quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Some people on this forum often state that Diop made mistakes. Please cite the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence that contradicts or falsifies Diop's research.

In your replies please cite Diop's proposition, and the evidence which now contradicts what Diop wrote.

---

quote:

---

Actually I can't see using terms as negroid and caucasoid as being a mistake. They were the terms commonly accepted at the time and pretty much everyone knew what was meant, which is dark skinned peoples versus light skinned peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Some people on this forum often state that Diop made mistakes. Please cite the anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence that contradicts or falsifies Diop's research.

In your replies please cite Diop's proposition, and the evidence which now contradicts what Diop wrote.

---

For one, he accepted the Eurocentric fallacious classifications of "negroid" and "caucasoid" saying that even blacks like Dravidians of India were "negroid" (a claim you yourself have taken up).

Diop even goes so far to say that the so-called "mongoloid" peoples of Asia are a hybrid the result of "crossbreeding between caucasoid and negroid races"!!

But as Rasol points out, science is an evolutionary process of refining and accuracy. Scientists sometimes makes mistakes or rather formulate theories that are either disproven entirely or are tweeked or corrected to more accurate means.

The fact that YOU and Marc fail to realize this means that you guys are obviously out of touch with the scientific process. (and Marc out of touch with reality LOL)

---

quote:

---

What's the difference between Sub-Saharan Population and Negro?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

What's the difference between Sub-Saharan Population and Negro?

---

Sub-Sahara - does not delimit African. - Keita

Negro - defunct racial classification, no longer in scientific use - websters

I don't consider either of those terms particularly useful.

If you do, then it's for you to establish their relevance.

---

quote:

---

If this is true why does Keita uses the term
"suprasaharan Africans" for the Tunisians and Egyptians above?

---

quote:

---

Moreover, what molecular data separates the Arab speaking "Suprasaharans" from the Arabic speaking "Southwest Eurasians"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In the article they calim that we can call the Blacks of America, African American, but not the Tunisians who also come from Africa because they fail to share the same ethnic history.

---

quote:

---

2) So here's the question: South Africans of African descent and Malians have greatly different recent histories should they use this difference in recent history to designate themselves differently? Same for the differences in the history of those Congolese whose ancestors survived the 10 million genocide meted out against the Congolese by Leopold of Belgium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
TO CW:

3) After having looked at the Haplogroup maps of North Africa and West Asia a number of times it would seem that there is an evident diiference in genetic history for both regions. Just pull up that map again and peruse it.

---

It don't look that much different to me. In fact they share considerable molecular material with Sub-Saharan Africans as evidenced by the presence of R, E and J in both areas.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?

On Diop's "mistakes" re the genealogy of Esat Asians. The idea that East Asians are hybrids of Africans and Europeans is almost echoed by Cavalli-Sforza who claimed that Europeans are hybrids of Africans and East Asians(40--60 split).

The key point about Diop is his thorough refutation of the Carlton Coon and Seligman hypotheses about the genetics of Africa's populations--present and in the distant past. Errors of detail might have been made--but they are mere trees in Diop's paradigm--the forest.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Lamin

quote:

---

2) So here's the question: South Africans of African descent and Malians have greatly different recent histories should they use this difference in recent history to designate themselves differently? Same for the differences in the history of those Congolese whose ancestors survived the 10 million genocide meted out against the Congolese by Leopold of Belgium.

---

This is the point I was trying to make in regards to Keita et al's assertion that race was dead and that using geography to denote bioethnicity , is the best marker of the human diversity that exist within and among the many nations and continents on earth.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It don't look that much different to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?

---

quote:

---

On Diop's "mistakes" re the genealogy of Esat Asians. The idea that East Asians are hybrids of Africans and Europeans is almost echoed by Cavalli-Sforza
who claimed that Europeans are hybrids of Africans and East Asians(40--60 split).

---

lol. Echo?

You mean this...




That's no echo you hear. It's race-ideology [your own] being exploded.

Diop is reflecting the idea of color as race, in which two essentialist races - the white race, and the black race, exist, in which brown or yellow skinned people can be classified by color into mongrel races.

Cavelli Sforza observation directly DISCONFIRMS this.

White people of Europe are not on the -opposite end- of a racial spectrum with Blacks of Africa, nor do they even occupy a unique 3rd tier position with respect to Asians.

Rather they show genetically as intermediate between Africans and Asians, reflecting the fact that Europeans are the product of common outmigration population with other Asians, and a subsequent admixture from Africans.

Sforza also shows that non African Black populations are much further removed genetically from Africans than white Europeans.

These findings completely obliterate the racialist notions of a pure 'white' race, a singular black race, and the idea that people who are neither white or black are a 'mixture' of two [non-existent] races. Pure races are debunked. Mixed races are debunked. Race is therefore debunked....period.

In short, it completely De-bunk's Coons notion of race, which Diop was channelling.


But go ahead, and pretend not to know the difference, just like you can't understand the difference between sub and supra.


Here's my question:

Is the best that advocates of race can do, is to play dumb?

IE- pretend not to understand anything?


That's pretty sad isn't it.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ You say 'playing dumb', but what are we to make of the nonsense that Marc Washington spews like indigenous Europeans being black and that whites entered Europe during the Middle Ages?

That right there is a sign of mental illness, I'd say psychotic delusions of grandeur!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Don't compare Lamin with Marc.

Lamin is just trying to defend outdated ideas on race, by pretending to not understand Keita's devastating critique or how modern genetics has confounded the belief system of race-dogmaticists.

Africanist advocates of race make me sad, since they simply reflect a bent version of white supremacy. They share the same root assumptions, and the manner in which they bend them to supposidely Africanist purpose is just a defense mechanism.

Quoting Marc Washington: {East Asians -gained- their straight hair from -mixing- with whites}

^ I'm sorry but that's straight up self hatred, exposed.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I did not mean to compare Lamin to Marc. I am just asking what you make of Marc, because if the guy actually believes all that crap he posts then he is a very disturbed individual.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
So therefore then:[following your style] what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?

---

I'm going to answer this question a second time.

When you again ignore the answer and repeat the question...I will then ignore the obtuseness [just a warning].

Supra -> greater than; to transcend.

Sub -> less than; contained within, bounded by.

The difference between supra and sub is that they are AN-TO-NYMS - opposites.

^ Sub-sahara does not delimit -> African. - Keita.

---

quote:

---

Rather they show genetically as intermediate between Africans and Asians, reflecting the fact that Europeans are the product of common outmigration population with other Asians, and a subsequent admixture from Africans.

---

quote:

---

How can the Europeans have an admixture from Africans, when the original Europeans were already African?

---

Here are the facts, do with them what you will.

All non-Africans - European, Asian, Australian, Native American, Melanesian..... are descendant from a small group of East Africans who migrated out of Africa 60~ thousand years ago.

This is the time of basic separation between Africans and non-Africans.

If you follow the top graph a) you see this point of time as the 1st vertex separating populations.




Based on neutral markers the longer and more isolated any branch [ie non african] population is separated from Africa..... the greater the accumulated genetic distance.

The b) graph relates the cumulative and relative genetic distances that result from this.

From the time that non african migrate out of africa, to the time that they split into their respective current populations, they *should* therefore show roughly equal distance between themselves and Africans.

But they don't.

Why?

In the case of Europeans, they show dramatically closer distance to Africans [Nigerians/Ethiopians... doesn't matter] compared to East Asians, Native American, Australian, etc..

The reason for this is clear.

Once Europeans split from East Asians and settled into Europe, they were then in a position to receive admixtures from Africa.

It is this admixture which results in Europeans being genetically closer to Africans compared to -all other- non Africans.

Moreover this is largely independant of the issue of skin color.

All people were originally Black.

The genes that make Europeans white did not exist in the Paleolithic.

Therefore their can be -no- ancient white race.

This genetic information did not exist in Diops day, so he could not have possibly related it.

But you can bet, that as a scientist, were he alive, his ideas would reflect the current data, as all good scientists do.

Now, some people who cite Diop, don't keep up with current science.

Regardless that they fancy themselves as defending Diop.... they really are not.

Diop was a scientist. They are totally anti science. If you want to respect Diops legacy you -must- understand and further modern science as Keita has done.

Diop -from the grave- doesn't need parrots quoting him. They are worse than useless to him.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Sub-sahara does not delimit -> African. - Keita.

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We know it does not delimit African, but he associates the compound word with African populations

---

quote:

---

thus implying that the people who live--which formerly were referred to as Black/ Negro

---

quote:

---

below the Sahara are a monolithic population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:

...what's the difference between "supra-Saharan" Africans and so-called "sub-Saharan Africans"?

---

'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

^Once this is understood, the rest should be self-explanatory, with regards to physical and genetic diversity in the said regions...since such matter has been discussed ad nauseam. 'Search' function is now available to those who wish to avail themselves of such information from the archives.

And yes, using the Sahara as a referencing point for location in continental Africa, doesn't limit Africa to one or the other of its sub-regions.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ So Clyde, do you understand now??

Or are you going to pretend or not even bother to try understanding it, so you can keep repeating your same tired old fallacious arguments.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde - I can't understand why you would waste your time making a commonsense case with people who have no common sense, and are not inclined to get any. But I do get a kick out of the pseudo-scientists trying to take the current world racial demographic and extrapolating backwards to get the results that they desire.

Of course the reason for this foolishness is quite simple; the real and verifiable past does not meet with their approval, so they must find ways to change it. That means that the proto-races of Black, White, and Mongol are out, old hat. Now it’s the combinations that arose from the Proto races that are the thing.

Now of course, if the point of all this contrivance was to celebrate mans diversity, then at least it would be worthy of some sympathy. But it’s not; in the case of Djehti, it’s just an attempt to hold onto the racist fabrications of his forefathers. Accepting them as frauds and liars appears too painful for him. And in the case of Rasol, it appears to be a balm against the realities of a racist world: one created by White people BTW.

So undaunted by truth and evidence, they will keep at it until they convince somebody. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of Stele and who knows how much text, showing and describing the ancients, they still insist; don’t believe your own lying eyes, believe me.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ As usual, your entire posts consists of empty rheotoric and noise with no data or facts.

At least Lamin and Dr. Winters make some attempt to address data.

You are not on the same level, Mike.

You are a pure blowhard - someone who makes very loud noises, to compensate for the fact that they have nothing to say.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs. The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.


Supra-saharan therefore isn't strictly-above- or north of the sahara. [no part of Egypt is North of the sahara, really only the Magreb is entirely north of the sahara]

Thus Keita refers not only to supra-saharan, but also supra-equatorial and horn-supra-saharan.


eg ->

This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes.

S. Keita, "A response to Brace et al.'s 'Clines and clusters versus race' (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1993)" - The clusters made in this kind of research are suspect because although australian-melanesian data cluster with Africa, their DNA differs and places the former clearly in Asia. He listed a number of errors in the above mentioned publication, among them misrepresentations of statements made in certain publications by B. Trigger and the present writer, although he did not give more details, I forgot to ask him in what way my views had been distorted and which of my publications he was talking about. He showed many examples of African facial profiles indicating a great variability and denying the claims of some Africans (ie. Nigerians) to represent the true African prototype. He criticized as well the biased use of the language in definitions like for instance writing about "sub-Saharan" populations which has also other cultural implications, so to be consistent they should also use "supra-Saharan" instead of "north African" or other such nomenclature.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Either way Mike has no answers, but emotional ranting.

He fails to realize that modern anthropology and science in general acknowledges that there are *no such thing as races* as the very definition of genetically/phenotypically distinct races is refuted by first physical anthropology and most recently, genetics.

And speaking of psuedo-science that runs counter-current, there is *no such thing* as indigenous blacks of Europe! LOL

By the way, the ad-hominem comments about my "racist fabrications of my forefathers" is for nothing, since again I am not white! LOL
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Reminds of the white racists who attack Keita as being and 'afrocentric' and biased.... because he is Black.

The idea is to appeal to white people to distrust the opinion of anyone who is not white.

Mark/Mike etc.. simply reverse this, when they can't debate [and...they *can't* debate] they simply engage in appeals to reverse-racism.

Frankly, their contribution to Egyptsearch is negative.

They drag conversation down to sub-mental level and attempt to keep it there.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Djehuti: I am very sorry to hear that you are not White. At least before, you could only be accused of spewing Purposeful nonsense; people all around the world are quite familiar with it, they know it as racial propaganda. But now we know that it is only the nonsense of the confused.

Rasol: All over the world, countless millions have died or suffered unspeakable injury because they were the wrong race. Now you come along and say what? That it was all some ill-informed mistake? Take a hold of yourself you silly child; race is real, the consequences of being of the wrong race are real, just ask those who have suffered because of it. But it was never really about race, it was about exploitation; race was simply a convenient grouping and focal point. So even if we accept your premise, what would it matter?

As to the value of my contributions: there are those who think that the unmasking of lies and the promotion of truth is very useful. But you are right in one regard; the liars would think it very negative.
 

---

Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
 
I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".

I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians.
In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60:
"Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate".

Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes(see his the History and Geography of Human Genes).

But here's Diop again on race:

[b]But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations. It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology. But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the norion of race reappears: sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only balck people, says the same science that denies race....Race does not exist! Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede, and that, a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins, even if accidentally their phenotypes, meaning their physical appeareances, are different"(C&B,p. 17).

Apparently what Diop seems to be saying is that European scholars rather than admit the anteriority of the African "race" prefer to debunk the notion of race altogether.

I don't think the European scholars really debunked the notion of "race" at all. They just changed their terminologies --old wine in new bottles style--with their talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa, etc.

But Diop does raise an interesting question derived from the fact that phenotype does not track genotype in antropological analysis. The point is that phenotype is not a function of genetic distance. Consider the cases of Melanesians and the populations of Africa--all belonging to the same population set if membership criteria are the phenotypical traits generally characteristic of Africa.
Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations. Take your pick!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Djehuti: I am very sorry to hear that you are not White. At least before, you could only be accused of spewing Purposeful nonsense; people all around the world are quite familiar with it, they know it as racial propaganda. But now we know that it is only the nonsense of the confused.

Rasol: All over the world, countless millions have died or suffered unspeakable injury because they were the wrong race. Now you come along and say what? That it was all some ill-informed mistake? Take a hold of yourself you silly child; race is real, the consequences of being of the wrong race are real, just ask those who have suffered because of it. But it was never really about race, it was about exploitation; race was simply a convenient grouping and focal point. So even if we accept your premise, what would it matter?

As to the value of my contributions: there are those who think that the unmasking of lies and the promotion of truth is very useful. But you are right in one regard; the liars would think it very negative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
In the article they calim that we can call the Blacks of America, African American, but not the Tunisians who also come from Africa because they fail to share the same ethnic history.

---

You are referring to:

Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery.

^ Keita isn't interested in what folk-ethnic terms are used for different populations.

He is simply noting that African American descendants of slavery have a distinct biological history from Continential Africans.

For example African Americans would have Native American ancestry, but Nigerians and Egyptians would not.

---

quote:

---

I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".

---

quote:

---

I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians.

In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60:
"Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate".

---

quote:

---

Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes

---

^ tsk tsk Lamin. First you claimed that Sforza, *echoed* Diop, which is a lie.

Now you claim Sforza had it *somewhat different*, which is dissembling.

The issue you are addressing is whether 'yellow' skinned people are caused by mixture of black and white people.

Diop says yes.

Sforza says no.

This is not echoing, this is not somewhat different.

This is the second statement contradicting the former.


Perhaps you you can pretend that 'yes and no' are also not antonyms.

Moreover Sforza goes further and states that Europeans of this time still had brown skin, see the article below. "European ancestors were brown skinned" - Sforza
^

We have learned much about skin color, which contradicts Diops hypothesis - yellow skinned Asians are not a product of mixture of 'white' and 'black' races, period.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations.

---

^ You mean like the genes that produce sickle cell phenotype in Greeks and Nigerians, but that are non existent in Melanesians?

Or do you mean the 'eye-folds' that native South Africans and East Asians have, but West Africans and Europeans don't?

Or are you refering to the 'long faces' and curly hair of some East Africans and NorthWest Europeans?

Your claims about race are a collection of personal biases which have no scientific value.

Scientifically speaking, Melanesians and Africans are among the -least- related peoples on earth, and so, do not constitute a distinct -race-.

From Geneticist Alan Templeton: There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians than there is between Africans and Melanesians, thefore Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn't Exist In Humans

Disagree with Templeton?



^ Then produce *scientific* references that will refute him.

No personal rhetorical ideology, no dumbstruck confusion between the meanings of opposites like above and below, and yes and no......

....just stay on topic by refuting the above: SCIENTIFICALLY, if you can.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Quoting Diop:

But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations.

^ This statement by Diop is true. Physical anthroplogy no longer divides humans into races.


It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology.

^ This is also true of anthropology throughout it's history.

But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the notion of race reappears:

^ This *was* true, but is now outdated. No reputable scientist views sickle cell in terms of race.

sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only black people, says the same science that denies race

^No science today says this. This is and example of how some of Diops claims are outdated.

At the time he stated this: it was not commonly known among the public that sickle cell also effects white people, and more important: it was argued that -when it did- it was due to convergent evolution.

It's geneticists who discovered that sickle cell morphology in whites of Europe and black Africans has a homogeneous genetic source: Benin HBS.

So this is and excellent example of misguided quoting of Diop.

quote:

---

This is the mty -> Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede

---

quote:

---

And that a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lamin:


Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs.

---

quote:

---

rasol:

The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.

---

quote:

---

rasol:

Supra-saharan therefore isn't strictly-above- or north of the sahara. [no part of Egypt is North of the sahara, really only the Magreb is entirely north of the sahara]

---

quote:

---

rasol:

Thus Keita refers not only to supra-saharan, but also supra-equatorial and horn-supra-saharan.


eg ->

This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes.

S. Keita, "A response to Brace et al.'s 'Clines and clusters versus race' (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1993)" - The clusters made in this kind of research are suspect because although australian-melanesian data cluster with Africa, their DNA differs and places the former clearly in Asia. He listed a number of errors in the above mentioned publication, among them misrepresentations of statements made in certain publications by B. Trigger and the present writer, although he did not give more details, I forgot to ask him in what way my views had been distorted and which of my publications he was talking about. He showed many examples of African facial profiles indicating a great variability and denying the claims of some Africans (ie. Nigerians) to represent the true African prototype. He criticized as well the biased use of the language in definitions like for instance writing about "sub-Saharan" populations which has also other cultural implications, so to be consistent they should also use "supra-Saharan" instead of "north African" or other such nomenclature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

I think you guys have to think more as in mathematical terms like superset and subset.

Supra = The whole set of people/group.
Sub = A people/group within the Supra.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

....rather than designating regions, using the Saharan desert as the geographical referencing point.

---

quote:

---

Mystery Solver: 'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

rasol: An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver: What does this have to do with what you are citing?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that the terms I mentioned, don't mean as presented?

---

quote:

---

rasol:

The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver writes: The terms are primarily geographical lexicons;

---

quote:

---

What is wrong with stating that fact, or using the terms in a geographical sense for that matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Okay,
In geographical terms
Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)

---

quote:

---

Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.

---

We have a winner!
 

---

Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
 

quote:

---

For example African Americans would have Native American ancestry, but Nigerians and Egyptians would not. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

rasol:

Thus Keita refers not only to supra-saharan, but also supra-equatorial and horn-supra-saharan.


eg ->

This is because it can bepostulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before theemigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saha-ran/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes.

S. Keita, "A response to Brace et al.'s 'Clines and clusters versus race' (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1993)" - The clusters made in this kind of research are suspect because although australian-melanesian data cluster with Africa, their DNA differs and places the former clearly in Asia. He listed a number of errors in the above mentioned publication, among them misrepresentations of statements made in certain publications by B. Trigger and the present writer, although he did not give more details, I forgot to ask him in what way my views had been distorted and which of my publications he was talking about. He showed many examples of African facial profiles indicating a great variability and denying the claims of some Africans (ie. Nigerians) to represent the true African prototype. He criticized as well the biased use of the language in definitions like for instance writing about "sub-Saharan" populations which has also other cultural implications, so to be consistent they should also use "supra-Saharan" instead of "north African" or other such nomenclature.

---

Okay? And again, what does this have to do with my post? I agree with Keita's point of view, including I reiterate, the fact that using the Sahara as geographical referencing point doesn't limit what is Africa; I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.

Keita is essentially saying that if they [the persons in question] were to use "sub-Saharan" in their work, then the geographical lexicon has to be *consistent* throughout the work, using "supra-Saharan" in lieu of "north African"...

---

quote:

---

rasol: No need for defensive argumentation. If you believe this is geography lexicon for North of Sahara, simply show us, via a map.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver: Okay? And again, what does this have to do with my post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

now staying on topic.this overall post on the diop's work and later work of others is interesting to read however.there was a show about early man called the journey of man.

It was on pbs IN NEW YORK awhile ago. I think everyone should take a look.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Mystery Solver: 'supra-Saharan' and 'sub-Saharan' are primarily geographical lexicon, in terms of positioning with respect to the Sahara:

Supra-Saharan = above the Sahara.

Saharan = on the Sahara.

Sub-Saharan = below the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

rasol: An important part of Keita's conception is to utilise nomenclature based on population relationships, and not strictly geographic constructs.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver: What does this have to do with what you are citing?

---

It's a statement of fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Are you saying that the terms I mentioned, don't mean as presented?

---

Don't get defensive, but yes, you said it means *north of* sahara. I've already shown you that this is not correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

I notice that your response does not object to the correction per se. Instead you simply object to my having corrected it. [hense - defensive]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

rasol:

The difference in approach is that the later attempts to constrict Africans by geography, when 'genetics' and 'linguistics' demonstrates that African biohistory transcends such contrived boundaries.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver writes: The terms are primarily geographical lexicons;

---

Not really. The term supra-saharan is more a transgeographic term whose utility is based upon population histories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Here is a specific example:


Exploring the relationship between human society and the natural world.

We focus primarily on supra-Saharan regions of the continent.

Specific topics include the Nile River, the Sahara, the Sahel, and the politics of water and petroleum resource exploitation. -
Professor, Tanya Furman, [2007]

^ This is clearly not consistent with soley north of the sahara - which is the Maghreb and in this case is not even mentioned.

---

code:

---

country (n)                  Haplotypes and percentages 


                                       IV     V     XI    VII    VIII   XII   XV 


Egypt(274)                             13.9  39.4   18.9  6.6   7.3    2.2   5.5

Lebanon(54)                            3.7   16.7   7.4   20.4  31.5   5.6   1.9 
Palestine(69)                          1.4   15.9   5.8   13.0  46.4   0.0   4.3
Iraq(139)                              1.4   7.2    6.4*  20.1  36.0   1.4   0.7
Egypt(52)                              7.7   40.4   21.2  9.6   7.7    3.8   1.9
Libya (38)                             7.9   44.7   10.5  0.0   5.3    13.2  0.0
Algeria (141)                          8.5   56.7   5.0   1.4   7.1    4.2   5.0 
Tunisia (73)                           0.0   53.4   5.5   4.1   2.7    26.0  2.7
Morocco (102)                          0.98  57.8   8.8   4.9   7.8    0.98  10.8
Mauretania (25)                        8.0   44.0   8.0   0.0   4.0    0.0   0.0
Suprasah(composite)(505)                                   
                                       4.4   55.0   7.7   3.2   6.3    7.1   4.2
Ethiopia(composite)(142)               0.0   45.8  26.1   0.0   16.9   0.0   0.0

 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

What is wrong with stating that fact, or using the terms in a geographical sense for that matter?

---

Now i've answered the above with clarity, but based on past experience I expect repetitive questioning but no aknowledgement of the answer provided. And answer I have no intention of repeating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

So allow me to make a request to prevent a stagnant circular exchange:


If you assert that supra-saharan is a geographical reference to North of the Sahara, and is so being referenced incorrectly by the scholars cited, then please provide a map of the geography = supra-sahara.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
No need for defensive argumentation. If you believe this is geography lexicon for North of Sahara, simply show us, via a map.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

....rather than designating regions, using the Saharan desert as the geographical referencing point.

---

Okay,
In geographical terms
Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)

Sub-Saharan = A portion of the total Supra-Sahara more commonly known as south of the Sahara. (Subset)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara. So trying to confine/label them as Sub-Saharan is in error. As is trying label the Black Africans of Egypt/Ethiopia and other places as non-black, not true negro, mixed, or whatever is in error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Okay,
In geographical terms
Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)

---

Your basic idea of super-set is correct.

Bear in mind as noted earlier, Keita also uses the term supra-equatorial Africa.

These terms are more population/geography than strict geography.

Supra Equatorial Africa is also referenced in genetic study and includes Kenya, Somalia especially because they *transcend* the equator.

Hope this helps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted rasol:

quote:

---

Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.

---

We have a winner!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

rasol: No need for defensive argumentation. If you believe this is geography lexicon for North of Sahara, simply show us, via a map.

---

quote:

---

MysterySolver: Okay? And again, what does this have to do with my post?

---

^ Exactly the kind of circular exchange we need to avoid in order for discussion to progess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Map please, for your claimed "supra-sahara as geogrpahic lexicon for north of Sahara."

No?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
No?

Then lets move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Okay,


[QUOTE]Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.

---

We have a winner!

---

quote:

---

I believe that Diop would agree with Keita were he alive, but regardless; Diops concept of race is Carelton Coon's; Carelton Coon has been debunked, so advocates of race cannot hide behind Diop's praise for Carelton Coon's pseudo-scientific ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Okay,


[QUOTE]Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.

---

We have a winner!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

Map please, for your claimed "supra-sahara as geogrpahic lexicon for north of Sahara."

---

quote:

---

Antonyms are words that are opposite in meaning.

---

quote:

---

Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".

---

quote:

---

My point about Diop(note that the topic is "Diop's Mistakes" and Cavalli-Sforza is that while Diop claimed that the "Yellow Race"(Diop's actual term) was the product of "cross-breeding"(his actual term) between "Blacks" and "Whites"--Sforza offered a variant

---

quote:

---

Winters writes: countries like Mali and etc., lie both in Supra- and Sub-Saharan- Africa.

---

quote:

---

Blackman: Basically, Black African people are Supra-Saharan people (in this discussion/case). They were never confined to south of the Sahara.

---

quote:

---

rasol: We have a winner!

---

quote:

---

Dr Winters writes: This is what makes Diop's use of the term Negro/Black more precise than SupraAfrican or SubSaharan, since racially as you note above Blacks live in Both areas.

---

quote:

---

Note that the topic is about "Diop's Mistakes". And as you point out his claim that "yellows are the cross-bred results of miscegenations between whites and blacks" is an error.

---

quote:

---

Which was exactly what I meant by Diop's mistakes.

---

quote:

---

you said, science progresses. If Diop were alive he would realize the racial fallacies he made

---

Yes, but its more than that.

The genetic information we've learned since his death is far more profound in terms of establishing the scientific fact of the African origin of Ancient Egytpians, than the futile cause of attempting to refute Carletoon Coon at his own game of race-naming thru phenotype isolate.

Carlton Coon claimed the WaTutsi came from Arabia!

Because of genetics we can say: WRONG IDIOT! next.

You think Diop wouldn't have utilised this information and methodology?

The Africanists who don't utilise genetic or even read the works of Kittles and Keita simply don't understand it.

You think that would be a problem for Diop?

I don't think so.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Still wading through this thread but note
supra simply denotes above,
while sub is used for below.
Think of supra script (as when expressing a footnote's number)
and sub script (like where chemistry uses the number 2 in H2O).

In the context of Africa
* sub-Sahara means south of the Sahara
* supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

Why? Because these terms are rarely used in their strict
geographic sense as we do here. The rest of the world
outside our beloved forum just euphemistically use the
terminology in place of negro and arab/berber or black
and white.

And because of other sub and supra related terms the world
subliminally links substandard etc., to sub-Sahara but then
conjectures superior etc., at the mention of supra-Sahara.

That's the power of dialectic -- speaking/writing without
concretely or explicitly expressing major points. Note that
there is no sub and supra Pyreneean/Alpine/Carpathian
Europe in text books or the media, nor is there a sub and
supra Zagros/Hindu Kush/Himalayan Asia or even sub and
supra Zagros/Pamir/Sayan/Yablonovyy/Stanavoy Asia.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

---

Once again. That is not correct. The sahara, by definition is not *north* of the sahara, and supra in this context is more beyound or greater than, and not above.

The context should be seen in the light of supra-equatorial, or sub-tropical - which does *not* mean 'south of the tropics' or 'north of the equator'.

Keita typically uses the phrase horn-supra-sahara.

If you believe that supra sahara denotes north of the sahara then this would be geographically discontiguous.

The horn is south of the sahara....what pray tell is Africa north of the sahara, other than Maghreb? ?

Actually I'm disappointed in this discussion because so much time is being devoted needlessly to something so basic which is still being misunderstood.

Do you believe sub-tropical denotes - south of the tropics?

Do you believe 'supra-equatorial' denotes - north of the equator?

Of course not!

There is no Africa north of Sahara other than Maghreb and supra-saharan is not a euphemism for Maghreb.

I have already provided multiple references in which supra-sahara references areas within, north of and south of the sahara, so I don't know why anyone would repeat the misnomer -north of the sahara- and moreover I have no idea what you think you mean by this.

I asked for a map of Supra-sahara as geographical lexicon for North of sahara.

No such map was presented because no such geographical lexicon exits.

That's simply not what it means.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
No map of 'supra-sahara' geography lexicon that is north of sahara is provided....because no such geographic reference exists.



Afroasiatic speakers in Africa correspond with the geography of the Horn-supra-Saharan arc. - Keita.

^ This arc can only exist in the context of supra-sahara straddling the sahara.

The concept is rooted in population histories and movements [Keita is denoting E3b1 in population genetics....*not* geography, "which does not delimit Africans"]. To consign supra-sahara to north of sahara geography, is not only geographically nonsensical, but it also completely misses Keita's point.

You guys take simple things, and render them as impossible [for you] to understand. lol.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Still wading through this thread but note
supra simply denotes above,
while sub is used for below.
Think of supra script (as when expressing a footnote's number)
and sub script (like where chemistry uses the number 2 in H2O).

In the context of Africa
* sub-Sahara means south of the Sahara
* supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

Why? Because these terms are rarely used in their strict
geographic sense as we do here. The rest of the world
outside our beloved forum just euphemistically use the
terminology in place of negro and arab/berber or black
and white.

And because of other sub and supra related terms the world
subliminally links substandard etc., to sub-Sahara but then
conjectures superior etc., at the mention of supra-Sahara.

That's the power of dialectic -- speaking/writing without
concretely or explicitly expressing major points. Note that
there is no sub and supra Pyreneean/Alpine/Carpathian
Europe in text books or the media, nor is there a sub and
supra Zagros/Hindu Kush/Himalayan Asia or even sub and
supra Zagros/Pamir/Sayan/Yablonovyy/Stanavoy Asia.

---

quote:

---

I asked for a map of Supra-sahara as geographical lexicon for North of sahara.

No such map was presented because no such geographical lexicon exits.

That's simply not what it means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Still wading through this thread but note
supra simply denotes above,
while sub is used for below.
Think of supra script (as when expressing a footnote's number)
and sub script (like where chemistry uses the number 2 in H2O).

In the context of Africa
* sub-Sahara means south of the Sahara
* supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

Why? Because these terms are rarely used in their strict
geographic sense as we do here. The rest of the world
outside our beloved forum just euphemistically use the
terminology in place of negro and arab/berber or black
and white.

And because of other sub and supra related terms the world
subliminally links substandard etc., to sub-Sahara but then
conjectures superior etc., at the mention of supra-Sahara.

That's the power of dialectic -- speaking/writing without
concretely or explicitly expressing major points. Note that
there is no sub and supra Pyreneean/Alpine/Carpathian
Europe in text books or the media, nor is there a sub and
supra Zagros/Hindu Kush/Himalayan Asia or even sub and
supra Zagros/Pamir/Sayan/Yablonovyy/Stanavoy Asia.

---

^The devolution of "sub-Saharan Africa" from merely a geographical lexicon, into something of a "racial" pejorative, which is expressed in the Eurocentric-world in works presented as "scientific" studies, geo-political economic statistics & demographics, and mass media documentary, is without a doubt. Case in point, is the apparent inconsistencies in geographic terminology in most Eurocentric publications, wherein "North African" and "sub-Saharan" dichotomy are regularly applied, instead of a geographic vocabulary that is more consistent as in the terms of "supra-Saharan" and "sub-Saharan", placing regional designation in *relatively* more equal terms, *if* understood from a 'geographic' context of whatever subject is at hand. Even these could still be misconstrued to fit the ideology of "superiority" and "inferiority" as noted above, if politicized. The best thing, imo, is to simply get rid of the "Saharan-centered" divisive tool altogether, because it is susceptible to the sort of dogmatic baggage just now mentioned. "Africa" would be just fine, and why shouldn't it, when the Eurocentric norm to not divide Europe into "southern" and "northern" Europe has worked just fine?! The Saharan desert has historically had no legitimate divisive importance in Africa, and that is a fact.

---

quote:

---

rasol:

I asked for a map of Supra-sahara as geographical lexicon for North of sahara.

No such map was presented because no such geographical lexicon exits.

That's simply not what it means.

---

quote:

---

Winters: If the term does not exist

---

^ lol.

* Either find the text where it is stated that the term 'supra-saharan' "does not exist";

* or admit that you don't know how to read, and thus cannot understand the sentense: That's simply not what it means.
 

---

Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mystery Solver:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Still wading through this thread but note
supra simply denotes above,
while sub is used for below.
Think of supra script (as when expressing a footnote's number)
and sub script (like where chemistry uses the number 2 in H2O).

In the context of Africa
* sub-Sahara means south of the Sahara
* supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

Why? Because these terms are rarely used in their strict
geographic sense as we do here. The rest of the world
outside our beloved forum just euphemistically use the
terminology in place of negro and arab/berber or black
and white.

And because of other sub and supra related terms the world
subliminally links substandard etc., to sub-Sahara but then
conjectures superior etc., at the mention of supra-Sahara.

That's the power of dialectic -- speaking/writing without
concretely or explicitly expressing major points. Note that
there is no sub and supra Pyreneean/Alpine/Carpathian
Europe in text books or the media, nor is there a sub and
supra Zagros/Hindu Kush/Himalayan Asia or even sub and
supra Zagros/Pamir/Sayan/Yablonovyy/Stanavoy Asia.

---

^The devolution of "sub-Saharan Africa" from merely a geographical lexicon, into something of a "racial" pejorative, which is expressed in the Eurocentric-world in works presented as "scientific" studies, geo-political economic statistics & demographics, and mass media documentary, is without a doubt. Case in point, is the apparent inconsistencies in geographic terminology in most Eurocentric publications, wherein "North African" and "sub-Saharan" dichotomy are regularly applied, instead of a geographic vocabulary that is more consistent as in the terms of "supra-Saharan" and "sub-Saharan", placing regional designation in *relatively* more equal terms, *if* understood from a 'geographic' context of whatever subject is at hand. Even these could still be misconstrued to fit the ideology of "superiority" and "inferiority" as noted above, if politicized. The best thing, imo, is to simply get rid of the "Saharan-centered" divisive tool altogether, because it is susceptible to the sort of dogmatic baggage just now mentioned. "Africa" would be just fine, and why shouldn't it, when the Eurocentric norm to not divide Europe into "southern" and "northern" Europe has worked just fine?! The Saharan desert has historically had no legitimate divisive importance in Africa, and that is a fact.

---

Finally some common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

If the term does not exist, why should we accept use of this term for any geographical part of Africa or the people who live in the various and diverse regions of Africa?

Moreover, why is Keita's use of a term that does not exist become more precise that Diop's use of Black Africans in the south and white/Arab Aficans in the north when both terms are talking about the same populations?

---

quote:

---

It should be noted that Keita didn't *invent* the term "supra-Saharan Africa",

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It should be noted that Keita didn't *invent* the term "supra-Saharan Africa",

---

Yes, this much is true...

---

quote:

---

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.

Are you on the record, saying that Keita, judging from the above and going by your broken logic of what "supra-Saharan" means, is oblivious to the fact that Arabic is not spoken *primarily* or **in the main**, in "Africa as a whole"?

---

"Africa as a whole" -> Why do you place this in quotes as if it is something I said, when you are only quoting yourself [misquoting blackman] then arguing over your own quote -> the lowest level of strawmen argument.

Sorry you can't drag me into arguments over things other people say - just because you *can't refute* what I say. lol.

The reason you need to quote yourself is that you cannot produce the requested evidence:

Namely a map of supra-sahara as geographic lexicon for north of sahara [your actual claim which you can't back up].

That's because no such entity exists, nor would such a geographic reference MAKE ANY SENSE.

So, keep making up fake quotes and arguing over them, to hide your failure to produce a map of your 'invisible', 'nonsensical' geographic entity.

Know this:

No map?


Then -> all of your pointless paragraphs are a joke and this is why I ignore you. [much to your obvious ire.]

Keep googling for your supra-saharan is africa north of sahara map.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Repeating the untruth that supra-Sahara refers to a
superset does not make it correct. It remains wrong.

The inventors of the term supra-Sahara meant it to
include the geographical range of the peoples they
call Egyptians, Libyans, Berbers, and Tibbus/Tedas,
thus including the Sahara and even some small part of
the Sahel.

Note that connotation (popular usage) goes beyond
denotation (dictionary definition).

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

supra-Sahara means north of the Sahara
though by connotation the Sahara itself falls into supra-Sahara.

---

Once again. That is not correct. The sahara, by definition is not *north* of the sahara, and supra in this context is more beyound or greater than, and not above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now *speak Arabic* in **the main** but, as noted, this largely represents language shift.

Are you on the record, saying that Keita, judging from the above and going by your broken logic of what "supra-Saharan" means, is oblivious to the fact that Arabic is not spoken *primarily* or **in the main**, in "Africa as a whole"?

---

"Africa as a whole" -> Why do you place this in quotes as if it is something I said, when you are only quoting yourself [misquoting blackman] then arguing over your own quote -> the lowest level of strawmen argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Okay,
In geographical terms
Supra-Saharan = Land north, south, and including the Sahara (basically the whole continent of Africa) (Superset)

---

Your basic idea of super-set is correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Sorry you can't drag me into arguments over things other people say - just because you *can't refute* what I say. lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The reason you need to quote yourself is that you cannot produce the requested evidence:

Namely a map of supra-sahara as geographic lexicon for north of sahara [your actual claim which you can't back up].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

That's because no such entity exists, nor would such a geographic reference MAKE ANY SENSE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

So, keep making up fake quotes and arguing over them, to hide your failure to produce a map of your 'invisible', 'nonsensical' geographic entity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Know this:

No map?


Then -> all of your pointless paragraphs are a joke and this is why I ignore you. [much to your obvious ire.]

Keep googling for your supra-saharan is africa north of sahara map.

---

That's just it; you take your lack of education on basic terms, that even primary school kids can teach on, and unwillingness to be educated by virtually everybody else, as something of a joke, which is the tragedy in all this.

You are asked to produce a map for your bizarre understanding of the term, not to mention explain the Keita [whom you keep invoking] quotes by applying your broken logic to it, and you fall short. Realizing this, you are forced to claim that the term now doesn't exist...this even after proclaiming to be citing a number of people on the geographical term. Heck, you haven't even caught onto the fact that "supra-Saharan Africa" is a geographic term, while claiming that it is "transgeographic" - sheer comedy at best; you really want to see a joke?...then that would be a good one to reflect on for starters.
 

---

Posted by Tyrann0saurus (Member # 3735) on :
 
Why are Egyptians called "supra-Saharan"? They don't live north of the Sahara, as do coastal Maghrebians, but rather in the Nile Valley, which goes through the Sahara. They are neither sub- nor supra-Saharan, but Saharan.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Have we gotten off topic or what? Perhaps the dispute over geographical lexicons involving the term 'Sahara' could take place in another thread..
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus:
Why are Egyptians called "supra-Saharan"? They don't live north of the Sahara, as do coastal Maghrebians, but rather in the Nile Valley, which goes through the Sahara.

---

^ For the last time: Keita refers them as Supra-saharans because Egypt does go thru the sahara, which technically is what the term means, hence Keita uses it correctly.

It does not mean above the sahara, so Keita does not use it that way.

Anyone who refers Egypt as 'above the sahara' is geographically illiterate.

But Djehuti is correct, we are getting off-topic and there is another thread on this subject.
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
Diop developed melanin tests didn't he? To tell the skin color of the mummy. Do you guys think a test like this is accurate when you take into account age and liquids from mummification?
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
How accurate do you guys think Diop's melanin tests were?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
What we need is more specifics, and more testing of this kind.
 

---

Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
up
 

---

Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
How accurate do you guys think Diop's melanin tests were?

---

Very accurate, and why rasol's sources make little mention of them while replacing them with pseudo-science.
Mike's proposition is dead on.

Diop (1989) states melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body accountable for the skin pigmentation is broadly speaking, insoluble and is conserved for millions of years in skins of fossil animals. Diop (1989) said the epidermis is the location for melanin. “The melanosytes penetrating the derma at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show a melanin level which is non-existent in the white skinned races.” (Diop, 1989,15) Diop’s samples were from mummies of Marietta excavations in Kemet in a physical anthropology laboratory of the Musee de l’ Homme in Paris. Diop (1989) stated these methods are capable of being performed on mummies such as Thutmoses III, Seti I and Ramses II in the Cairo Museum due to their excellent condition. For two years Diop (1989) had been pleading the curator of the Cairo Museum for samples to analyze, but Diop was only permitted a few sq. millimeters of skin. In Diop’s attempt, he lightened the specimens with ethyl benzoate so they could be studied by natural or ultra violet lighting rendering the melanin grains florescent. From this, Diop concluded through a melanin level of microscopic examination, it can permit one to categorize the ancient Kemites as a black race (Diop, 1989). At this point the researcher could not help but wonder if the mummies in museums are truly Egyptians. As society understands, there was intermixing in ancient Egypt, which does not erase the original make-up of the ancient population. Diop conjectured why there were only mummies with long hair displayed instead of mummies with kinky hair.



This is what separates great thinkers such as Diop and Keita.
 

---

Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
An African Albino woman with her children by an African man with type 5 melanated skin.


A Panamanian Albino woman from a region where 1 in 145 people are born Albino.



There is very little difference in melanin context of the Panamanian woman above and the woman below.

 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
Important topic!
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 
CAN ALBINISM BE PREDICTED BASED ON DEMOGRAPHICS?

quote:

---

Originally posted by meninarmer:
An African Albino woman with her children by an African man with type 5 melanated skin.


A Panamanian Albino woman from a region where 1 in 145 people are born Albino.



There is very little difference in melanin context of the Panamanian woman above and the woman below.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
I would not say that the prefixes "sub" and "supra" are in any way antonyms. "Sub" is a straight Latin preposition meaning "below" or "under" and "supra" is also a Latin preposition meaning "above" or "over".

I recognise that Diop's ideas were ideas critical of the prevailing anthropology of the 1950s and 1960s. So here's what he writes on the origins of East Asians.
In Civilization and Barbarisnm(Lawrence Hill, 1981) Diop writes on his diagramme on page 60:
"Appearance of the Yellow race, 15,000 years ago at the very earliest, perhaps during the Mesolithic Age bordering on the Neolithic Age, resulting in the interbreeding of Black and White in the cold climate".

Cavalli-Sforza had it somewhat different: Europeans showed approx. 60% Asian genes and 40% African genes(see his the History and Geography of Human Genes).

But here's Diop again on race:

[b]But as one would expect, physical anthropology, using the latest findings of genetics, molecular biology, and linear analysis, denies race and admits only the reality of differing populations. It is sophisticated science strongly coated with ideology. But when dealing with the transmission of a hereditary defect as in the case of sickle-cell anemia, the norion of race reappears: sickle-cell anemia, genetically speaking, strikes only balck people, says the same science that denies race....Race does not exist! Is it that nothing allows me to distinguish myself from a Swede, and that, a Zulu can prove to Botha(Prime Minister of the white minority government of South Africa)that they both are of the same genetic stock, and that consequently, at the genotypical level, they are almost twins, even if accidentally their phenotypes, meaning their physical appeareances, are different"(C&B,p. 17).

Apparently what Diop seems to be saying is that European scholars rather than admit the anteriority of the African "race" prefer to debunk the notion of race altogether.

I don't think the European scholars really debunked the notion of "race" at all. They just changed their terminologies --old wine in new bottles style--with their talk of "sub-Saharan" Africa, etc.

But Diop does raise an interesting question derived from the fact that phenotype does not track genotype in antropological analysis. The point is that phenotype is not a function of genetic distance. Consider the cases of Melanesians and the populations of Africa--all belonging to the same population set if membership criteria are the phenotypical traits generally characteristic of Africa.
Yet it should be noted that the same clusters of genes that produce the phenotypical traits of Melanesians are the same genes that produce the same results for Africa's populations. Take your pick!

---

WHERE DOES RACE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT MAKES A ENTRANCE IN THIS DISCUSSION. I'M INTERESTED IN BLACK ELITES. WE HAVE SEEN WHITE ELITES, MORE THEN WE CARE; SO WHERE ARE THE BLACK ELITES?


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=006243#000011
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

Move it up.
 

---