
It's you making comparisons, Africans vs Indians, not me. You cannot quote such coming out my mouth only your unfounded inferences built on not understanding my full contextual statement and your inability to digest all further clarification of your initial mistake.
Quit limiting my statement to Native Americans. I included Amerinds, Tasmanians, Lebanese, and even Euros in my sweeping inditement of Euros being the world's greatest mass murdering land grabbers of more than five centuries.
That's the focus no matter how hard you keep trying to cover it up by micro-analyzing the Americas situation.
You can't falsify either of my statements.[list=n] [*]Euros are the only cross continental land grabbing mass murderers of all time. [*]Euros are world's greatest mass murderers. [*]Africans were tough for Euros to wipe out.[/list]
That's it that's what it's all about. You don't like it but you can't do anything about it. In fact you Euros are very proud of that accomplishment which is why you haven't tried falsifying it or even expressing any condemnation of it.
quote:Originally posted by markellion: It is easy to get confused about what someone is saying over the internet but what I mean is that strength was not the factor that made the difference
What was the factor that made the difference between what happened in the Americas and Africa? It was disease. Your statement said that difference was strength.
Your statement is similar to saying Africans were taken to the Americas as laborers because they were stronger than Native Americans.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Oops (as in: Oops upside my head).
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: My apologies Sage, if I was dis-respectful. I do take Africana seriously. They don't come blacker than me, and I am not talking skin tone.
But within my "chit chat" serious questions are ask.
BTW - I stopped used the word "negro" over 20ya, in my teens. I rarely use the word AA but African Decent to describe my people in the diaspora. So don't tell me about the meaning of negro
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Missing with me, eh? I'm trying to adapt to this chit chat mode yu newer members have made of these forums so I'm an easy mark because I still take my African studies very seriously.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The reason I posted those cartoons on the top of the 2nd page was to show these atrocities happened. I am disagreeing with you only as it regards to my original post on this thread. My first post was a response to Marc Washington
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
The Belgian king Leopold II says to the USA "I'll give you enough rubber to make you an elastic conscience"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
**Sighs** You're slow lil Mike, the study you picked (along with all of the others) has been out for years, and already dissected on ES. 
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I can't even grasp the idea. An "African" Alexander the Great who waged destruction to an "African" Macedonia. The very idea contradicts itself
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
