quote:
Cobra:
I believe that the Ancient Egyptions are more closer to the current day EAST Africans then the SO COLLED Caucasian, what ever that means!!. Or Samites OR EVEN WEST AFRICAN NEGROES.
This fails to take into account, the fact that Africans of the once fertile Sahara also found their way to the Nile Valley, in addition to those who directly came from east Africa.
The manner in which, "West Africans" in the aforementioned comment was followed by the word "Negroes", while the same was not applied to "East Africans", suggests that so-called Negro is somehow supposed to be limited to a homogenous west Africa. What it actually means in the context provided in the quote, will perhaps be best explained by the author.
Wittingly or otherwise, people who speak of East Africans in the manner just exemplified, seem to be painting East Africans as some sort of a homogenous entity, just as they do, the so-called West Africans. There are both broad and narrow facial physiognomy in either side of the continent.
East Africans:
In Sudan alone...
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
courtesy of Sudanese Embessy in South Africa
Elsewhere in East Africa:
The Omo Valley ethnic groups, e.g. the Bume people.
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
The Borana of Kenya (basically the same people as the Oromo of Ethiopia)
The Gabbra of Kenya
The Turkana lake regions-North Kenya:
The Samburu of Kenya
A Girl of the Omo Delta - Omoritti
Continued.
Turkana warrior -kenya
People of Cowap- Kenya
Last six Photos: Courtesy of wanderingnomads.com
West Africans:
Continued.
Tuaregs of Mali
Tuaregs of Niger.
Ghanaian
The following picture is too large, and hence not to overly distort the size of thread page, best thing to do is paste the address to the browser:
http://image05.webshots.com/5/3/40/63/112934063QkjZtC_ph.jpg
Senegalese
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
More Senegalese
Indeed, to capture the diversity of Africans East to West, not to mention North to South, we could go on with many more examples. The genealogical and cultural (particularly, language) relationships of these groups, has now been pointed out many times.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
There is no single 'true' African phenotype. Africa has always had a great deal of native physical variety. And there is neither a geographical boundary nor climate-divide between East and West Africa to provide rationale for contrived stereotypes.
Quite true; sometimes in order to really get a point through, it is best to suppliment history, genetics and linguistics with photographs, that imediately instill the actual images of the people being talked about, in the minds of the potential audience. Those who have actually been to various places in Africa, ought to already be familiar with these variations, but those who only read about Africans, will only get narrow views of Africans, lest they diversify sources of information. Genetics tells a lot about population relationships, but with the power of photography, it gets even better.
Just think about how many times now, a point has been made to show the diversity and biological relationships of Africans, and yet, we still get comments along the lines of unsubstantiated stereotypes.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
Crossing the Sahara: The Failure of an
Early Modern Attempt to Unify Islamic Africa
by Stephen Cory; University of California at Santa Barbara.
Invisible Barriers: The Problem with Regionalization
The traditional area studies approach towards Africa is to divide the continent between North Africa (Arab Africa) and sub-Saharan Africa (Black Africa). The North African states of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco (and sometimes also the Sudan and Mauritania) are linked with the Arab world and the Middle East.1 The countries that border these lands to the south, and that are geographically much closer than those of the Middle East, are usually studied separately as West Africa, East Africa, or Central Africa. Through the use of this model, a mental barrier is constructed, located approximately in the middle of the Sahara desert, which can blind scholars to the many economic, cultural, religious, and ethnic links between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. These links have always existed, and continue to exist today, as evidenced by the presence of many sub-Saharan Africans living and working in the states of North Africa, and by the current claims of the Moroccan government to sovereignty over the Western Sahara.
Economic connections between North Africa and the regions south of the Sahara were established long before the Islamic conquests of North Africa in the early eighth century. Trade was carried out along several dominant caravan routes over the course of hundreds of years. Over the centuries, the main commodities being exchanged included gold, ivory, ostrich feathers, cola nuts, civet, ambergris, animal hides, camels, and slaves. These things were traded for items such as salt, sugar, cloths, brass vessels, horses, and books.
E. W. Bovill describes the cross-Saharan trade in this manner: From the Nile valley in the east to the Atlantic in the west there was trafficking in gold with the interior of Africa at all times in recorded history. Slaves and gold, gold and slaves, provided the life-blood of the trade of the Maghrib with the Sudan. This trade was so prosperous that changes in the trade routes led to the rise and fall of different trading centers over the centuries. The wealth of the caravan trade also inspired numerous efforts by African and European states to establish control over the trade routes. Yet, the source of the West African gold trade remained surprisingly elusive for the foreign potentates who made these attempts.
Another link between the two regions was provided by the Islamic religion. In both East and West Africa, the spread of Islam moved from north to south.3 The expansion of Islam was initially connected with the work of Muslim traders in the regions south of the Sahara.The official recognition of Islam by African rulers led to its further infiltration into African tribal communities. Often Islam was carried to the south through the efforts of Sufi brotherhoods that originated in North Africa. One example of this can be seen in the Tijaniyya brotherhood, which began in southern Algeria during the eighteenth century, and which spread extensively throughout West Africa.The connection to the Tijaniyya is so strong today that many West African Muslims make a stop at the shrine of Ahmad al-Tijani in Fes prior to completing the pilgrimage to Mecca5...
Although Westerners have often failed to recognize these links between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa [more like intentionally dividing the continent], this mental barrier has not always existed in the minds of Africans...
As mentioned before, it was North Africans who first brought Islam into these regions, through their contacts of trade and travel. As Islam expanded south of the Sahara, it took on a different flavor than it had in the northern part of the continent. Yet, it never completely lost its connections with North African Islam. Black African scholars kept themselves abreast of intellectual and political developments in such northern centers as Cairo and Fes, and those Africans who were fortunate enough to make the pilgrimage to Mecca passed through these lands, further strengthening connections. Sometimes influences would actually run in the other direction. In fact, it was nomad tribes from the southern Sahara who established the famous Almoravid dynasty, which ruled the western Maghrib and al-Andalus for over one hundred years.
Despite these connections, no thought appears to have been given to creating a state that would link the regions north and south of the Sahara until the sixteenth century. It was the Moroccan Sadi dynasty that made the first attempts in this direction.
By the mid-sixteenth century, the Sadis had managed to wrest control of Morocco from the hands of the Portuguese colonizers and the Berber Wattasid dynasty, and could begin to direct their attention towards the south. In 1557, the Sadi sultan Muhammad al-Shaykh launched an invasion of the salt mines of Taghaza, which had been under the control of the West African Songhay dynasty to that time. Salt was an important element in that it served as the main commodity that was traded for gold. Muhammad al-Shaykh was unable to follow up on this victory, however, since he was murdered by Turkish mercenaries shortly afterwards. However, this same interest in the south would be shown by the son of Muhammad al-Shaykh in the 1580s, but this time with a slightly different thrust.
Ahmad al-Mansur rose to the throne in Marrakech on the heels of the Sadis magnificent victory over the Portuguese in the Battle of Wadi al-Makhazen (August 4, 1578). An ambitious man, al-Mansur would not be satisfied with simply ruling over the lands of Morocco. However, with the powerful Spanish state to the north, and the Ottoman Empire having established control to the east in Algiers, al-Mansur had no direction in which to expand other than southwards. The region was certainly tempting economically, due to the wealth that was generated by the gold and slave trades originating in West Africa. Al-Mansur believed that his possession of firearms and the modern military practices utilized by his army should enable him to triumph over the swords, spears, and tribal confederations available to the Songhay state.
And yet, the sultan had more than simply economic motivations for considering an invasion to the south. Sadi rhetoric itself propelled al-Mansur towards expanding his state. Unlike the preceding Berber dynasties, the Sadis claimed to be sharifs, or descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. In their competition with the Wattasids, they had argued successfully that, as sharifs, they were the divinely appointed rulers of the country. Backing up their position with the use of Quranic verses and hadith that asserted the superiority of the Prophet' family, the Sadis had used their sharifian status as the primary justification for their rule. In fact, the logic of this argument meant that the Sadi sharifs were not only the legitimate rulers over Morocco, but also over the entire Islamic world. Muhammad al-Shaykh had clearly implied this through statements such as his derisive reference to the Ottoman sultan as The Sultan of the Fishermen and his claims that he would meet up with him in Cairo (which was being administered at that time by the Ottomans).8 It was for such swagger as this, put into action when Muhammad al-Shaykh attempted to take Tlemcen on the western borders of Ottoman territory, that the Turkish sultan had the Sadi leader assassinated.
Ahmad al-Mansur had similar ambitions as his father, but he was enough of a political realistic to recognize that he lacked the strength to challenge the Ottomans directly. And yet, it was under al-Mansur that the theory of sharifian supremacy was developed to its fullest extent. The sultan employed court panegyrists and poets such as Ibn al-Qadi, al-Fishtali, and al-Masfiwi to trumpet the superiority of his claim to Islamic headship, particularly in the eastern Islamic lands.9 In the meantime, al-Mansur made concrete plans to exert his authority over the Islamic states of sub-Saharan Africa, using the ancient theory of the caliphate as his justification. Al-Mansur's claims represented an attempt by an Early Modern monarch to reinvigorate an Islamic institution that had been important during the earliest centuries of Islam, but which had vanished in all but name after the decline and fall of the Abbasid Empire.10
The original caliphs were believed to be successors of the Prophet Muhammad. Their position initially involved both spiritual and political leadership, which is reflected in the title Prince of the Believers. The caliph was believed to have authority over the entire Muslim community. Particularly critical to the political legitimacy of the early caliphs was their association with the house of the Prophet, their claim to uphold the practices of the true faith, and their successful expansion and defense of Islamic realms through military might. So strong was the sanctity of this office that Muslim potentates continued to give lip service allegiance to the Abbasid caliphs, long after the latter had lost all true political authority.
After the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258 destroyed the Abbasid caliphate, the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt co-opted an Abbasid descendent and moved him to Cairo as a puppet caliph in order to substantiate their claims to supremacy in the Islamic world. However, no serious attempts to revive this institution along its original lines were made until the sixteenth century. At the same time that the Ottoman dynasty was considering how they might effectively apply the title of caliph to legitimize their primary position in the Islamic world, Ahmad al-Mansur began to openly assert that his caliphal claims better fit the historic qualifications for the position of Prince of the Believers.
It was in his role as the rightful caliph over the Islamic world that al-Mansur made his approach to the Islamic rulers of the kingdoms bordering the Sahara on the south. In letters written to the rulers of Bornu, Kebbi, and Songhay, al-Mansur asserted his caliphal supremacy and maintained that he was only attempting to restore Islamic unity as God intended it, under the rightful leadership of the family of the Prophet.
The sultan's letters to the sub-Saharan monarchs emphasized that he needed their support in order to stem the progress of the unbelieving Europeans, and to fulfill his role as leader of holy war to advance the expansion of Islam. Nowhere in his letters did al-Mansur ever indicate that he viewed the sub-Saharan lands as a different region from his own territory. Instead, the clear implication of his message was that, as members of Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam), the sub-Saharan Africans should willingly submit to al-Mansur as the rightful caliph over all Muslims. Submission would bring blessing and prosperity, while resistance would bring destruction. The Sadi sultan seems to have been envisioning the reestablishment of the caliphate in the western lands of Islam; a caliphate that would span the Sahara on both sides, and would serve as a challenge to Ottoman supremacy...
During the time of al-Mansur, the Ottoman empire also brought together many different regions under one head, while, superficially at least, applying the title of caliph to their sultan. Al-Mansur had no reason to think that he couldn't do the same, especially given that his claims for leadership were better than those of the Ottomans. In addition, the long-standing economic and religious connections between North and West Africa only encouraged the sultan to conceive of these two areas as being part of one community, which ought to be linked politically as well. He argued that, as a sharif, he was uniquely qualified to lead this community, and that the rulers of the sub-Saharan Islamic states ought to recognize and submit to his authority.
Forced Unity? Al-Mansur's Invasion of West Africa
As is often the case, the practice of implementing al-Mansur's ideas of a western caliphate was more difficult than its theoretical conception. The sultan spent several years in negotiation with the sub-Saharan Borno and Songhay states, and in preparing his army for an invasion to the south. Although he obtained a written oath of allegiance from the sultan of the Bornu,12 al-Mansur's attempts to exert his authority over the Songhay met with outright refusal from their leader, Askia Ishaq II. As a result, the Sadi sultan launched his invasion of Songhay in 1591.13
Due to their enormous advantage in firearms and military organization, al-Mansur's troops were initially quite successful in conquering the region and annexing it to the Moroccan empire. Efforts were made to persuade the most influential members of West African society to willingly give their allegiance to al-Mansur, and to stabilize the area under new leadership.14 Following this victory, the Sadi scribe al-Fishtali would proclaim triumphantly, "The command of al-Mansur was effective from Nuba to the ocean on the western side . . . (and he gained) marvelous authority that had never existed for anyone before him."15 However, it would turn out that al-Mansur's authority south of the Sahara was ephemeral at best. After a short period of time, a Songhay resistance movement arose, resulting in many years of armed struggle between the Moroccan conquerors and the Songhay resistance, and dooming al-Mansur's project to eventual failure.
If, as I have argued, the regions north and south of the Sahara have long enjoyed many and varied connections, and if al-Mansur's justification for his annexation of West Africa fit in with traditional Islamic ideology, at least two questions are raised by this failure:
Regarding the first question, many historians explain this failure as being due to several factors. First of all, they believe that al-Mansur was simply interested in milking profits from the West African gold mines, and that he made no effort to develop the infrastructure for a more permanent annexation of Songhay lands. Secondly, they argue that Morocco lacked the capacity to effectively incorporate the large Songhay territory, separated from southern Morocco by miles of desert wasteland, into the Moroccan empire. Although their superiority in weaponry gave the Moroccans an initial advantage in their battle with the Songhay, the permanent annexation of this territory to Morocco was a different story.
[Moroccan historian Abd al-Krim Kurayyim on the other hand]...argues that the Moroccans attempted to establish a stable administration for governing the country, and even made efforts to improve agricultural methods in the region. Kurayyim maintains that not all of the Songhay resented the arrival of the Moroccans, and lists a number of cases in which the invaders received a warm response.
He places most of the blame for the disorder that befell West Africa after the Moroccan invasion upon the Songhay leaders who continued to resist Moroccan authority, leading to a protracted guerilla war throughout the Songhay regions.17 In addition, misfortunes that occurred within Morocco itself, including an extended plague after 1596, could be adduced to help explain the Moroccan failure to capitalize upon their military victory through effectively annexing the Songhay territory.
Another scholar, Lansine Kaba, disagrees with Kurayyim's favorable interpretation of Moroccan efforts to integrate the Songhay lands into their empire.Kaba argues that, while al-Mansur had developed a highly sophisticated army (by sixteenth-century standards), the Moroccan governmental, societal, and economic infrastructure lacked the same degree of sophistication. Indeed, in order to develop such an army, al-Mansur had been forced to rely upon mercenary troops mostly recruited from Andalusian refugees, European renegades, and Turkish mercenaries. Since these troops lacked any long-term identification with Morocco itself, they were untrustworthy, and tended to be overly harsh in their administration, and unreliable in their commitment to the sultan's goals. Finally, Kaba argues that al-Mansur's invasion of the Songhay was carried on mostly with Europe in view. Desirous of keeping pace with the European powers, al-Mansur sought to unite West Africa under his authority, in order that he might be able to utilize its resources to strengthen his position vis-a-vis the other Mediterranean states.
However, instead of achieving this goal, Kaba believes that the invasion turned out to be a complete disaster, which finally swallowed up both the conqueror and the conquered.18 Not only was the effect of continued warfare devastating to the economy and society of West Africa, but the cost of supporting a long-distance foreign war placed undue strain upon the Moroccan economy. It drained away resources that could have been better used elsewhere in developing an infrastructure that would be able to compete economically with the Europeans.
Regarding my second question (as to why the West Africans did not buy into al-Mansur's justification for his invasion), I again refer to the works of Kurayyim and Kaba. As Kurayyim points out, the sources indicate that a number of the Songhay leaders did initially welcome the Moroccans, and seemed prepared to cooperate with their authority. However, the documented abuses undertaken against the local population by Moroccan troops seem to have turned the populace against the invaders. This hearkens back to Kaba's point that the mercenary nature of al-Mansur's troops may not have been the most advantageous for establishing a long-term connection with the Songhay lands.
Indeed, it seems that most West Africans believed that al-Mansur's claims to unify the Islamic community were made for self-serving reasons, and not for the purpose of advancing the cause of Islam. Their experience of this unification project was violence, turmoil, the loss of their possessions, and general anarchy.19 Whether the rebellious Songhay are blamed for this chaos (per Kurayyim), the mercenary soldiers (per Kaba), or the disingenuous aims of al-Mansur himself (per many other historians, including Dahiru Yahya,)20 the end result was not conducive to garnering West African support for a greater Western Caliphate under the headship of al-Mansur. Kaba makes one other observation that is relevant to our discussion. Regarding the Songhay resistance, he writes that the retreat of the Askia and his entourage into the historic Songhay heartland galvanized the resistance and gave a national character to it. In a footnote, Kaba explains that resistance to the abuses inflicted upon the populace by the Moroccan army assumed a national character in that it entailed broad trans-ethnic feelings hostile to alien rule and based on some type of common historical traditions.22 Thus, Kaba alludes to the beginnings of proto-nationalist feelings in West Africa, some of the earliest forebodings of a mindset that was to become predominant in Africa and the rest of the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The Divisive Impact of Nationalism
...Because of the economic and political power of the West, and also because nationalist ideologies have proven to be an effective means by which local elites in developing nations can legitimize their authority, the nationalist ideal became almost exclusively dominant throughout the world during the twentieth century. This was true even in states that presumed to adhere to more universalizing doctrines such as Muslim nations and communist countries.
Certainly the concept of the modern nation state, which includes such ideas as the right of self-determination, common citizenship available to all inhabitants of a country, and other related notions, promises many advantages to developing states. And yet, what it has frequently delivered is increased inequality and ethnic conflicts, border wars over proper boundaries between lands, and the subdivision of regions that once functioned effectively as a unit into smaller entities that have trouble competing on their own. Many of the modern nation-states are clearly colonial constructs arising from Western political decisions during the colonial period.
These include the rather spurious distinction between the nations of Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, states that had **no separate identity prior to the intervention of the colonizers.** Another example is the linking of the Christian southern Sudan with the Islamic northern Sudan (a decision that has resulted in a long and bloody civil war that continues to this day). It is also interesting how often a nationalist conception seems to develop in contradistinction to an opposing other, such as we saw earlier in this paper when we observed the beginnings of a Songhay nationalism coming into being only in response to the oppression of the Moroccan invaders. In the same way, it can be argued that Palestinian nationalism has developed only in response to the imposition of the Israeli nationalist vision, or that Bosnian nationalism arose in response to Serbian aggressiveness. The Armenians coexisted relatively peacefully with the Ottoman Turks for hundreds of years prior to the late nineteenth century, when the simultaneous development of Turkish and Armenian nationalism led to the infamous Armenian massacres. In the same way, similar examples could be multiplied with regard to Africa and other parts of the developing world.
Regionalism is a by-product of the West, arising from the nineteenth-century drive to understand and categorize the world, particularly in a way that made it clear that the West was the most advanced civilization on earth. Regionalism tends to essentialize certain areas according to characteristics that are felt to typify them. Sometimes the process of regionalism is spurred on by the inhabitants of those regions themselves. In the case of North Africa, the dominant culture has been a self-identified Arab culture. Believing Arab cultural values to be superior to Berber or sub-Saharan cultural values, the Maghrib has chosen to identify itself with the Arab world, even during periods of dominance by Berber dynasties such as the Almoravid or Merinid dynasties. By focusing solely upon this self-chosen identification, however, scholars run the risk of missing very important cultural contributions by subordinate groups within the society.
Towards a New Conception of Africa
Through this study, I have sought to demonstrate the long-lasting connections between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Although these connections existed centuries before the coming of Islam, they grew stronger throughout the Islamic period. During the sixteenth century, the Sadi sultan Ahmad al-Mansur observed the economic, cultural, and religious connections between the two regions, and argued that there ought to be political unification between them as well. And yet, it was at this point that things broke down, as al-Mansur was unable to achieve his dream of a caliphate that spanned both sides of the Sahara. The unification project for such a broad expanse of territory was too difficult for a moderately-powerful state, lacking in sophisticated infrastructure, such as Morocco, to achieve. Despite the existence of these many inter-connections, they were insufficient to support political unification.
In fact, if Kaba's argument is correct, al-Mansur's attempt at integrating West Africa into his state had long-lasting disastrous consequences for both North and West Africa. By destroying the strongest centralized state in sub-Saharan Africa, al-Mansur's invasion did irreparable damage to the trans-Saharan trade routes that had enriched both Morocco and West Africa. Instead, this trade increasingly began to be diverted to the south, where it was accessed by European merchants along the Gold and Slave Coasts. And the process of devoting all of the state's efforts towards the invasion exhausted the Sadi dynasty, making it extremely vulnerable to outside interference and collapse, once misfortune hit in the form of the plague and various famines. In attempting to establish a form of African political unity, al-Mansur hastened division and decline, leaving West Africa unprotected before the European onslaught that was to come in the following centuries.25
Perhaps we make the same mistake as did al-Mansur, albeit with less disastrous results. We assume that where there are economic, religious, and cultural connections, political connection ought to exist as well. Or, conversely, we conclude that if there is not a dominant political or ethnic connection between different areas, then the two areas ought to be considered as separate and distinct. One of our primary modern conceptions for viewing the world, nationalism, develops unity among people by emphasizing their distinctions from others. This naturally leads to division and conflict. Thus the Maghrib, which has been unified under different dynasties several times in the past, cannot get past the nationalist barrier to achieve any degree of Maghribi unity today. This is true even though attempts have been made towards this end, and it is clear that there would be benefits for all the countries of the Maghrib through the achievement of some higher degree of cooperation between them.
Certainly I am not recommending a return to the Islamic caliphal ideal, nor could such a thing be brought about even if it were attempted. The modern world is different from the medieval world in substantial ways, and there is no way to turn back the clock. Still, I think it is time to recognize some of the weaknesses of the modern concepts of nationalism and regionalism, and to work to move beyond the limitations that they place upon us.
How can scholars overcome the pitfalls of the blinders that are set up by these modern concepts? If I were to propose another model for viewing the continent of Africa, I would be falling into the same regionalist trap that I am criticizing. Instead, we, as teachers and scholars, must make a concerted effort in our instruction and research to point out the unifying connections between regions that often go over-looked in today's world. If we can teach our students to think in the same way, perhaps tomorrow's leaders can emerge as somewhat more broad-minded than our generation has proven to be, and less limited by constructs that are viewed as being hard and fast. At any rate, it would be worth our best efforts to attempt to achieve such results.
Some notes:
While the author admits that his use of Western Africa examples can be attributed to his expertise in mainly Western Africa studies, he points out that, similar connections can be made between the northern and sub-Saharan regions of East Africa:
Since my expertise is in western Africa, most of my examples are derived from that region. However, many of the same points can be made about East Africa as well. For more information on the Islamic connections between the regions north and south of the Sahara in East Africa, see Nehemia Levtzion and Randall L. Pouwels, editors, The History of Islam in Africa (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000). In particular, the following articles in that volume deal with the spread of Islam in East Africa: The East African Coast, c. 780 to 1900 CE by Randall Pouwels, pp. 251-272; East Central Africa by Edward A. Alpers, pp. 303-326.
Nationalism has existed in times contemporaneous to dynastic Egypt, in that Kemetians saw themselves as Kemetians, and this was defined by shared values and customs, shared land (marked by defined boundaries) and the coming together under a central governance. As the author pointed out, nationalism in terms of continental-wide nationalism mainly took off in the 19th and 20th centuries, but modern artificial colonial boundaries that define many nation states, ensure the persistence of the contradictions within continental-wide nationalisms, culminating in border conflicts and ethnic wars. The contradictions are expressed in the need for some groups to distance themselves from others, even when continental-wide nationalism is acknowledged. This is where regionalism (another modern construct) comes into play, whereby some talk of East Africans as though they are a homogenous entity, which is different from another supposedly homogenous entity, namely west Africans, or North Africans vs. sub-Saharan Africans, or a piece of North Africa labeled as "middle East", excluding the remaining portions of North Africa. Even then, after all the talk of regionalism or continental-wide nationalism, conflicts continue within these "regions" themselves, or even within individual nation states around the world.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
Here is some pictures of NIgerian Western Afrians:
Beja[desendants of Medijay Blemmeyes[Greco-Roman times]
The Jaaliyin of Sudan[Arabized Nubians]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Just another racist thread from Super car. A man obcessed by race as a drunk craves whiskey.
Show us what is racist about highlighting the diversity of Africans? Give us the specifics on what was said, that implies racism!
quote:
Horemheb:
Its interesting that what we get is a group of pictures of people living in the wilderness carrying sticks around.
The gist of what has been presented here, is far too sophisticated for your processing. Evolution has evaded a few, who have not progressed at all intellectually from where primitive-thinking 19th century racists left off. It is safe to say, you fit well into that reactionary bunch.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Just another racist thread from Super car. A man obcessed by race as a drunk craves whiskey. Its interesting that what we get is a group of pictures of people living in the wilderness carrying sticks around.
This coming from a person that stated..any African nation/people that have achieved anything
quote:, which would explain there achievement..
must have had some white blood mixed with them in the first place
I guess you would know what is indeed racist.
quote:
Just another racist thread from Super car.
The Omo Valley is virtually free of human habitation but is rich in palaeo-anthro-pological remains. According to scientific research done in 1982 by the University of California at Berkeley, hominid remains from the Omo Valley probably date back more than four million years. - Selamta; an Ethiopian magazine. BTW, Selam basically means greetings.
Lower Valley of the Omo
A prehistoric site near Lake Turkana, the lower valley of the Omo is renowned the world over. The discovery of many fossils there, especially Homo gracilis, has been of fundamental importance in the study of human evolution. - UNESCO World Heritage Center
Despite much of the Omo Valley being sparsely populated, nonetheless, even small remote East African regions like the Lower Omo Valley has such a high degree of diversity, which tourists/explorers cant fail to take notice.
Visiting the peoples of the South Omo is an enriching and educational experience. Up to two dozen tribes inhabit the area and we visit villages and local markets in the hope of meeting maybe a third of them. The most famous are the Mursi, renowned for their clay lip plates, but there are many other vivid encounters. - Exodus; UK
In Ethiopia alone, there are more than 80 different ethnic groups, with the Oromo being the largest group in that country, if not in Africa. Yet, there seem to be talk of the Oromo struggling for independence, from a political power, which is perceived to be mainly of Trigrayna :
The Oromo constitute the largest Cushitic group in all of Africa. Their population is estimated at some 30 million, a good half of the total population of the Ethiopian state. Despite policies persistently followed by successive autocratic governments of Ethiopia in the past to change the demographic composition of regions through resettlement schemes and forced assimilation, each national group has maintained a distinct cultural identity of its own with its own language and its own separate and well-defined territory throughout the millennia. - Oromia Online
So what then is this talk of East Africans, as described earlier, if idea behind it, isnt to promote some sort of pseudo-regionalism ( a point was made on regionalism in the aforementioned Stephen Cory article ?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
Visiting the peoples of the South Omo is an enriching and educational experience. Up to two dozen tribes inhabit the area and we visit villages and local markets in the hope of meeting maybe a third of them. The most famous are the Mursi, renowned for their clay lip plates, but there are many other vivid encounters. - Exodus; UK
In Ethiopia alone, there are more than 80 different ethnic groups, with the Oromo being the largest group in that country, if not in Africa. Yet, there seem to be talk of the Oromo struggling for independence, from a political power, which is perceived to be mainly of Trigrayna :
The Oromo constitute the largest Cushitic group in all of Africa. Their population is estimated at some 30 million, a good half of the total population of the Ethiopian state. Despite policies persistently followed by successive autocratic governments of Ethiopia in the past to change the demographic composition of regions through resettlement schemes and forced assimilation, each national group has maintained a distinct cultural identity of its own with its own language and its own separate and well-defined territory throughout the millennia. - Oromia Online
So what then is this talk of East Africans, as described earlier, if idea behind it, isnt to promote some sort of pseudo-regionalism ( a point was made on regionalism in the aforementioned Stephen Cory article ?
Anyway, there is an improvement...
It is shown the DIVERSITY of African people.
Finally, if Africans are the original people, they should be the most diverse.
So, what's da problem?
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
Yes, again another thread on race.
You do have a choice of opening up another thread.
quote:
jluis:
Anyway, there is an improvement...It is shown the DIVERSITY of African people.
Finally, if Africans are the original people, they should be the most diverse.
So, what's da problem?
You tell me; didn't you read the beginning of the thread?
In case, you haven't noticed, the idea is to illustrate the degree of physical variation, which goes without saying, along with cultural diversity in 'every corner' of the African continent, so as to reflect the absurdity of references to constructs like East Africans, North Africans, or West Africans, etc, as though they are some sort of homogenous "racial" groups that are distinct from one another.
At any rate, some of us have gotten the gist, as exemplified by the postings of Ausar and Rasol:
quote:
Rasol:
There is no single 'true' African phenotype. Africa has always had a great deal of native physical variety. And there is neither a geographical boundary nor climate-divide between East and West Africa to provide rationale for contrived stereotypes.
On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
well, North African are not black ...check the United Nations demographic studies on Africa. Secondly, you are still talking about race, not history.
On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
I rest my case!
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
On the other hand, it may take a 'few' quite some time, before they can catch on.
Oh,well. Let me start again...
There are boundaries of physical variation in Africa. But they are not the same as cultural variations. "East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two. The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important...
These are the main sources of African fenotypes variations. And no others...
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
Oh,well. Let me start again...There are boundaries of physical variation in Africa.
What are those physical boundaries?
quote:
jlus:
But they are not the same as cultural variations.
Who said anything about physical variation being the same thing as cultural variation?
You might be taking my comment in the wrong context. The point I was trying to make, was that just as there are physical variations, so is the case with cultural variations.
quote:
jluis:"East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
Bingo! I thought you were about to be on the right track, until I came across this:
quote:
jluis:
The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two.
How does the Sahara divide the continent into two? Are you suggesting that Africans south of the Sahara, aren't able to get to the north via land travel or that there are no Africans on the Sahara belt?
quote:
jluis:
The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important...
What forest belt would this be, and how are the coasts divided from the inlands?
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
well, North African are not black ...check the United Nations demographic studies on Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:LOL Some of the pictures that Supercar posted are North Africans, which comes to show how accurated these demographic studies are!!
Horemheb, doesn't know the difference between peer-reviewed bio-anthropology and amateur stuff like government or geo-political stats or constructs. That is one of the major differences between him and the informed.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
jluis:
"East Africans", "North Africans" and "West Africans" are nothing but the consequences of trade and discovery. These categories do not reflect the diversity of Africa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo! I thought you were about to be on the right track, until I came across this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jluis:
The main boundaries of physical variation in Africa reflect the main ecologycal variations in Africa: the Sahra divide, which cuts the continent into two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does the Sahara divide the continent into two? Are you suggesting that Africans south of the Sahara, aren't able to get to the north via land travel or that there are no Africans on the Sahara belt?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jluis:
The forest belt, which cut out the chances of people to spread thru the continent and maintain cultural homogeneity. And the coast/inland divide, which is always important...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What forest belt would this be, and how are the coasts divided from the inlands?
_________________________________
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
The forest belt.
Well, it is another kind of barrier for human beings. African forest, south of the Sahel, it is a tough way to travel. Any people trying to cross it needs a completedly different ecology to do it. From dry environment to lush, wet environment. From pasture to deep forest. I think it took some time to Africans to adapt to forest. Maybe the difference between Nilotic pastoralist and Bantu farmers are not so far from this need to change peoples' ecology.
I take the ecological difference between Sahel and the tropical forest is evident in its own.
About coast/inland.
Well, here we pass from the ecological to the cultural. In the coast it was far more easy to get and trade with other peoples, coming from the sea (the Shirazi and the Swahili, and the Red Sea traders and the Somali, for instance). So, people in the coast, whatever its origing, have much more chances to get on trade opportunyties and to deal with foreign influence, a chance and a threat, at the same time.
The divide is self-evident. If you don't follow it, please think on what happened when the West African peoples met the sea-faring Europeans (Portuguese) in the early times of colonies.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
However the sahara unlike a mountain range is not permanent barrier.
This thread may be of some aid: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001735.html
Rasol, man, don't compare. The Sahra is much more worst that a mountain range.
No one of them is a fully permanent barrier, but I do think that a desert as wide as Sahara is much more difficult to pass that a simple mountain range.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
jluis:
Physical boundaries, the only ones that have REAL antropological revelance, are ecologycal divides.
This is an statement.The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier.
What evidence do you have that Africans were never able to pass through the Sahara desert, when in fact they are Africans living in that zone as we speak?
quote:
jluis:
It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
What ways have been artificially built in order to make Africans move through the Sahara desert, when in historic times, they didn't need one to move through?
quote:
jluis:
There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt.
You can say that again; hence, making your earlier statement about the Sahara being a barrier to the movement of people, a very questionable one.
quote:
jluis:
But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa, and those in West Asia. As a matter of fact, not too long ago, I posted an article in this very thread, that mentions something about these north and sub-Saharan connections. (see the earlier Stephen Corey article)
However, where is your evidence, inspite of what I just said, that suggests there were no continuous connections between the north and the south?
quote:
jluis:
The forest belt. Well, it is another kind of barrier for human beings. African forest, south of the Sahel, it is a tough way to travel.
Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?
quote:
Any people trying to cross it needs a completedly different ecology to do it. From dry environment to lush, wet environment. From pasture to deep forest. I think it took some time to Africans to adapt to forest.
LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?
quote:
jluis:
I take the ecological difference between Sahel and the tropical forest is evident in its own.
The only problem is that the logic of your explanation thus far, isn't so evident.
quote:
jluis:About coast/inland.
Well, here we pass from the ecological to the cultural. In the coast it was far more easy to get and trade with other peoples, coming from the sea (the Shirazi and the Swahili, and the Red Sea traders and the Somali, for instance.
Well of course, the coast made it possible for people to trade; I don't think anybody here suggested otherwise. But how does that act as a barrier between, let's say inland Somalis and coastal Somalis?
Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:Rasol, man, don't compare. The Sahra is much more worst that a mountain range.
Hasn't always been. Please read the information provided: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001735.html, don't just respond without reading.
ps - everyone, please continue to ignore horemheb.
he is the slow witted class clown incapable of learning, who acts out in frustration to prevent others from learning. so..just continue to ignore him. 
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 May 2005).]
Yeah, I know. But I was trying to explain Super Car that crossing a place like Sahra is not so easy. You need organization, a really good organization, and the fact that there were trade entrepeneurs that cross it DOES support my point. They need slaves to do it (and camels, by the way).
Why they want to cross the Sahra? Because there were goods to trade: Gold and salt. Both very valuable. More than slaves. That's why they use slaves to trade gold and no the other way round.
Anyway, I reckon that in old times (before 3000 aC) things could have been different.
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol:
[B] Hasn't always been.Yeah, I know. But I was trying to explain Super Car that crossing a place like Sahra is not so easy.
I must have missed the part where Supercar said crossing the Sahara was easy.
Can you point to a quote that you are taking issue with?
It seems to me that you do not much disagree with each other.
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:Yeah, I know. But I was trying to explain Super Car that crossing a place like Sahra is not so easy. You need organization, a really good organization, and the fact that there were trade entrepeneurs that cross it DOES support my point. They need slaves to do it (and camels, by the way).
Of course, moving through the Sahara desert isn't easy, and again, nobody is stating otherwise. But you talk about it as the kind of barrier, which stopped people of the North from getting to the south of Sahara regions and visa versa, and as result, no interactions between the people of these regions. History proves you wrong on that account, because there has been continuous connections between these Africans, even before trade with Muslim traders. Needless to say, for those connections to have occurred, people must have moved through the sahara desert.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
Well of course, the coast made it possible for people to trade; I don't think anybody here suggested otherwise. But how does that act as a barrier between, let's say inland Somalis and coastal Somalis?Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?
"What evidence do you have that Africans were never able to pass through the Sahara desert"
Who says that no one passed the Sahra?
It is well known that people did. What I am saying is that they do not have a continuous population thru the Sahra, for obvious reasons.
"What ways have been artificially built in order to make Africans move through the Sahara desert?"
No one, the Sahra is a NATURAL barrier.
"I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa"
Ai, man, again? You don't get the difference between trade (trade routes, crossing the desert) and continous population (living in the land, all time)
"Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?"
I am speechless.. don't you know there are forest (aka jungle) south of Sahel?
"LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?"
YES. Exactly.
"Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?"
All coast of Africa ( and Europe -Mediterranean- and all the continents in this Earth) are examples of that.
And please, understand that it is not about having/not having contacts. It is about the kind of contacts they had. Some traded some goods and some others traded others. This is why some get some money and some not.
Coast and inland relationship is one of the main ways to explain the differential evolution of African people, as it is from other peoples, non African (as , for example: Asian, European and American)
quote:
jluis:
Who says that no one passed the Sahra?
Remember what that question you are now responding to, with yet another question, was questioning? It was this:
quote:
jluis:
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier.
Well, apparently people did cross, when they needed to.
quote:
jluis:
It is well known that people did. What I am saying is that they do not have a continuous population thru the Sahra, for obvious reasons.
What do you mean by continuous population; is this your way of saying, settled communities?
quote:
jluis:
No one, the Sahra is a NATURAL barrier.
Barrier to what? To the movement of people, so as to justify physical variations?
quote:
jluis:
"I take it that you aren't aware of the historic trade routes between sub-Saharan and the Muslim world of North Africa"
Ai, man, again? You don't get the difference between trade (trade routes, crossing the desert) and continous population (living in the land, all time)
I take it, though not certain from the way you are phrasing it, that you are referring to settlements. See my earlier question, related to this.
quote:
Supercar:"Again, I ask, which forest belt are you talking about?"
Jluis reply:
quote:
I am speechless.. don't you know there are forest (aka jungle) south of Sahel?
You are speechless, and where does that leave me; I guess clueless about what you are trying to say!
quote:
Supercar:
"LOL. Are you suggesting that some Africans adapted to a forest environment, while others couldn't?"
quote:
YES. Exactly.
Well then, given that we are talking about physical variations, how does the forests factor into that? What physical characteristics are supposed to be in response the forest environment, that supposedly distinguishes the inhabitants from other non-forest regions?
quote:
Super car:
"Land-locked people have always had connections with coastal people, in order to benefit from trade. Do you have a specific example(s), in which people living "inland" weren't able to interact with people living in or have access to the coastal areas?"
Jluis response:
quote:
All coast of Africa ( and Europe -Mediterranean- and all the continents in this Earth) are examples of that.
And please, understand that it is not about having/not having contacts. It is about the kind of contacts they had. Some traded some goods and some others traded others. This is why some get some money and some not.
Coast and inland relationship is one of the main ways to explain the differential evolution of African people, as it is from other peoples, non African (as , for example: Asian, European and American)
What has this to do with the indigenous physical variations within the continent? Are you suggesting that, without admixture with foreign groups, all Africans would have looked the same? Please clarify!
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
It seems to me that you do not much disagree with each other.[/B]
Yeah, maybe. I don't think we much disagree.
But, ..."you talk about it as the kind of barrier, which stopped people of the North from getting to the south of Sahara regions and visa versa, and as result, no interactions between the people of these regions."
I disagree with the "viceversa". I do really think that the trade between North and South was no equal trade. And, as a result, the interactions between the people of these regions changed. As they are today's.
quote:
I disagree with the "viceversa". I do really think that the trade between North and South was no equal trade.
Equal trade? Certainly not politically and not recently. But Ghana Mali and Songhai did trade with North Africa so even here Supercar is not wrong.
In terms of where the peoples originally are from, the sahel region was in fact a common source for East and West African populations who spread East and West, North and South from a common source.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
The Borana of Kenya (basically the same people as the Oromo of Ethiopia)
Thought Writes:
The Proto-Greeks!
quote:
The subject is simple...north africans and Sub Saharan Africans are two different groups of people
quote:
The Sahara is a desert, a very dry zone where people cannot cross when they want. So, it is a physical barrier. It means that people must invent and prepare well ways to cross it (because it is not an easy cross).
There may be "Africans" (I take black people) in the Sahel belt. But there are not continous connections between North and South. Y'know, it takes some effort to cross Sahra...
quote:
well, they know full well that the populations north of the desert were , for the most part, different from the negroid populations to the south. This is not rocket science guys, you can get it.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Equal trade? Certainly not politically and not recently. But Ghana Mali and Songhai did trade with North Africa so even here Supercar is not wrong.In terms of where the peoples originally are from, the sahel region was in fact a common source for East and West African populations who spread East and West, North and South from a common source.
Thanks for trying to clarify, which is apparently needed. I am not sure, but it seems that the problem here, is one having to do with language; I used "visa versa", within the context of movement of people, not the 'equality' or 'inequality' of trade.
Yes, that was the original question.
I state that the physical variantions of African people is directly related with the different ecosystems in Africa: Mediterranean (North) coast; Sahra desert; Sahel; Tropical/Equatorian forest and the like -we have not mention anything South of the Equator-.
This is the main source of variation. Or maybe I should say the original source. After that it cames the cultural (historical) one. There is when the coast/inland divide comes.
I don't say that there were NO exchanges between one and another, but that these exchanges were not equal. This is why people choose to exchange trade in the first time. And this asymmetry of trade and relationships, summed to the ecological variations of Africa, makes the diversity of human people we see today in Africa.
Notice that
(a) This features are functional both in Africa and in any other place on Earth.
(b) They radically downplay the relevance of cultural, civilitational and any other contingent explanations for human diversity.
(c) None of this contradicts the fact that Africa is the origin of Humanity
I hope you will agree on some of this.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Super car:
[B] What has this to do with the indigenous physical variations within the continent? Are you suggesting that, without admixture with foreign groups, all Africans would have looked the same? Please clarify!
Yes, that was the original question.I state that the physical variations of African people is directly related with the different ecosystems in Africa: Mediterranean (North) coast; Sahra desert; Sahel; Tropical/Equatorian forest and the like -we have not mention anything South of the Equator-.
This is the main source of variation. Or maybe I should say the original source. After that it cames the cultural (historical) one. There is when the coast/inland divide comes.
I don't say that there were NO exchanges between one and another, but that these exchanges were not equal. This is why people choose to exchange trade in the first time. And this asymmetry of trade and relationships, summed to the ecological variations of Africa, makes the diversity of human people we see today in Africa.Notice that
(a) This features are functional both in Africa and in any other place on Earth.
(b) They radically downplay the relevance of cultural, civilitational and any other contingent explanations for human diversity.
(c) None of this contradicts the fact that Africa is the origin of Humanity
I hope you will agree on some of this.
[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 08 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
I fear that through all the noise, the main point may have been lost somewhere along the way. The point is, Africans don't conform to any "one" particular phenotype, [b]even regionally speaking, that is, in terms of east and west Africa, north and south Africa. For that reason, any comment along the lines of the "East African look" or the "West African look", and so on, begs the question of whatever happened to the visible diversity within each of these regions. [/B]
Thanks Super Car for that comment. I noticed that some people don't realize how Africa is diverse, I guess it's because they never went there: basically all physical features except the skin and the hair are found in Africa. For people who lived and lives outside Africa, the only distinctive features are skin and hair. That's why I really laugh when I hear something like Caucasian, I just have to go outside to laugh more when I look the way people look in my North American city.
Relaxx
Relaxx
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:I state that the physical variantions of African people is directly related with the different ecosystems in Africa: Mediterranean (North) coast;
Thought Writes:
Have the humans now living in the Mediterranean (North) coast of Africa lived in this region long enough to adapt to the ecology? Is there only ONE Mediterranean (North) coastal ecology?
Are we speaking of the modern era? Even then the Sahara was never a barrier as the Garamantes from Fezzan traded as far south are modern Nigeria.
The Sahara only completely dried about 4,000 years ago. Before this period it was once more fertile than it was today.
One population that not many people speak of when dicussing the Magreb is the Haratin. The Haratin are believed to be the original inhabitants of the Sahara that form an agritcultural case of the Kel Tamelsheq[Tuareg]. Haratin are the original Saharans. Most live in the Oasis areas in Morocco,Algeria,and Libya.
Haratin are not desendants of slaves brought to the north. The people in Magreb that are desendants of slaves are the Gnawa brought from the Sahelian zone.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:jluis, are you aware that most Western Africans don't actually originate in the forest areas of Western Africa,but around the Central Saharan area when it was once more fertile. Most of the early remains in the Central Sahara and other regions like Fezzan have affinities with modern so-called sub-Saharan populations.
Thought Writes:
Likewise modern NW Africans also derive from the same region as Y-Clade analysis indicates.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
More Sudanese:Beja[desendants of Medijay Blemmeyes[Greco-Roman times]
The Jaaliyin of Sudan[Arabized Nubians]
ausar,or anyone here,are these arabized nubians still basic nubians in culture or more like the black arabs,in other words do the jaaliyin call theselves arabs first or nubians first.
i have an idea but i would like to hear your comments first.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 09 May 2005).]
quote:
ausar,or anyone here,are these arabized nubians still basic nubians in culture or more like the black arabs,in other words do the jaaliyin call theselves arabs first or nubians first.i have an idea but i would like to hear your comments first.
Alot of the bedouin tribes in parts of Egypt and Sudan adapted their culture of the local people,but kept the Arab idenity at the same same. The Nubians themselves became Arabized due to Arab intermarriaged in their family,and thus through this matrilineal decent the Nubians became more Arabized and the elite became more Arabic ethnically.
Similar things happened to the Beja people in Eastern Sudan.
Fundamentally, the Bedouins of the Western Desert are more culturally Egyptian than they think. The same goes with the Ababda bedouins around Aswan who are arabized Beja people. Still many of their local customs are like that of other Beja people.
Most Jaaliyin will say they are Arabs,but most people know they are just sedentary Nubians who took up the nomadic life of the Arabs.
Well, to start with the msg, I have to say that this kind of exchange is much more interesting and fruitful than the exchange of insults over long-time deceased racist theories. It is even better that the use of greco-roman quotations as flying weapons against the other.
About the case:
I am aware that modern W Africans did not originate in the forest belt but came from the North. I think nobody disputes this is linked to the final desertization of Sahra.
But I'd really like to know where is the maximum genetic diversity in Africa. Ausar's post seems to reflect the opinion that it was in the Sahel. Broadly speaking, somewhere between lake Chad and the Nile.
I do not agree and so present an alternative:
The most diverse point of Africa and so the point of origin of most of the current African people (and to anyone else, but OK. Let's focus in Africa) is East Africa. The line of mountains and lakes that cross E Africa from Ethiopia in the North to the Drakensbers in South Africa. This is the point or origin of most African. I refer here to the period of the last 20,000 years or so, not to the overall history of human kind.
From this mountain environment, people expand to the rest of Africa. The Great Lakes area and the Nile Basin is a clear gate for expansion and that explains the diversity we see now. But this diversity is secondary. The oldest diversity is somewhere in the Rift Valley or even further South.
Maybe the genetic experts in this forum can add some light to this contest: What is the oldest source of genetic diversity in Africa? Is it the Sahara "plains" of the East African "mountains"?
The people of the oasis of Sahara are not direct descendants of the people that lived there before the last dry-up, around 5,000 years ago. The original population was hunter-gatherer and so, very much mobile. They move as soon as saw the drought coming. Their descendant are now in W Africa, in N Africa (or maybe not, this is another interesting point of contest: did people from outside Africa re-colonised N Africa in the last few thousands years?) and, of course, in the Nile Valley. The current inhabitants of Sahara oasis are linked to neolitic expansion of cattle herders and maybe farmers.
Finally, I know where is the solution to this question: it is the Congo Basin. The day we can research the genetics and languages of the heart of Africa, now barred by war, we will have the answer.
Another interesting point for genetic research, now open to science, is the Zambeze and Limpopo rivers area. What about this? Anyone one have fresh info about human diversity south of the Equator?
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
[QUOTE]
The people of the oasis of Sahara are not direct descendants of the people that lived there before the last dry-up, around 5,000 years ago. The original population was hunter-gatherer and so, very much mobile. They move as soon as saw the drought coming. Their descendant are now in W Africa, in N Africa (or maybe not, this is another interesting point of contest: did people from outside Africa re-colonised N Africa in the last few thousands years?) and, of course, in the Nile Valley. The current inhabitants of Sahara oasis are linked to neolitic expansion of cattle herders and maybe farmers.
Thought Writes:
We have been over this many times. Use the search feature on Egyptsearch.com. North, South, East, West and Central Africans are ALL "linked to neolitic expansion of cattle herders and maybe farmers" from the southern Sahara.
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
[QUOTE]Finally, I know where is the solution to this question: it is the Congo Basin. The day we can research the genetics and languages of the heart of Africa, now barred by war, we will have the answer.
Thought Writes:
If humans came out of East Africa why would the Congo Basin be the 'Heart of Africa'?
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:If humans came out of East Africa why would the Congo Basin be the 'Heart of Africa'?
I don't agree with the idea that "all comes from pastoral expansion". A good part of the people of W Africa and maybe all the Bantu people come from an earlier expansion. Hunter-gatherers, not cattle herders. In fact, according to the genetic data on lactose assimilation, the adoption of cattle herding as a livelihood could be quite recent for a good part of these pastoralist, all around the Sahel.
And the Congo Basin is call the hearth of Africa because there could be the answer to many of the questions that go around this forum once and again. And because it is the geographycal center of Africa, of course.
quote:
In fact, according to the genetic data on lactose assimilation, the adoption of cattle herding as a livelihood could be quite recent for a good part of these pastoralist, all around the Sahel.
What genetic data are you referring to here?
quote:
Originally posted by Boqor:what is with the way you write Thought? I find it very banal, just respond no need to add "Thought says: bla bla" like you are some kind of mystic lol
Thought Writes:
The purpose is to add distinction between my opinion and sources I bring into the dialogue via quotes and references.
In my opinion being concerned with another mans writing style is real B*tch-Sh*t!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
thought just reaches into his bag of weird historical theories that almost nobody believes in and there you are. Makes for bad history but at least it is original.
Thought Writes:
Another non-specific example by Hoe-In-Him!
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:I don't agree with the idea that "all comes from pastoral expansion". A good part of the people of W Africa and maybe all the Bantu people come from an earlier expansion. Hunter-gatherers, not cattle herders. In fact, according to the genetic data on lactose assimilation, the adoption of cattle herding as a livelihood could be quite recent for a good part of these pastoralist, all around the Sahel.
This was appropriately requested earlier: What genetic data are you basing these assertions on?
quote:
jluis:
And the Congo Basin is call the hearth of Africa because there could be the answer to many of the questions that go around this forum once and again. And because it is the geographycal center of Africa, of course.
What quesions might those be, and what might the potential answers be?
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:In my opinion being concerned with another mans writing style is real B*tch-Sh*t!
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:Another non-specific example by Hoe-In-Him!
LOL!
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
What genetic data are you referring to here?
For a recent article on lactase persistence:
Hollox (2005) Evolutionary Genetics: Genetics of lactase persistence - fresh lessons in the history of milk drinking
European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 267-269. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201297
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ejhg/journal/v 13/n3/abs/5201297a.html&dynoptions=doi1115752054
For a analysis of the diversity in the Old World, see:
Hollox et al. (2001) Lactase Haplotype Diversity in the Old WorldAm. J. Hum. Genet. 68:160172, 2001
This is the opening sentence of the article:
"Lactase persistence, the genetic trait in which intestinal lactase activity persists at childhood levels into adulthood,
varies in frequency in different human populations, being most frequent in northern Europeans and certain African
and Arabian nomadic tribes, who have a history of drinking fresh milk. Selection is likely to have played an
important role in establishing these different frequencies since the development of agricultural pastoralism 9,000
years ago."
This is a map of the main groups with the capacity to drink raw milk when adults.
(Sorry, I cannot post it directly)
[URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VNH-48WJWGF-8&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=275843375&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6179&_sort=d&view=c&_a cct=C]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VNH-48WJWGF-8&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=275843375&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6179&_sort=d&view=c&_ acct=C[/URL] 000035158&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=651519&md5=0156d221fc58f756d0007346a4aa8d85
Note that several tribes of the Sudan/Eritrea coast in the Red Sea have this genetic trait in a high degree. Quite interesting for our debates on Beja and others people origin.
They share this trait with Arabs, Palestinians, Czechs (slavic), Spaniards and Irish. I'd like to know how can explain this distribution the advocates of race.
If they can, then another piece of information: there are only three groups with a high degree outside the Red Coast: the Tutsi, a group in northern Nigeria and another in Benin. Try now to apply "race" to explain that.
Others African groups have this trait in a lesser degree and that includes the pastoralist of the Sahel and East Africa not cited above. This means that they get on cattle herding much more recently.
The time of the domestication of cattle is usually accepted in 9-10.000 years. The place is disputed, but central Anatolia is a good bet.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 10 May 2005).]
Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.1/ehret.html
quote:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Mulcare-AJHG04-LacCT.pdf Hum Genet. 2004.
The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose as an adult (lactase persistence) is a variable genetic trait in human populations. The lactase-persistence phenotype is found at low frequencies in the majority of populations in sub-Saharan Africa that have been tested, but, in some populations, particularly pastoral groups, it is significantly more frequent. We typed this polymorphism in 1,671 individuals from 20 distinct cultural groups in seven African countries. It was possible to match seven of the groups tested with groups from the literature for whom phenotypic information is available. In five of these groups, the published frequencies of lactase persistence are >/=25%. We found the T allele to be so rare that it cannot explain the frequency of the lactase-persistence phenotype throughout Africa.The T allele of a single-nucleotide polymorphism 13.9 kb upstream of the lactase gene (LCT) (C-13.9kbT) does not predict or cause the lactase-persistence phenotype in Africans.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
For a recent article on lactase persistence:
Hollox (2005) Evolutionary Genetics: Genetics of lactase persistence - fresh lessons in the history of milk drinking
European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 267-269. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201297
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ejhg/journal/v 13/n3/abs/5201297a.html&dynoptions=doi1115752054For a analysis of the diversity in the Old World, see:
Hollox et al. (2001) Lactase Haplotype Diversity in the Old WorldAm. J. Hum. Genet. 68:160172, 2001
This is the opening sentence of the article:
"Lactase persistence, the genetic trait in which intestinal lactase activity persists at childhood levels into adulthood,
varies in frequency in different human populations, being most frequent in northern Europeans and certain African
and Arabian nomadic tribes, who have a history of drinking fresh milk. Selection is likely to have played an
important role in establishing these different frequencies since the development of agricultural pastoralism 9,000
years ago."This is a map of the main groups with the capacity to drink raw milk when adults.
(Sorry, I cannot post it directly)
[URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VNH-48WJWGF-8&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=275843375&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6179&_sort=d&view=c&_a cct=C]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VNH-48WJWGF-8&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_alid=275843375&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6179&_sort=d&view=c&_ acct=C[/URL] 000035158&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=651519&md5=0156d221fc58f756d0007346a4aa8d85Note that several tribes of the Sudan/Eritrea coast in the Red Sea have this genetic trait in a high degree. Quite interesting for our debates on Beja and others people origin.
They share this trait with Arabs, Palestinians, Czechs (slavic), Spaniards and Irish. I'd like to know how can explain this distribution the advocates of race.
If they can, then another piece of information: there are only three groups with a high degree outside the Red Coast: the Tutsi, a group in northern Nigeria and another in Benin. Try now to apply "race" to explain that.
Others African groups have this trait in a lesser degree and that includes the pastoralist of the Sahel and East Africa not cited above. This means that they get on cattle herding much more recently.The time of the domestication of cattle is usually accepted in 9-10.000 years. The place is disputed, but central Anatolia is a good bet.
[This message has been edited by jluis (edited 10 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thought:Thought Writes:
We have been over this many times. Use the search feature on Egyptsearch.com
quote:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Mulcare-AJHG04-LacCT.pdf Hum Genet. 2004.
Originally posted by rasol:
Your info is badly outdated:[ [QUOTE]
The lactase-persistence phenotype is found at low frequencies in the majority of populations in sub-Saharan Africa that have been tested, but, in some populations, particularly pastoral groups, it is significantly more frequent. We typed this polymorphism in 1,671 individuals from 20 distinct cultural groups in seven African countries. It was possible to match seven of the groups tested with groups from the literature for whom phenotypic information is available. In five of these groups, the published frequencies of lactase persistence are >/=25%. We found the T allele to be so rare that [b]it cannot explain the frequency of the lactase-persistence phenotype throughout Africa. [/i]The T allele of a single-nucleotide polymorphism 13.9 kb upstream of the lactase gene (LCT) (C-13.9kbT) does not predict or cause the lactase-persistence phenotype in Africans.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 May 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]
Mi info is from March 2005. And it comes from a genetic journal, not from an interview with an historian. If the quote is about genetics, then the critics cannot be about pop culture. I promise not to answer you with a qoute from Elvis.
About the second quote, please note that your article deals with a single allele (T) and the ones I refer to (Hollox 2001, 2005) abot the whole world distribution of all the haplotypes. 4, according to the source.
So, man, don't compare...
???
Thought thinks so hard that sometimes forgets to write.
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thought2:???
Thought thinks so hard that sometimes forgets to write.
Thought Writes:
The point is we have spent WEEKS going over the very issues you raise AGAIN. I suggest that you use the search function, review what has allready been stated on this topic, then refute that evidence or raise some new angle. At this point you raise nothing new....
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:Mi info is from March 2005. And it comes from a genetic journal, not from an interview with an historian.
Yes but neither the geneticists nor the historians support your outdated ideas:
Most studies for practical reasons have focused on lactase persistence in Europe, but lactase persistence is also common in certain tribes in Africa that have a history of dairying. Is lactase persistence in these people caused by the same mutation - as would seem likely - and has it been under positive selection as well? The first part of this question has been answered by Mulcare et al.13 Their paper shows that the putative causative allele 14 kb upstream from the lactase gene is not at frequencies high enough for it to be the causative allele in Africa, even when the inherent errors in lactose tolerance testing are taken into account.
There could be two reasons for this - either the allele is not causative at all and is merely strongly associated with the causative allele, or in Africans lactase persistence is due to another mutation. The first reason is possible, especially given the high LD across the region - many polymorphisms within this region will be strongly associated with lactase persistence just by virtue of being on the same huge haplotype. But functional studies from two groups show that the putative causative allele is a gain-of-function mutation increasing the expression driven from the lactase promoter in reporter gene assays in a human intestinal cell line.14, 15 So what about the second reason - a different causative mutation in Africans? Intuitively, this seems unlikely, but given the powerful selective advantage of being lactase persistent any mutation is very unlikely to be lost by genetic drift. It is possible that another mutation in the same regulatory element, a different element, or even in a trans-acting transcription factor may be responsible for lactase persistence in Africans. The answer will only be found by further genetic analysis of this locus in Africans.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:The point is we have spent WEEKS going over the very issues you raise AGAIN. I suggest that you use the search function, review what has allready been stated on this topic, then refute that evidence or raise some new angle. At this point you raise nothing new....
Lol. But how often have we found that people 'don't want' information that conflicts with their preconceived notions?
Certainly they will not search for it.
Even providing hyper-links won't do.
Eventually you'll have to quote the comments and paste them into this thread, again, and again....only way to 'force' the issue of having them addressed. You know the routine.
quote:
Well, to start with the msg, I have to say that this kind of exchange is much more interesting and fruitful than the exchange of insults over long-time deceased racist theories. It is even better that the use of greco-roman quotations as flying weapons against the other.About the case:
I am aware that modern W Africans did not originate in the forest belt but came from the North. I think nobody disputes this is linked to the final desertization of Sahra.
But I'd really like to know where is the maximum genetic diversity in Africa. Ausar's post seems to reflect the opinion that it was in the Sahel. Broadly speaking, somewhere between lake Chad and the Nile.
I do not agree and so present an alternative:
The most diverse point of Africa and so the point of origin of most of the current African people (and to anyone else, but OK. Let's focus in Africa) is East Africa. The line of mountains and lakes that cross E Africa from Ethiopia in the North to the Drakensbers in South Africa. This is the point or origin of most African. I refer here to the period of the last 20,000 years or so, not to the overall history of human kind.
From this mountain environment, people expand to the rest of Africa. The Great Lakes area and the Nile Basin is a clear gate for expansion and that explains the diversity we see now. But this diversity is secondary. The oldest diversity is somewhere in the Rift Valley or even further South.
Maybe the genetic experts in this forum can add some light to this contest: What is the oldest source of genetic diversity in Africa? Is it the Sahara "plains" of the East African "mountains"?
The people of the oasis of Sahara are not direct descendants of the people that lived there before the last dry-up, around 5,000 years ago. The original population was hunter-gatherer and so, very much mobile. They move as soon as saw the drought coming. Their descendant are now in W Africa, in N Africa (or maybe not, this is another interesting point of contest: did people from outside Africa re-colonised N Africa in the last few thousands years?) and, of course, in the Nile Valley. The current inhabitants of Sahara oasis are linked to neolitic expansion of cattle herders and maybe farmers.
Finally, I know where is the solution to this question: it is the Congo Basin. The day we can research the genetics and languages of the heart of Africa, now barred by war, we will have the answer.
Another interesting point for genetic research, now open to science, is the Zambeze and Limpopo rivers area. What about this? Anyone one have fresh info about human diversity south of the Equator?
Have you heard of the African Aquatic culture that was from the Sahelian zone down to the Khartoum Mesolithic? It appears the Sahara had both pastorial communities and settled communities that pratice agritculture.
The pastorial people within the Sahara were most likely related to the modern day Fulani because it was pointed out by the late Amadoua Hamparte Ba that many of the litorial traditions of the Saharan rock art matched the modern Fulani people.
I base this off other similarities between the Saharan rock art and motifs of Amun that resemble the following.
Not to mention early archaeological sites in Nabta Playa correlate very well with pastorial people moving into the Nile Valley. Are you familar with these connections,or Nabta Playa?
What about the ''black mummy'' they found in southern Libya that resembles the belief system of the ancient Egyptians?
quote:
jluis:
Others African groups have this trait in a lesser degree and that includes the pastoralist of the Sahel and East Africa not cited above. This means that they get on cattle herding much more recently.
From the Hum Genet study Rasol posted earlier:
quote:
The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose as an adult (lactase persistence) is a variable genetic trait in human populations. The lactase-persistence phenotype is found at low frequencies in the majority of populations in sub-Saharan Africa that have been tested, but, in some populations, particularly pastoral groups, it is significantly more frequent.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Alot of the bedouin tribes in parts of Egypt and Sudan adapted their culture of the local people,but kept the Arab idenity at the same same. The Nubians themselves became Arabized due to Arab intermarriaged in their family,and thus through this matrilineal decent the Nubians became more Arabized and the elite became more Arabic ethnically.Similar things happened to the Beja people in Eastern Sudan.
Fundamentally, the Bedouins of the Western Desert are more culturally Egyptian than they think. The same goes with the Ababda bedouins around Aswan who are arabized Beja people. Still many of their local customs are like that of other Beja people.
Most Jaaliyin will say they are Arabs,but most people know they are just sedentary Nubians who took up the nomadic life of the Arabs.
i read on a website that most of the jaaliyin do not have any arab blood but became arabized by contact.
as you know there are the nubians and arabized nubians,the arabized nubians in the sudan and egypt are the largest in both states.in egypt most have some form of arab blood.In the sudan some do but most do not,but even some that are not arabized in the sudan have some form of arab blood.
i know that most or alot nubians in egypt have some form arab blood but i know many in the sudan that do not.
other arabized nubians in the sudan depending on the group have some to no arab blood but overall many do not.
let's not forget either that some nubians in egypt and more so in the sudan were not arabized and still speak or mostly nubian and more nubian in culture still than the arabized nubians.
for me anyway i think alot or most of the arabized nubians still call themselves nubians but certain census takers like to put them in the arab group just because they speak mostly arab.it is like saying that some nigerians,or a black britian is a englishman because they speak mostly english,and we know that is a lie.
TAKE alook at this website,it is old but good info.the numbers for this group should be higher now.
The Jaaliyin of Sudan
The Jaaliyin claim to be direct descendants of the prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic faith. It seems more likely, however, that their original ancestors are the Nubians and that the Jaaliyin gradually adopted the Arab culture.
This group of two million people live in small villages and cities along the banks of the Nile River. The area is very hot and dry, with an average yearly rainfall of about three inches. In the summer, which lasts from April through November, daytime temperatures can reach as high as 120 or 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Jaaliyin are easily recognized by their facial scars, many of which are in the form of a T or H. The scars are a sign of tribal pride and are even more common on the women than on the men, for they are considered a sign of beauty. The Jaaliyin are a very close tribe and quickly identify with each other, coming to anothers aid in the event of trouble or during times of celebration.
Their Lifestyle
Some Jaaliyin still farm and raise livestock along the banks of the Nile River, but today they more commonly consist of the bulk of the Sudanese urban population, forming a large part of the merchant class. Although many have moved to cities, such as the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, they still maintain their tribal identity and solidarity. In some cities they live in quarters inhabited solely by Jaaliyin, and they oppose marriages to people outside their tribe. Famous for maintaining ties with their homeland, they keep in contact with their original home and return for frequent visits, especially for marriages, funerals and Muslim festivals.
The Jaaliyin men regularly practice polygyny, although, as declared by Muslim law, they never have more than four wives at one time. The man has complete authority over his wife (or wives) and children, and he arranges and controls the marriages of his sons and daughters.
Their Beliefs and Needs
Like so many other Sudanese people groups, the Jaaliyin follow the Islamic faith, and are generally very committed Sunni Muslims. Only a small percentage of the Jaaliyin have been exposed to the Gospel in a positive way. This has mainly been accomplished through penetrations by Sudanese believers into the Jaaliyin areas. Churches comprised of Southern Sudanese members and evangelistic outreaches led by national Christian groups have helped reach the Jaaliyin. They are a people who are critical in reaching the whole of Sudan, for they are the pulse of the cities and a key stone in breaking through the Islamic grip that holds the nation of Sudan.
click to see website and pictures.
http://www.sudan101.com/Jaaliyn.htm
to me even i think arabized nubians are less arabized in culture than the black arabs,so they as awhole would still be nubians,but this has to be clear up once and for all.i will contact a few scholars and see what they have to say because the internet is not giving more detail info that we need,this is when the books and talking to a few scholars come in.i will give there answers soon.
there is one thing for sure,i know the other arabized nubians call themsevles nubians despite being arabized to a certian extent but less so that the more truly brainwashed black arabs.
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 10 May 2005).]
[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 11 May 2005).]
Have you heard of the African Aquatic culture that was from the Sahelian zone down to the Khartoum Mesolithic? It appears the Sahara had both pastorial communities and settled communities that pratice agritculture.
The pastorial people within the Sahara were most likely related to the modern day Fulani because it was pointed out by the late Amadoua Hamparte Ba that many of the litorial traditions of the Saharan rock art matched the modern Fulani people.
I base this off other similarities between the Saharan rock art and motifs of Amun that resemble the following.
Not to mention early archaeological sites in Nabta Playa correlate very well with pastorial people moving into the Nile Valley. Are you familar with these connections,or Nabta Playa?
What about the ''black mummy'' they found in southern Libya that resembles the belief system of the ancient Egyptians?
Starting by the end of the quote:
Scattered finds are not enough to base arguments on PHYSICAL variation. Belief systems and artistic similarities are cultural and can be easily transmitted from one group to another.
Think for instance in Islam and Cristianity. If we apply to them the same line of thinking you just apply above, we should reach the conclusion that black Africans are a mix of Arabic populations (muslims), southern europeans (cristianity: catholics) and northen europeans (reformed churcs). This is clearly not the case and so the argument should be dropped.
About the Fulani origins, it actually support my point that the current Sahara dwellers (scattered populations, by the way) are not the descendants of hunther-gatherers but recent colonizers of the area (recent here means after dry up). The real descendents of Sahara hunter-gatherers are in the W African forest belt and within the Bantu group. Other two groups of descendants of hunter-gatherers are the Berbers and finally, the Egyptians themselves.
Which leads me to the Aquatic culture. First to say that there are several aquatics cultures in the northern half of Africa. You mention one, the one linked to the Nile valley (Khartoum mesolitic and also further down). The Chad lake/Niger river complex is another, still active. The third one, less known is the Western Sahara Basin, now completedly dry but with signs of having been watered and populated in several moments of the recent past.
Well, the origin of the particular culture you mention is much probably upperstream, in the Lake Victoria and the string of lakes of East Africa, from Uganda to Malawi. This is the core of the distribution pattern of African peoples. The dry up of the Sahara is just a "local" event which drove some populations to the South, towards the forest belt. But the point Zero of human populations in Africa is the Great Lakes area.
To get a clearer view of the populations of Africa in general and of the Nile Valley in particular, you should look upstream, to the sources of Nile and the Great Lakes area.
There is no need to relay in isolated populations of the oasis around Egypt. Go to the hills of Kampala and look around: you will see the heart of Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Jluis: You basically make a straw argument of Ausar's post. Very disappointing.
What is a "straw argument"?
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
I think there are some people here, who fall into the trap of trying to separate East Africans from the rest of the continent, just as others attempt to separate Northern Africa from the rest of the continent. To exemplify this, we have:This fails to take into account, the fact that Africans of the once fertile Sahara also found their way to the Nile Valley, in addition to those who directly came from east Africa.
The manner in which, "West Africans" in the aforementioned comment was followed by the word "Negroes", while the same was not applied to "East Africans", suggests that so-called Negro is somehow supposed to be limited to a homogenous west Africa. What it actually means in the context provided in the quote, will perhaps be best explained by the author.
Wittingly or otherwise, people who speak of East Africans in the manner just exemplified, seem to be painting East Africans as some sort of a homogenous entity, just as they do, the so-called West Africans. There are both broad and narrow facial physiognomy in either side of the continent.
East Africans:
In Sudan alone...
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
AGAIN...why are ppl debating this crap..we all know africa was the cradil of civilization...and the first humans to emerge were from africa peroid....so if every1 on earth is not related in some shape or form to some one from the contiente why would somebody debate over wherther east and west or south or north have any ties....this is a continent...peopl dont dispute over europe..forget about euro or afrocentric views..hell i hate when europeans stray from the truth and when a color person or a person from there one try to shine some truth in it and its automatically labeled afrocentric...especially on this forum...franclly, northern and southern europeans look nothing alike...one share features that are indigenous to somalia...straight as hell sharp features..and the south share features that of west blunt and rubust...and ur point that shows the purity of europe..lol...anyhow east and west north and south share 1 thing in common...being black...that and gentics...making them directly related to each an every1 of them...which is laughably not shared among europeans...that shows u how impure europeans are..AFRICAN PURITY UNITES...lets keep it that way..snce the collapse of egypt was THE DIRECT FALT OF EUROPEAN INVASION.....INVASION....THAT KINGDOM COLAPSED...THAT SHOWS U THERE DEVIANCE INFLUENCE ON THE CONTINENT...END THE LABELING AND LEAVE THE BLACK...IF UR NOT BLIND UD SEE...CONTINENT OF AFRICA AWAY FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF EUROPE...SINCE THEY SURELY HAVE DONE SO MUCH HARM TO DESTROY HISTORY AND EVEN THE MODERN DAY ATEMPTS FOR AFRICA TO PROSPER
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
I think there are some people here, who fall into the trap of trying to separate East Africans from the rest of the continent, just as others attempt to separate Northern Africa from the rest of the continent. To exemplify this, we have:This fails to take into account, the fact that Africans of the once fertile Sahara also found their way to the Nile Valley, in addition to those who directly came from east Africa.
The manner in which, "West Africans" in the aforementioned comment was followed by the word "Negroes", while the same was not applied to "East Africans", suggests that so-called Negro is somehow supposed to be limited to a homogenous west Africa. What it actually means in the context provided in the quote, will perhaps be best explained by the author.
Wittingly or otherwise, people who speak of East Africans in the manner just exemplified, seem to be painting East Africans as some sort of a homogenous entity, just as they do, the so-called West Africans. There are both broad and narrow facial physiognomy in either side of the continent.
East Africans:
In Sudan alone...
Continued.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 07 May 2005).]
AGAIN...why are ppl debating this crap..we all know africa was the cradil of civilization...and the first humans to emerge were from africa peroid....so if every1 on earth is not related in some shape or form to some one from the contiente why would somebody debate over wherther east and west or south or north have any ties....this is a continent...peopl dont dispute over europe..forget about euro or afrocentric views..hell i hate when europeans stray from the truth and when a color person or a person from there one try to shine some truth in it and its automatically labeled afrocentric...especially on this forum...franclly, northern and southern europeans look nothing alike...one share features that are indigenous to somalia...straight as hell sharp features..and the south share features that of west blunt and rubust...and ur point that shows the purity of europe..lol...anyhow east and west north and south share 1 thing in common...being black...that and gentics...making them directly related to each an every1 of them...which is laughably not shared among europeans...that shows u how impure europeans are..AFRICAN PURITY UNITES...lets keep it that way..snce the collapse of egypt was THE DIRECT FALT OF EUROPEAN INVASION.....INVASION....THAT KINGDOM COLAPSED...THAT SHOWS U THERE DEVIANCE INFLUENCE ON THE CONTINENT...END THE LABELING AND LEAVE THE BLACK...IF UR NOT BLIND UD SEE...CONTINENT OF AFRICA AWAY FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF EUROPE...SINCE THEY SURELY HAVE DONE SO MUCH HARM TO DESTROY HISTORY AND EVEN THE MODERN DAY ATEMPTS FOR AFRICA TO PROSPER
quote:http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
Originally posted by jluis:
What is a "straw argument"?
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Jluis: You basically make a straw argument of Ausar's post. Very disappointing.
You don't answer to any argument. Just keep on disrupting
quote:
Originally posted by jluis:
You don't answer to any argument. Just keep on disrupting
I see. So I gather you found the previous two replies to your 'genetic argument turned fiasco'...."disruptive"?
And that would explain your response, by way of deafening silence? 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Yes but neither the geneticists nor the historians support your outdated ideas:Most studies for practical reasons have focused on lactase persistence in Europe, but lactase persistence is also common in certain tribes in Africa that have a history of dairying. Is lactase persistence in these people caused by the same mutation - as would seem likely - and has it been under positive selection as well? The first part of this question has been answered by Mulcare et al.13 Their paper shows that the putative causative allele 14 kb upstream from the lactase gene is not at frequencies high enough for it to be the causative allele in Africa, even when the inherent errors in lactose tolerance testing are taken into account.
There could be two reasons for this - either the allele is not causative at all and is merely strongly associated with the causative allele, or in Africans lactase persistence is due to another mutation. The first reason is possible, especially given the high LD across the region - many polymorphisms within this region will be strongly associated with lactase persistence just by virtue of being on the same huge haplotype. But functional studies from two groups show that the putative causative allele is a gain-of-function mutation increasing the expression driven from the lactase promoter in reporter gene assays in a human intestinal cell line.14, 15 So what about the second reason - a different causative mutation in Africans? Intuitively, this seems unlikely, but given the powerful selective advantage of being lactase persistent any mutation is very unlikely to be lost by genetic drift. It is possible that another mutation in the same regulatory element, a different element, or even in a trans-acting transcription factor may be responsible for lactase persistence in Africans. The answer will only be found by further genetic analysis of this locus in Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Super car:
From the Hum Genet study Rasol posted earlier: The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose as an adult (lactase persistence) is a variable genetic trait in human populations. The lactase-persistence phenotype is found at low frequencies in the majority of populations in sub-Saharan Africa that have been tested, but, in some populations, particularly pastoral groups, it is significantly more frequent.
We are trying to be patient with you JL, but you have yet to make any point.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 11 May 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mali, Nobody has claimed that Africa is the cradle of civilization. Many believe that it the source of human emergence but even that is open to some question and speculation. Humanity was around for thousands of years before any civillizations appeared.
Yes except the nehanderthals like you
quote:
Originally posted by relaxx:
Yes except the nehanderthals like you
rotfl!