quote:You're quite delusional. What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin, that they spread east beginning c. 1000 B.C., and that pre-historic East Africans were generalized moderns. E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.
Euro Disney's own source has debunked him, read...
The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v62n2/970077/970077.html
Courtesy of Passarino et tal's study, the same one that Euro-Disney keeps using. He has either two choices
1)To come clean and admit that Negroids were in East Africa BEFORE 1000 B.C. and have nothing to do with Bantus.
2)To admit that Passarino's study is flawed and outdated and does more to debunk Euro Disney's argument.
3) Deny the whole thing despite what his own sources say , that the Negroid element appeared in Ethiopia as early as 8000 B.C.
posted
Attempting to associate a race catagory with a language (Niger-Congo) is illogical.
Attempting to suggest that Niger-Congo speakers originates in 1000 BC, is just sheer stupidity.
Niger-Congo is the largest language familiy in the world. There are well over 1000 NC languages, and dating from at least 13,000 BC.
The other three related African language families are Nilo-Saharan, Afrasan, and Khoisan. The languages are ALL AFRICAN. None of them are European or have anything to do with the pale skinned whites of northern europe.
Elongated and Broad types of Africans can be found among Afrasan, Nilo-Saharan and Niger Congo speakers. Khoesian are the only language in the group that even remotely correlates to a particular Black African phenotype.
Some of the darkest skin tones in the world are actually found among the Nilo-Saharans.
The Pn2 clade (E3a and E3b) is the dominent genotype among all speakers of all three langauge groups...which once again, differentiates them from Europeans.
Language is not 'race'.
Where are the original 'whites' of Black Africa? Nowhere to be found,linguistically, genetically or elsewhere because they don't exist.
EuroDisney is none too bright.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 February 2005).]
posted
Hey S. Mohammad, it gets even worse for Eurofaker. The study also cites Jean Hiernaux!
quote:Both linguistic (Greenberg 1963) and genetic (Hiernaux 1975; Excoffier et al. 1987; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, pp. 169171) studies show that most sub-Saharan populations are related to each other
ROTFL!!!
The longer he goes on, the more he needs to make up new lies, the more he contradicts himself.
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782).
Thanks for confirming that Negroids were not yet present in East Africa at the time of any OOA migrations. Nice job proving yourself wrong, dumbass.
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: Thanks for confirming that Negroids were not yet present in East Africa at the time of any OOA migrations. Nice job proving yourself wrong, dumbass.
Dumbass, your own source debunked you. This paper says nothing about Negroids not being present in East Africa during OOA migrations, which happened BTW 70,000-90,000 years ago. The source does debunk what you have been saying, and that was Negroids were not present in East Africa until Bantu dispersals brought them there. That was the lame purpose of your Asselar Man thread. Its amazing to see your reaction, now that you can no longer say Negroid people only came from West Africa, since the Negroid presence in Ethiopia in essence precedes the appearance of Asselar Man. BTW, the source says nothing about Caucasoids being in East Africa before Negroids. Indeed Passarino et tal's study says that "Caucasoid" mixture came in the Neolithic and much later on through contact with Yemen. Your own source totally debunked you ass.
posted
"Indeed Passarino et tal's study says that "Caucasoid" mixture came in the Neolithic and much later on through contact with Yemen."
This doesn't even prove Caucasoid admixture in East Africa, because Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula are not white. Arabs in the Peninsula are J, while Europeans are G. There might be slight European influence (Persians), and this doesn't make them caucasoid.
quote:Originally posted by S.Mohammad: This paper says nothing about Negroids not being present in East Africa during OOA migrations
It says that Negroids "appeared" in Ethiopia ~7000 B.C., indicating that they were not present there earlier.
quote:which happened BTW 70,000-90,000 years ago.
M89 left Africa 45,000 years ago.
quote:The source does debunk what you have been saying, and that was Negroids were not present in East Africa until Bantu dispersals brought them there.
The source is a 1964 encyclopedia article with no documentation for its claim. But I would imagine that several movements of Negroid peoples occurred, the Bantu expansion being the biggest. The point is, Negroids date back to as recently as the Holocene and are not native to East Africa.
posted
Euro: It says that Negroids "appeared" in Ethiopia ~7000 B.C., indicating that they were not present there earlier.
Again you are classing West Africans as only Negroid. You are using terms that are extinct, anyone native to Africa is Black in the academia today.
Euro: M89 left Africa 45,000 years ago.
Actually M89 was already out of Africa in the middle East, and before it was M168 when in Africa. The M89 marker went from Middle East to South-West Asia. However, most of the early humans did look Black. The Australoids for example are the earliest Asians, yet they look Negroid. Search for pictures of the Jarawa of India NOT the Australian aboriginal because many are mixed.
Euro: The source is a 1964 encyclopedia article with no documentation for its claim. But I would imagine that several movements of Negroid peoples occurred, the Bantu expansion being the biggest. The point is, Negroids date back to as recently as the Holocene and are not native to East Africa.
From the 1000BC figure to the Holecene. This just demonstrates that you're just playing around with facts. Do you even have a source that Negroids showed up in Africa in the holocene? The early humans of East African did infact look Negroid/Black, and are classed as Black.
Conclusion: All those 'creative' posts you made did not prove anything at all.
1) Southern Europeans are not pure Caucasian, because they carry an African element (25% E3b patternally) which is not the case for Europeans in Northern, Eastern, or Western Europe.
2) Even if the East Africans are classified as purple, it will mean that Southern Europeans are Caucasian and purple, hence hybrids. Creoles or Mullatos are not Caucasian, even though many look very Caucasian.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 09 February 2005).]
posted
At this point what we need from Evil Euro are the following:
What is the scientific meaning of "Negroid" and "Caucasoid"?
When did "Negroids" and "Caucasoid" morphologies appear in East Africa?
Why is the E3b not related to E3a when they are clearly part of the same PN2 clade?
Why is the Horn of Africa not part of sub-Saharan Africa, when countries in Central and West Africa, which are on the same belt are considered one?
Why is the E3b considered "Caucasoid", when its apparent that its origins lie in tropical Africa?
Why would the early anatomically modern Humans not be tropically adapted, having had to evolve in a tropical latitude or zone?
Why do the Horn of Africa people look phenotypically "Negroid", you know the presence of thick kinky hair and dark skin, despite the absence of Bantu influence?
What has recent admixture from the near East or Southern Arabian peninsula have anything to with the "indigenousness" of East Africans to East Africa or have anything to do with the fact that they are tropically adapted?
What is his definition of "West Africans" other than them being in West Africa?
What are the language groups of West Africa and East Africa?
Explain why Central Africans in Cameroon, who may actually have more "caucasian" admixture than an Oromo of Ethiopia, appear to have more broad phenotypic characteristics, while the Oromo don't?
Why he doesn't consider "Benin sickle Cell" presence in southern Europe, as a clear sign of tropical African admixture, whatever its degree?
If Evil answers these questions, we can then procede, knowing that we have basic definitions put on the table. Otherwise, there is no need to have a discourse with someone, who can't even define the terms he/she uses.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 09 February 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Super car: At this point what we need from Evil Euro are the following:
What is the scientific meaning of "Negroid" and "Caucasoid"?
When did "Negroids" and "Caucasoid" morphologies appear in East Africa?
Why is the E3b not related to E3a when they are clearly part of the same PN2 clade?
Why is the Horn of Africa not part of sub-Saharan Africa, when countries in Central and West Africa, which are on the same belt are considered one?
Why is the E3b considered "Caucasoid", when its apparent that its origins lie in tropical Africa?
Why would the early anatomically modern Humans not be tropically adapted, having had to evolve in a tropical latitude or zone?
Why do the Horn of Africa people look phenotypically "Negroid", you know the presence of thick kinky hair and dark skin, despite Bantu influence?
What has recent admixture from the near East or Southern Arabian peninsula have anything to with the "indigenousness" of East Africans to East Africa or have anything to do with the fact that they are tropically adapted?
What is his definition of "West Africans" other than them being in West Africa?
What are the language groups of West Africa and East Africa?
Explain why Central Africans in Cameroon, who may actually have more "caucasian" admixture than an Oromo of Ethiopia, appear to have more broad phenotypic characteristics, while the Oromo don't?
Why he doesn't consider "Benin sickle Cell" presence in southern Europe, as a clear sign of tropical African admixture, whatever its degree?
If Evil answers these questions, we can then procede, knowing that we have basic definitions put on the table. Otherwise, there is no need to have a discourse with someone, who can't even define the terms he/she uses.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 09 February 2005).]
agreed,of course some of those with more of the varied looks in cameroon would still be unmixed since we know africans could have varied looks without some white or other racial background.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 09 February 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: agreed,of course some of those with more of the varied looks in cameroon would still be unmixed since we know africans could have varied looks without some white or other racial background.
You and I, as well as Evil Euro (deep down), know that. I just used the Cameroonian example, not implying that they are all a product of Eurasian admixture, to make a point that some foreign admixture doesn't explain the general looks of East Africans, the Tutsi, or the Cameroonians. His quest to make southern Europeans devoid of tropical African admixture appears to have affected his judgement in building up his case. However, with clarification of several basics, we might get somewhere. It's he's call.
posted
S. Mohammad correctly debunked EuroDisney in the parent post.
The recent replies are just waundering all over the place and giving him an opportunity to change the subject, and deflect attention away from his own contradictions.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 February 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Roy_2k5: anyone native to Africa is Black in the academia today.
Only if one considers Afrocentrism a legitimate part of academia. Most academics don't.
quote:Actually M89 was already out of Africa in the middle East, and before it was M168 when in Africa.
"The third large sub-cluster of M168 lineages is characterized by the M89/M213 mutations at the root of Groups VI-X. As discussed above, this sub-cluster is suggested to have evolved in East Africa, from where it dispersed to Eurasia through the Levantine corridor around 45,000 years ago."
[Underhill et al. (2001) The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann Hum Genet; 65:43-62]
quote:Do you even have a source that Negroids showed up in Africa in the holocene?
Yes. The encyclopedia quote that started this thread. The info in the Asselar Man thread. And this:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population -- a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).
quote:Southern Europeans are not pure Caucasian, because they carry an African element (25% E3b patternally) which is not the case for Europeans in Northern, Eastern, or Western Europe.
Incorrect. E3b is found throughout Europe. It's clinal just like J, because it's also a signature of the Neolithic expansion and not of Negroid ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Super car: If Evil answers these questions, we can then procede
We can't proceed until one of you Afronuts produces a valid source describing pre-historic East Africans as "Negroid". The evidence we've seen describes them as "non-African", "Hamitic", "generalized modern" etc. Prove that they belonged to the same race as today's West Africans.
posted
They can't present anything, this is a radical black political board. After reading it for a time one can easily see why most blacks are poor and uneducated. Far too many buy into this nonsense. when you hear someone refer to another person as a 'dude' you know there is no scholarship going on. Their language alone tells you all you need to know.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you hear someone refer to another person as a 'dude' you know there is no scholarship going on. Their language alone tells you all you need to know.
Response to? The borg wrote:
quote:I saw the repeat on Discovery Science Channel. I'd forgotten how nice a film I made (no, I'm not the Director). Anyway, first off, I would like to say to Horemheb, DUDE, you are a lier. You know absolutely nothing about the security that went into the Nefertiti facial reconstruction.
posted
Yopu gave yourself away rasol with the Malcolm X thing. when you start hearing those names pop up you know you are dealing with ignorant ghetto niggers.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro: We can't proceed until one of you Afronuts produces a valid source describing pre-historic East Africans as "Negroid". The evidence we've seen describes them as "non-African", "Hamitic", "generalized modern" etc. Prove that they belonged to the same race as today's West Africans.
We can't proceed until your dumbass recognizes that Negroid doesn't equal "West African" only. Thats thge problem with your flawed thinking. Hamitic means nothing in modern academia, and generalized modern means nothing if the time period isn't known. 45,000 years ago, no human races existed and 45,000 years modern humans were even in Europe, it was populated by Neanderthals.
We can't proceed until your dumbass recognizes that Negroid doesn't equal "West African" only. Thats thge problem with your flawed thinking. Hamitic means nothing in modern academia, and generalized modern means nothing if the time period isn't known. 45,000 years ago, no human races existed and 45,000 years modern humans were even in Europe, it was populated by Neanderthals.
That is what most of my earlier questions were intended for him to do; to define his terms. I re-stated questions that others have already asked, and added my own little curiousities to those. Your parent notes undoubtedly show how discredited Evil Euro is, but as you can see, he continues to dance around loosely used terms and keeps bringing up the same topic in new threads, only to leave the ongoing discussions (on the same topic) with unanswered questions. As long as we continue to feed him with information, while allowing him to get away without answering basic questions, he'll continue his trolling tactics. I for one, have no intention of answering any term for him; that's his job. There is no need to keep correcting or discrediting him, if he doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time unwilling to seek help!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 10 February 2005).]
quote:As long as we continue to feed him with information, while allowing him to get away without answering basic questions, he'll continue his trolling tactics. I for one, have no intention of answering any term for him; that's his job. There is no need to keep correcting or discrediting him, if he doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time unwilling to seek help!
posted
Didn't Dr Hawass say in his interview that upper Egyptians did not have the same features as Africans?
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic