To understand the origins of any African people, it is first necessary to understand the patterns of African migrations throughout history:
Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley (note: this is based upon the fact of an original peopling of the Nile Valley from the south and the west (ancient Sahara regions))
quote: ...For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi...the Pygmies were probably the first to occupy the interior of the continent, at least at a certain period. They settled there prior to the arrival of larger Blacks. It can be assumed that the latter formed a kind of cluster around the Nile Valley. In the course of time they spread out in all directions, as a result of the population growth and the upheavals that occur during the history of a people. --- The African Origin of Civilization, C.A. Diop, p179-182
points agreeing with Diop's observation...
quote: Tutsi, «TOOT see», are an African people who live mainly in the central African nations of Burundi and Rwanda. They are sometimes called Batutsi or Watusi. The Tutsi population is about 2 million. The Tutsi are by tradition a cattle-keeping people. They began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa, probably in search of grazing land for their herds. Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived. The Hutu were an agricultural people and were not as skilled in warfare as the Tutsi. The Tutsi gradually established themselves as the dominant group in the region politically and economically. Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture. Most Tutsi are Christians, but many also follow traditional African beliefs.--- World Book Online Reference Center
quote: In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language, perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants. (This has some similarities with the experience of the English, invaded by French speaking Normans in 1066.) The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia. That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area. It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs. -- http://www.angelfire.com/mac/egmatthews/worldinfo/africa/rwanda.html
Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda
Amon - God of Africa
quote: Rwandans traditionally believe in a supreme being called Imana. While Imana's actions influence the whole world, Rwanda is his home where he comes to spend the night. -- Rwanda, the Bradt travelguide, p26
Compare this example with that of Amma of the Dogon, Amon of the Yoruba, Amon of the Kemetou...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: To understand the origins of any African people, it is first necessary to understand the patterns of African migrations throughout history:
This is a good start. To understand the patterns of migrations we must understand the history of climate, of archeology and anthropology.
Many who create myths about population origins are completely illiterate in these diciplines.
Case in point is another thread where the topic author wants to understand European origins, but does not even comprehend the history of the Ice-Ages which effectively dictate much of it's people history.
So, I want to begin with a warning - talking about myths and legends while failing to grasp hard facts of climate, anthropology and archeology, won't cut it.
Refusing to process hard data and apply critical thinking to it - will result in another embarrassing debacle thread.
End of disclaimer.
Now for the rest....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley (note: this is based upon the fact of an original peopling of the Nile Valley from the south and the west (ancient Sahara regions))
This is vague in terms of time and specifics, and borders on fluff.
This in turn, allows you to fudge facts later on.
Here are the specifics....
The Nile Valley was 1st continuously populated during the Paleolithic. The oldest skeletal ramains are from 30 thousand years ago during the interglacial period.... 35,000-30,000 years ago: “Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt”. Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: “Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average.” The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. The morphological features of the Nazlet Khater skeleton were analysed by Thoma (1984). The 35,000 year old skeleton was examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. - Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984.
Following this, there was a possible absense of population in the Nile area due to extreme drought, followed by repopulation during the Holocene wet phase...
Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as sug-gesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley betweenthe epipaleolithic and the neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lackcould be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connorand Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analagous toevents in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nuñez et al 2002), a moister moreinhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the latepleistocene-early holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988,Wendorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nilepopulations became Saharan. - SOY Keita.
During the Holocene wet phase 10 thousand years ago, much of Egypt was a savana not unlike modern Kenya....
It is during the neolithic redrying of the sahara that many of these populations congregated back to the Nile Valley, effectively the worlds larges oasis in the worlds largest desert.
See the following for context....Africa Climate History Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi...
^ Tutsi are Bantu. This much is true of all Bantu peoples.
HISTORY OF THE BANTU MIGRATIONS
Main article: Bantu expansion
The Bantu first originated around the Benue-Cross rivers area in southeastern Nigeria and spread over Africa to the Zambia area. Sometime in the second millennium BC, perhaps triggered by the drying of the Sahara and pressure from the migration of people from the Sahara into the region, they were forced to expand into the rainforests of central Africa (phase I). In the 1st millennium BC, they began a more rapid second phase of expansion beyond the forests into southern and eastern Africa, and again in the 1st millennium AD as new agricultural techniques and plants were developed in Zambia. By about AD 1000 it had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa. In Zimbabwe a major southern hemisphere empire was established, with its capital at Great Zimbabwe.
Are you claiming that Bantu originates in Dynastic Egypt?
Please give the chronology and timeline for Tutsi migration relative to the Bantu expansion, that can place the Tutsi in Dynastic Egypt?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language,
^ This is the racist Hamite mythology, and rooted in Eurocentric ignorance, and quoted by misguided Africanists out of sheer laziness.
If the Tutsi are Nilo-saharan speakers who came into Rwanda in the 14th century, and conquered Bantu speakers -> what Nilo-saharan language did the Tutsi speak?
People who state the hamie myth don't even understand that the Tutsi and Hutu speak the same language with the same dialect.
The claim that the Tutsi conquered the Hutu, only to have their native conquering langauge vanish without a trace - is completely ridiculous.
When Eurocentrists created this myth, they didn't know *Tutsi langauge* was Bantu - they assumed the Tutsi *imposed* their Hamite language upon hapless Bantu.
Eurocentrists continue to foster this kind of myth because they think Africans will believe anything. I don't know why you want to encourage them in this regard.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ In essense you provide absolutely no data, and no facts, and rely once again on *outdated* racial myths and racist European re-citation.
Wally, sometimes you sound like someone who has been sleeping for the last several decades.
Here's a wide awake view - and the ultimate source of what *you believe*:
The Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda
John Hannign Speke (1827-1864) was an colonial explorer and officer in the British army and the ingenious architect of the Hamitic myth: the idea that Rwanda's Tutsi minority is racially superior to its Hutu minority.
When Speke arrived in what was then the Kingdom of Rwanda, he came to the rather inane conclusion that the Tutsis must be a superior race and were not native to Rwanda.
The evidence? Tutsis, which he supposed to be descendants of the Biblical figure, Ham, had lighter skin and more "European" features than the Bantu-featured Hutu that they ruled.
Speke's hypothesis became widely held fact by the time the Belgians came to rule Rwanda, give Tutsis special privileges, and begin issuing identity cards, forever relegating the Hutu and the Tutsi to separate castes.
The Hamitic Myth would be central to the Hutu extremists' efforts to mobilize ordinary citizens to commit the mass murder of the Tutsi "invaders."
Read about the origins of the Rwandan genocide and why the world stood by and did nothing to stop it.
^ Wally in order to be more than passive willing victim of the Hamite myth, you have to stop reductively reciting just-so stories and start relating facts.
To this point you have not related a single relevant fact.
In your next reply, I want to see some facts.....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Conventional views on precolonial Rwanda are frequently based on a 'coming together' where the three groups, Twa, Hutu and Tutsi, have populated ancient Rwanda in that order.
Your book is apparently defending an alternative stand.
JV: Indeed, in my opinion, the Twa, Hutu and Tutsi did not arrive in different waves to populate Rwanda and the differences between them developed essentially on site.
In addition, until some time after 1900, there was no general concept of 'Rwanda'. Rwanda as a word refers to 'a central place with a surrounding area'.
Thus, we may refer to the rwanda of Nyiginya, to the Rwanda of Burundi, to the Rwanda of other places.
Rwanda is therefore not an ethnonym; you have to add another word in order to transform it into an ethnonym. The self-awareness of all the inhabitants that they were Rwandan came only with the colonial period and was related to their shared experiences during that time. That is something that is never discussed in the light of the current problems of Rwanda: since when do all these people believe that they are Rwandans? Formerly, such group awareness was connected with the various kingdoms or, in some cases, with the family communities to which they belonged.
KA&HV: So it is in this context of state formation that you situate the origin of the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi?
JV: That is partly a separate process. The terms 'Hutu' and 'Tutsi' date back much earlier than Rwanda.
In fact, Burundi, Buha and other small areas in Northern Congo also have Hutu and Tutsi, but the origin of the concept of 'Hutu' there differs from that in Rwanda.
Hutu and Tutsi are ancient words with changing meanings.
First in Rwanda and subsequently in Burundi, 'Hutu' was opposed to 'Tutsi'; both terms began to exclude each other: if you were a Hutu you could not possibly be a Tutsi.
But be careful: these developments occurred only after 1800. We have found traces of that. We know about people who did not refer to themselves as Hutu and who used a place name to indicate their ethnic identity.
Then gradually the term 'Hutu' developed among the large peasant population to denote their common social position.
KA&HV: That is historiographic dynamite ! In historical literature about Rwanda the suspicion is still smouldering that indeed some ethnic 'essence' is being hidden behind the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi.
JV: Well, if we look back far enough we find that the word 'hutu' originally meant 'servant'.
Actually, this word is still used with that meaning in Rwanda. For instance, the person carrying the suitcase of a minister is called a 'hutu'.
He may actually be a high-ranking Tutsi but in this situation he is a hutu, namely the case-carrier of a dignitary.
In the course of the 19th century, the meaning of this word has changed, which is shown, for instance, in a story of around 1850 about a certain Mrs. Shongoka [cf. Le Rwanda ancien, p. 174-5], mother of a Tutsi (i.e. noble) cattle-breeding family. The household, however, went all astray because Shongoka did not have a servant and she refused to use her Tutsi relatives as servants (i.e. as 'Hutu'). And that is the difference: half a century earlier, this gap was by far not as deep.
KA&HV: Hence, in your account, there is no reference to any primordial (ethnic) content of the Hutu concept, but you are less radical where the ethnic term Tutsi is concerned.
JV: The content of the Tutsi concept has also changed thoroughly in this process. At the beginning of the kingdom, most of the cattle-breeders considered themselves to be Hima. Furthermore, there was a small group of people who called themselves Tutsi, and that was a genuine ethnic term. The first king, Ndori, originated from the North and was a Hima, not a Tutsi. But one generation or more later, the members of the royal lineages also referred to themselves as Tutsi. This proves that at that time, the term Tutsi had more prestige than Hima. Besides, the etymology of the word Tutsi cannot be traced either in Kinyarwanda or in Kirundi or Kiga. This is entirely different where Hutu is concerned; the term can be found in Angola and in Lower Congo for someone who is either poor or a servant.
KA&HV: This series of alternative views regarding the precolonial history of Rwanda is being formulated by you on the basis of new or rather previously unused source material.
JV: Yes, I draw on two sources that have remained mostly unused until now. First there are the records of Father Schumacher who worked as a full-time researcher during the period from 1928 to 1936. Schumacher co-operated with 4 major informants who were all attached to the royal court and he always accurately noted who had given him what piece of information. This early research was done just prior to the beginning of Abbé Kagame's investigations. There is, in fact, a perfect continuity: when Schumacher left, his most important informant (Sekarama) began to co-operate with Kagame and became Kagame's tutor.
^ Wally -> In order to understand the meaning of Hutu and Tutsi, you must first grasp that Africans have unique and original ways of defining their identities which are not always concordant to ws.t concepts of ethnicity.
Westerners attempted to impose their ethnic and racial notions on Native African people.
It is the disastrous legacy of this discourse, that you are reflecting.
Posted by argiedude (Member # 13263) on :
rasol, that was a very interesting post. I thought Hutu and Tutsi were ethnic groups, but your post shows the reality was more along the lines of a social division, such as castes in India.
And this is backed up by the genetic data. The 2004 study of East Africa tested Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda and the results are pretty similar; not identical, but close, sort of like the y-dna similarity between 2 regions inside a European country.
But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.
This same phenomenon can be seen in Asia. For example, in Tibet there are pastoral groups who are tall with so-called "finer" features like narrow long narrow faces and narrow noses, whereas agricultural folks are shorter with the more 'typical' "mongoloid" features like broad faces and broad noses. Yet Genetic studies show they differ very little and both are more related to each other than to other Asian groups outside of Tibet.
I'd say the biggest difference between these Tibetans and Rwandans is that the Euros did not warp their minds with their racist b.s. Although the pastoralists features were indeed explained by Europeans as due to "caucasoid" influence.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller.
Yes difference in physical appearance is the basis for Speke's notion of separating them into races.
However tall slender cattle hearders range throughout the Sahelian region of Africa from East to West and include peoples such as the Fulbe and Kanuri, whose cattle most closely resembles that of the Tutsi.
It's likely that differentiation of cattle herder and pastoralist began before the Bantu migration into Rwanda, this is especially so because a pattern of physical differenation concording to sedentary vs. pastoral exists not only in Rawanda but in Burundi, Uganda, the Congo and Tanzania as well.
Moreover - there are certainly pre-Bantu expansion cattle raising among native Nilo-saharan speakers in the SouthEast AFrica.
Cattle raising possibly originates with pre Nilo saharans of horn-supra-saharan Africa.
The most famous of these are the Masai, who, unlike the Tutsi, have a distinct and Nilo-saharan language, and distinct lineages including E3b and A which links them to other ancient East Africans Nilo-saharan speakers of the Sudan and Ethiopia. [this in spite of being Surrounded by mostly Bantu speaking Kenyans]
Tutsi do not have a distinct 'non-bantu' language, or even a distinct dialect of Bantu.
There is simply no linguistic, or genetic, or archeological or anthroplogical evidence to link them to Ethiopia - much less Dynastic Egypt.
Tutsi do not even have a *native* oral tradition linking them to Ethiopia or Egypt, or native word for *Ethiopia or Egypt* [all such legends are post European hamite mythmakers].
For example, Tutsi can often recite the names of the grandparents 7 or more generations back - all the names are Bantu.
In all current scholarship there is no theory of Tutsi origin that can explain the above and still tie them to Ethiopia or EGypt.
The only [outdated] references to this hypothesis are those which operate in ignorance of the evidence, as opposed to explaining the evidence.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Origin mythos of the region's related kingdoms state all three groups 'Twa,' Hutu, and Tutsi are local indigenees given a gift from the Supreme Being which the Tutsi used the most wisely and hence their being the top ranking class. In other words there were just people and the labels became attached after the fact.
Fact is the rulership of the Rift kingdoms listened in rapt awe while Speke spouted stories of David and Solomon being their ancestors to them.
quote:... Wahuma chieftains of foreign blood, descended from the Abyssinian stock ...
They had fine oval faces, large eyes, and high noses, denoting the best blood of Abyssinia. Having shaken hands in true English style, which is the peculiar custom of the men of this country, the ever-smiling Rumanika begged us to be seated on the ground opposite to him, and at once wished to know what we thought ...
... I told him, if he would give me one or two of his children, I would have them instructed in England; for I admired his race, and believed them to have sprung from our old friends the Abyssinians ...
Then in came their children, all models of the Abyssinian type of beauty, and as polite in their manners as thorough-bred gentlemen.
...
Rumanika, on hearing that it was our custom to celebrate the birth of our Saviour with a good feast of beef, sent us an ox. I immediately paid him a visit to offer the compliments of the season, and at the same time regretted, much to his amusement, that he, as one of the old stock of Abyssinians ...
Ever proud of his history since I had traced his descent from Abyssinia and King David, whose hair was as straight as my own, Rumanika dwelt on my theological disclosures with the greatest delight, ...
This is the most southerly kingdom of the Wahuma, though not the farthest spread of its people, for we find the Watusi, who are emigrants from Karague of the same stock, overlooking the Tanganyika Lake from the hills of Uhha, and tending their cattle all over Unyamuezi under the protection of the native negro chiefs; and we also hear that the Wapoka of Fipa, south of the Rukwa Lake are the same. How or when their name became changed from Wahuma to Watusi no one is able to explain;
from chapters 6,8, & 9 of Discovery of the Source of the Nile John Hanning Speke
Well, there you have it from the originator of the Hamitic Hypothesis himself.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Tutsi do not have a distinct 'non-bantu' language, or even a distinct dialect of Bantu. ... Tutsi do not even have a *native* oral tradition linking them to Ethiopia or Egypt, ...
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
From Argiedude: ''But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?''
...then Djehuti wrote: ''I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
In the absence of definitive proof then we can call this explanation ''rope-a-dope''.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: From Argiedude: ''But what about the claims that either group can be physically distinguished from each other? Even the Hutus and Tutsis themselves feel there are physical differences between the 2 groups, notably that the Tutsis are taller. My personal view is that they're closely related, so what to make of this supposed difference?''
...then Djehuti wrote: ''I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
In the absence of definitive proof then we can call this explanation ''rope-a-dope''.
Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?
I agree that there is not definitive proof to explain every phenotypical variation in Africa.
However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
quote: For peoples living south of the Nile, tradition suggest that they came from the north; this is true of the Batutsi of Rwanda-Urundi....
Yes! This is also true of many Bantu speaking people. The Bantu migration is also one of the largest, if not the largest in human history.
Bantu languages belong to the "Negro-Egyptian" language family, erroneously known as "Niger-Congo" to Western specialists. Naturally, the relationship of Bantu and Ancient Kemet should be explored further and connected together, disregarding the kicking and screaming of some disappointedly weary Westerners that Black Africans are taking charge of interpreting their own history.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I suggest you leave that baggage here. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Yes! This is also true of many Bantu speaking people. The Bantu migration is also one of the largest, if not the largest in human history.
You're saying the Bantu migration began in the Nile Valley?
Can you then correct the following by providing a proper chronology of the history of Bantu migration?
HISTORY OF THE BANTU MIGRATIONS
Main article: Bantu expansion
The Bantu first originated around the Benue-Cross rivers area in southeastern Nigeria and spread over Africa to the Zambia area. Sometime in the second millennium BC, perhaps triggered by the drying of the Sahara and pressure from the migration of people from the Sahara into the region, they were forced to expand into the rainforests of central Africa (phase I). In the 1st millennium BC, they began a more rapid second phase of expansion beyond the forests into southern and eastern Africa, and again in the 1st millennium AD as new agricultural techniques and plants were developed in Zambia. By about AD 1000 it had reached modern day Zimbabwe and South Africa. In Zimbabwe a major southern hemisphere empire was established, with its capital at Great Zimbabwe.
Are you claiming that Bantu originates in Dynastic Egypt?
Please give the chronology and timeline for Tutsi migration relative to the Bantu expansion, that can place the Tutsi in Dynastic Egypt? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well we all know just what Kemson is "reloaded" with. Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Non-Westerners, such as the Maya, saw the world in a different fashion and in a similar fashion that Africans and other Orientals saw it: Dialectically, in a non-linear, recurring manner:
The fact that the Nile Valley had been occupied at a much earlier period, of peoples moving northward and eventually out of Africa, does not preclude the fact of later migrations, specifically of the historical Africans, nor does it preclude that these same Africans would, at various periods, as Diop explained, move southwards as well as westwards; like the ebb and flow of the tides.
Diop was a "Marxist" and his method of analysis exhibited this way of non-linear thinking, a thinking that was also exemplified by the Maya, the Ancient Egyptians, etc...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Non linear thinking has nothing to do with it. Bantu did NOT originate in the Nile Valley, let alone Egypt. And not all African peoples let alone those of West Africa originated in the Nile Valley either.
Being a Marxist or Communist has nothing to do with that fact either.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The opposite is true. The only one claiming *a certain people* [Tutsi], have a certain original home [Egypt], is you.
We are simply asking you for proof.
Of course you don't have any, so the thread is already dead.
But we'll play it out, as we usually do.
These threads, in which you can't produce the evidence, typically end with you quoting Stockey Carmichael or Alica Keys. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:the Maya, saw the world in a different fashion
^ If you can't answer questions about the Tutsi just admit it and the thread comes to a polite end.
Don't try to change the subject.
When you make claims and are asked questions about them, you should be prepared to answer them.
When you ignore the questions and attempt to talk around or over those who ask them, it is really impolite.
It's that kind of antic(s) that are responsible for threads turning ugly.
If you can't answer the questions, then the thread essentially concludes and your claims are dismissed.
Your call.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:The fact that the Nile Valley had been occupied at a much earlier period, of peoples moving northward and eventually out of Africa, does not preclude the fact of later migrations.
No one suggested otherwise so you make no point in contention.
You were asked to specify your claims as to *when the Tutsi* would have lived in Egypt?
It is a plain-spoken and straightforward question to which you produce a non answer.
You claim Tutsi come from Egypt, but you have no evidence, and can't say when.... since, well, you have no evidence that would permit you say when.
It's a big problem isn't it?
I hope you've got something better in store for us Wally.
Your *argument* to this point is a joke.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Africans as Diop explained, move southwards as well as westwards;
...yes and northwards, and eastwards.
The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.
Since then - Africans have migrated North, East, West and South.
This does not prove the Tutsi originate in Dynastic Egypt.
I must say, your habit of producing a torrent of non-answers is rapidly traversing from amusing, to irritating to downright pathetic.
Have you in your myriad learnings ever encountered the concept of the -direct answer- to the -direct question?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Diop was a "Marxist"
^ Marx = appeal to authority fallacy, appeal to hero worship, and appeal to ideology.
Your topic is the Tutsi.
'shame that you have no facts to relate about them, hence, you are unable to *appeal to the facts*. Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
First Djehuti says this: "I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
Then, in a hastily contrived response, blurted out to me:
''And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this.''
..now read what Rasol says to me, unrelated to the above. And pay attention to it.
From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
(Yes, I know the explanation.)
''I agree that there is not definitive proof to explain every phenotypical variation in Africa.''
I'm just interested enough to know which phenotypical variations haven't been caused by the gene pool. Just give me a non-Djehuti explanation. Just give me a little something to calm me down.
''However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.''
On Rasol's last paragraph: You want a definitive reason for my saying what I did? Read the opening remarks made by Djehuti in this very post.
Posted by Grumman f6f (Member # 14051) on :
Rasol wrote:
''The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.''
Born from whom?
Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, wait! That was the beginning of the first cell...
So then, you did intend to say ''born.''
So there were humans before these ''first humans''? Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up then you come up with this information.
You want to know how to get out of this conversation? Turn me back over to Djehuti.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
quote: (Yes, I know the explanation.)
I doubt it. If you understand it, explain it. If you disagree with it, explain why.
quote:Born from whom?
Hominids is 'from whom' 1st Homo-sapiens is borne.
quote:Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, but I mean now to say that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and think to use sarcasm to cover your ignorance.
quote:So there were humans before these ''first humans''?
No.
quote:Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
We're talking about them now. Not my fault you haven't mastered public school biology.
quote:Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up
Seems like, as with Wally, you have nothing to say about the topic - so whether you shut-up or babble incessantly the result is the same - nothing intelligible is said.
quote:You want to know how to get out of this conversation?
Call you and idiot, and then ignore you?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Rasol, you are just low on patience today. Aren't we all.
By the way, perhaps it is a little presumptious to say Herto man is thee first human. He is the earliest one known from fossil evidence.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:He is the earliest one known from fossil evidence.
Correct. In anthropology the earliest = 1st until and unless earlier evidence is found.
It's always possible that earlier evidence will be found - whether dealing with 1st homo-sapien or anything else.
As for patience, I would simply like the topic [the Tutsi] to be addressed.
I have no patience for distractors who attempt to carry the topic of course, as a praticed strategy.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Diop was a "Marxist"
^ Marx = appeal to authority fallacy, appeal to hero worship, and appeal to ideology.
Your topic is the Tutsi.
'shame that you have no facts to relate about them, hence, you are unable to *appeal to the facts*.
It is amazing that you state that I have not presented any facts. You must have a strange definition of the term "fact"; either it is this or you did not read the original post. I here provide excerts from it; please read it as a magazine article, rather than fast-scan it (I often do this fast-scan myself):
quote: The Tutsi... began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa, probably in search of grazing land for their herds. Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived...Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture...--- World Book Online Reference Center
quote: In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language, perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants. (This has some similarities with the experience of the English, invaded by French speaking Normans in 1066.) The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia. That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area. It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs.
Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda; the Bantu-language of the Hutu majority. The fact that these ethnic groups share the same language is assumed to be the result of the Bahutu outnumbering the latter two groups.
quote: (One theory about) The Origin of Batutsi...has it that the Batutsi are not indigenous to East Africa. And that their original homeland might have been either Somalis or Ethiopia or Egypt. This theory is based, among other things on the fact that the Batutsi tend to resemble the Somali and Galla. -- http://www.ugandatravelguide.com/banyarwanda.html
I have deliberately left out the reactionary notion which states that by citing Somali, Ethiopia, or Egypt as a point of origin means supporting the "Hamitic myth!" It's like, if an Oromo were to tell you that he's from Ethiopia, you're repeating the "Hamitic myth!" What nonsense, but if one wants to read the complete text, I have included the website in the above quote. ...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: It is amazing that you state that I have not presented any facts.
I didn't. Here is exactly what I said.
To this point you have not related a single relevant fact.
Relevancy and factuality forming a logical 'and'.
Meaning you have presented no information that is both relevant, and factual, and that might so constitute evidence of Tutsi origins.
quote: You must have a strange definition of the term "fact".
Or perhaps you have and odd definition of the concept of relevancy, since I asked you about the Tutsi, and you respounded with off-point rhetorics involving Karl Marx and the Maya, which was so off-point as to be 'funny'. I am well within bounds for calling you out for distracting from your own topic for this.
But let's put the past irrelevancies aside and see if you can actually address your own topic, from this point....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I here provide excerts:
The Tutsi... began to arrive in their present lands in the A.D. 1300's or 1400's, coming from northeastern Africa
^ This is a claim, not a fact. There is no evidence that the Tutsi lived in NorthEast Africa in the 1300's.
STRIKE 1.
quote:Hutu people (also called Bahutu) were already living in the area when the Tutsi arrived...Over the centuries, the two groups developed a common language and culture.
This is another claim and not a fact. In order for this to be fact - you *must* demonstrate the Tutsi in the 1300's spoke a non Bantu language, you should be able to show linguistic evidence of this prior language in the modern Bantu langauge of the Tutsi and Hutu.
You have not done so, so you have presented no fact here either.
STRIKE II.
quote:In all these kingdoms a population of Bantu-speaking peasants had been conquered in the 14th or 15th century by a cattle herding people, believed to have been of Nilotic language
^ Commonly believed = logical fallacy - ad nauseum, not a statment of fact.
Again to make this a fact - please demonstrate this *Nilotic language* supposedly spoken by the *original* Tutsi. Again, you have not done so, and therefore you present no fact.
If you can't show that this Nilotic-Tutsi langauge exists, then you cannot logically claim it.
STRIKE III
By all rights, I should dismiss the rest of your post, but out of respect I will address the rest of it anyway...
quote: perhaps from the Ethiopian area or Sudan. The result was a feudal aristocracy descended from the cattle herders, the Tutsi, and a peasantry descended from the original Bantu speakers, the Hutu. All the aristocrats now speak the language of the peasants.
Another claim presented with no supporting evidence.
There is no evidence that the Tutsi have spoken Kirundi - Bantu any less *long* than the Hutu.
There is no evidence of any other language, for the Tutsi at all.
quote:The kingdoms had a system of officials and ceremonies similar to those of the Sidama kingdoms of modern Ethiopia.
This is superfluous and irrelevant since many African cultures have similarities. This does not demonstrate Egyptian origin. In fact, you yourself claim that the Yoruba of Nigeria and other Native West Africans also have such cultural similarities - the more common such similarites are among different Africans, the more diffuse the possible origins are. This does not prove Egyptian or Ethiopian origin.
quote: That is, the original cultural influences seem to have come partly from that area.
Seem to? Partly? Why? Your claim is appropriately weakly worded because there are no facts to support it.
quote: It is also possible that some ceremonies have been passed on from ancient Egypt of the Pharaohs.
Or possibly not, this could also apply the Hutu, the Zulu, the San and every people in Africa... or possibly not. Weakly worded claims are not evidence.
quote:Today, the Tutsi, Twa, and the Hutu all speak Kinyarwanda; the Bantu-language of the Hutu majority. The fact that these ethnic groups share the same language is assumed to be the result of the Bahutu outnumbering the latter two groups.
Assumed? Assumption is not evidence.
quote: The Origin of Batutsi...has it that the Batutsi are not indigenous to East Africa. And that their original homeland might have been either Somalis or Ethiopia or Egypt.
This statement not only contains no facts, but it is also factually in error as Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt *are* East African.
Now listen carefully Wally -> since you are apparently unable to distinguish fact from fallacy, I am going to actually relate some facts to you:
1) East African Somali, Ethiopian and Egyptians have predominently indigenous East African Y chromosome E3b.
2) Watutsi have and overwhelming frequency of West African E3a, and virtually no E3b.
3) Tutsi are therefore primarily West African in terms of geneology, and in terms of language.
4) There is actually no evidence from language, or genetics, or anthropology or archeology or native *oral* or written history in contradiction of the known facts.
You present *no facts* but rather irrelevancies and nonsenses, such as....
quote:This theory is based, among other things on the fact that the Batutsi tend to resemble the Somali and Galla.
^ Which is precisely the basis of Speke's Hamite myth and is utterly ridiculous since there are other Native West African who have similar appearance as the Tutsi, and morever, there are native East African whose appearance is similar to the Hutu.
quote:I have deliberately left out the reactionary notion which states that by citing Somali, Ethiopia, or Egypt as a point of origin means supporting the "Hamitic myth!"
^ Speke's Hamitic myth that Tutsi are a foreign race that came from Egypt to conquer the Bantu-negro, based on his envy of their physical appearance is *precisely* what you are parroting.
Note, parroting not supporting. To support it, you would have to bring something resembling evidence to the table.
But you have none...ALL YOU DO IS COPY HAMETIC HYPOTHESIS ad nauseum.
- no facts of relevancy.
- no critical thinking.
- just copying...like a parrot.
quote:It's like, if an Oromo were to tell you that he's from Ethiopia, you're repeating the "Hamitic myth!"
^ Logical fallacy - flawed analogy.
The Oromo are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, their language, their geneology, their oral and written history all testify to their Ethiopian origin.
There are no Tutsi in Ethiopia and there is no proof that there ever were any, their language, the *native* history, their geneology do not lend credence to Speke's Hamitic hypothesis which you parrot with no evidence.
quote:What nonsense
I agree. And I repeat, you have yet to relate a single relevant fact in support of your far fetched claims.
Anything else....?
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well we all know just what Kemson is "reloaded" with.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
The opposite is true. The only one claiming *a certain people* [Tutsi], have a certain original home [Egypt], is you.
We are simply asking you for proof.
Of course you don't have any, so the thread is already dead.
But we'll play it out, as we usually do.
These threads, in which you can't produce the evidence, typically end with you quoting Stockey Carmichael or Alica Keys.
LOL
quote:Originally posted by Grumman f6f: First Djehuti says this: "I don't know exactly what the factors were, but apparently micro-evolution must have happen to cause certain phenotypical differences.''
Then, in a hastily contrived response, blurted out to me:
''And do YOU have a better explanation since I recall you also dismissed the evolution of 'white' skin from black skin as nonsense yet we have genetic and other biomolecular evidence of this.''
..now read what Rasol says to me, unrelated to the above. And pay attention to it.
From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
''However a lack of definitive proof is neither and excuse nor justification for fostering hypothesis that contradict whatever evidence does exist.''
On Rasol's last paragraph: You want a definitive reason for my saying what I did? Read the opening remarks made by Djehuti in this very post.
Rasol wrote:
''The 1st Human Being ever was and African, -Herto Man- was borne in Ethiopia 150 thousand years ago.''
Born from whom?
Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, wait! That was the beginning of the first cell... You want to know how to get out of this conversation? Turn me back over to Djehuti.
ROFL @ Grumman f6f's post! As usual with this guy.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:From Rasol: ''Why? Do you know what micro evolution is?''
quote: (Yes, I know the explanation.)
I doubt it. If you understand it, explain it. If you disagree with it, explain why.
quote:Born from whom?
Hominids is 'from whom' 1st Homo-sapiens is borne.
quote:Or did you intend to say primordial soup?
No, but I mean now to say that you obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, and think to use sarcasm to cover your ignorance.
quote:So there were humans before these ''first humans''?
No.
quote:Is this the common (evolutionary) ancestor no one talks about?
We're talking about them now. Not my fault you haven't mastered public school biology.
quote:Here I was thinking you were on the verge of shutting me up
Seems like, as with Wally, you have nothing to say about the topic - so whether you shut-up or babble incessantly the result is the same - nothing intelligible is said.
quote:You want to know how to get out of this conversation?
Call you and idiot, and then ignore you? [/QB]
lol
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Origin mythos of the region's related kingdoms state all three groups 'Twa,' Hutu, and Tutsi are local indigenees given a gift from the Supreme Being which the Tutsi used the most wisely and hence their being the top ranking class. In other words there were just people and the labels became attached after the fact.
Fact is the rulership of the Rift kingdoms listened in rapt awe while Speke spouted stories of David and Solomon being their ancestors to them.
It is worth noting that while royal myth claimed a sacred origin for the mwami [tutsi king], they *never* claimed a foreign origin.
- Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda By Mahmood Mamdani
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
As new missionaries arrived, the myth of the Tutsi origin became more fanciful.
Samuel Baker promoted Speke's hypothesis of Ethiopian origin.
Pages' claimed they were descendant of Ancient Egyptians.
Dr. Lacger placed their origins in Melanesia, or Asia minor.
As more anthropologists started arriving, speculation about the Tutsi origin turned bizarre.
Some academicians suggested that they came from India, or even Tibet.
- Path to Collective Madness: A Study in Social Order and Political Pathology By Dipak K. Gupta
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, perhaps it is a little presumptious to say Herto man is thee first human.
You can say that again.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
He is the earliest one known from fossil evidence.
^The Chadian skull is not classified as being a member of Homo sapiens, although it is the first known Hominid. I believe Omo I, ca. 190 kya, is the oldest, pre-dating Herto man (Homo sapiens idaltu) by 30ky. There are some claims of older fossils, but their classification as Homo sapiens is disputed.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Correct. Let's stay on the topic of the Tutsi. If someone wants to create a thread on 1st Homo Sapiens that would be a great topic too.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Speke is the source-origin of the Tutsi Hamitic hypothesis.
All who state Tutsi come from Egypt/Ethiopia ultimately channel Speke [not Marx, Diop, or ancient Maya]; not the Tutsi - who are simply ignored, and not the evidence, which contradicts the Hamitic myth.
Speke had no evidence born from scholarship but rather based his views on racism.
Since there is no evidence cited by way of repetition of Spekes discredited Hamitic Hypothesis, all such claims are ad nauseum fallacies.
This fallacies ignore the evidence - such as the Tutsi Bantu langauge, and ignore requests for supporting evidence - such as claimed for Tutsi Ethiopian or Egyptian language, and instead simply repeat Spekes racist claims, ad nauseum.
At the root of this claim is the nasty assumption that true Africans - ie - Bantu, are encapable of forming complex societies.
The nefarious anthropologist Carleton used this prejudice as a springboard for his pseudo-scientific and racist theories......
The Story of Man
Carleton Coon
In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man.
In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Coons statement has been descredited by osteology, linguistics and genetics:
^ Tutsi have no Arabian [J] paternity.
There genetic profile is much like other West Africans in fact.
It is also the case that their main genetic line, [E3a] is one of the few African lineages that are not found in Ethiopia.
This renders the fantasy that they come from Ethiopia, and from the 15th century no less [about the same time period as African Americans would descend from primarily West Africans], extremely implausible.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Which means Wally wastes his time and energy repeating the Eurocentric lies he claims to be crusading against! Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ It's insideous.
Have to check priorities sometimes as well.
The priority -> isn't to use the Tutsi to claim and African origin of Egypt, or *prove* thru logical jump-ropes some African American connection to Egypt.
The priority is to establish a factual basis for discussing the history and origins of African peoples.
In repeating myths about Tutsi origins you deny them their right to their own history identity and nationhood.
This was the 'pseudo'-intellectual basis for the genocide to begin with.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
^The Chadian skull is not classified as being a member of Homo sapiens, although it is the first known Hominid. I believe Omo I, ca. 190 kya, is the oldest, pre-dating Herto man (Homo sapiens idaltu) by 30ky. There are some claims of older fossils, but their classification as Homo sapiens is disputed.
People post links, so that anyone who so chooses to read it *carefully*, doesn't make misinformed comments like this.
Who said anything about the Chadian skull to have been classified as a definitive modern human?
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
rasol, djehuti, and some others here: You are so deeply ingrained in the Eurocentric mold that you, perhaps unconsciously, project these shortcomings upon even the most simplistic observations. You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth" and simply cannot escape its wrath. If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba or the Fang or whoever; we would have no problem. And no one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim. And you all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming. I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion and the only response is a non-response by (hopefully) conscious evasion. and rasol, please spare me the DNA examples, which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you... the Tutsi, Wolof, Yoruba, Serer, etc., are all peoples who once formed the nation of Kemet, and subsequently migrated from this complex into the interior of Africa. This is an important aspect of African historical development.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: rasol, djehuti, and some others here: You are so deeply ingrained in the Eurocentric mold that you, perhaps unconsciously, project these shortcomings upon even the most simplistic observations. You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth" and simply cannot escape its wrath. If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba or the Fang or whoever; we would have no problem. And no one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim.
LOL Speak for yourself! You have not provided anything factual let alone relevant as it pertains to your claims and it is YOU who seems rather caught up in the Hamitic myth since you are the one repeating it!
quote:And you all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming. I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion and the only response is a non-response by (hopefully) conscious evasion. and rasol, please spare me the DNA examples, which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you...
Again superficial similarities in culture let alone similarities in facial features do NOT count as concrete evidence especially since the oral history of the Tutsis as well as archaeology and genetics contradicts such claims! You talk about belief of the eyes. But it is not a matter of vision so much as what one percieves from vision. Speke believed in his eyes "caucasian" ancestry due to the physical appearance of the Tutsi. Enough said.
quote: the Tutsi, Wolof, Yoruba, Serer, etc., are all peoples who once formed the nation of Kemet, and subsequently migrated from this complex into the interior of Africa. This is an important aspect of African historical development.
Again, neither archaeology nor the histories of all those West African groups you listed support in any way your claims of Nile Valley origins! You sound like some Eurocentrics in the past who claimed their Northwestern European ancestry whther it be Celtic or Germanic originated in the civilization of Greece! Nothing correct.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: You all seem to be imprisoned, for example, by the "Hamitic myth"
No, you are. Speke invented the Hametic myth for the Tutsi - you parrot Speke.
You have no ideas, facts research or evidences to present.... you can only quote Speke's Hametic myth, or quote others who quote Speke.
You are completely guilty of everything you accuse others of.
Your argument is a joke.
quote: If I had made the statement that the Mossi were the descendants of the Yoruba
^ We'd ask you for facts, and you wouldn't provide any, and then you'd start writing these worthless blowhard rhetoric posts, which attempt to hide the fact that you have no evidence for anything as usual.
quote:NO one would be asking for, not facts, but RELEVANT facts to substantiate this claim.
^ translation: You have no facts, and resent us for calling you out on it.
quote:You all don't even seem to grasp the profound level of this shortcoming.
You don't seem to grasp how obvious it is to us all that you've lost this argument because you have no facts.
Your posts reduce themselves to nothing but noisemaking meant to make yourself feel better.
quote:I have presented concrete evidence to support my conclusion
You have presented *NOTHING* but recitation of Hamite myth with absolutely no evidence or relevant facts and what's more - you know this - which is why you write a crybaby posts complaining about *US ALL* who ask you to produce facts which you don't have.
quote:rasol, please spare me the DNA examples
Can't do that Wally, sorry. It's factual evidence that completely debunks your preferred mythology derived from Spekes Hamite myth and corny Hollywood movies, that you mistake for some kind of evidence.
I know it frustrates you that we can relate facts and you can't, but....that's your problem.
quote:Which would suggest: Don't believe your eyes but believe what I tell you...
If you think you can determine geneology by 'looking' at people, while ignoring genetics, linguistics, archeology, anthropology, then you're even a bigger fool than Speke, and as such, not even worth debating.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Dejehut writes, LOL [wally] Speak for yourself! You have not provided anything factual let alone relevant as it pertains to your claims and it is YOU who seems rather caught up in the Hamitic myth since you are the one repeating it!
Of course.
Just listen to the would be Africanist scholar clinging by the fingernails to racist European mythology.
Meanwhile - he doesn't want to hear about linguistics, genetics, or anything that might interfere with absorbed propaganda from 19th century racist Europeans.
What a perverse triumph of European racism over the mind of a 21st century African man!
How sad.....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:rasol, please spare me the DNA examples
Let me get this right. You are begging me to stop relating evidence, because you have no answer to it?
FACTS FOR YOUR FRUSTRATION:
^ Tutsi overwhelmingly E3a -> E3a originates in West Africa, no E3a in Ethopia, case closed Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Damn, so hard, so cold, so matter of fact.
Question: What's all that NRY B in the Tutsi? Is it a whole lotta Twa jumping the fence? Pure ignant guesswork from a fella too lazy to look it up right now.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Damn, so hard, so cold, so matter of fact.
Question: What's all that NRY B in the Tutsi? Is it a whole lotta Twa jumping the fence? Pure ignant guesswork from a fella too lazy to look it up right now.
I don't like to sound harsh, but sometimes Wally tries my patience.
He is a skilled linguist by practice, but he completely ignores the linguistic evidence because it doesn't favor him.
He is and advocate for crediting primary textual and oral evidence of Africans of our own history - but he chooses to ignore the fact that Tutsi never made any claims about Ethiopia, or Egypt.
He credits European racist ideology over the Tutsi themselves, then he has nerve to refer to others as Eurocentric.
He presents the Hollywood Movie "King Solomon's Mines" as if it's some kind of "evidence."
But he ignores genetic data, which he pretends to regard as 'white mans evil juju', which I would call straight up racist [implication that Black people can't understand science, and shouldn't bother to try], coming from a non Black.
All this out of desparate need to attach African Americans to Egypt by using West and Central Africans as proxy.
Never mind that this *lie* makes Tutsi - settler invaders in their own land - and helped to justify their mass murder.
Afro American anti-intellectual posterings are what matter. Mass graves in Rwanda - don't matter.
His discourse is not merely dense and dishonest...it's immoral.
Now, I will post genetic data for the map above........
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
- J. R. Luis,1,2,* D. J. Rowold,1,* M. Regueiro,2 B. Caeiro,2 C. Cinniolu,3 C. Roseman,3 P. A. Underhill,3 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,3 and R. J. Herrera1
In contrast, group B is seen in all sub-Saharan collections except Benin and Bamileke. *In the Tutsi, the frequency of B2b-M112 is considerably higher than that of B2a-M150 (13.8% vs. 1.1%, respectively*), whereas the frequencies are similar in the Hutu (1.4% and 2.9%, respectively) and Tanzania (4.7% and 2.3%, respectively). Only B2a-M150 chromosomes were detected in southern Cameroon and Kenya (7.1% and 3.4%, respectively).
Hi resolution image breakdown of Tutsi Y chromosome:
B2b-M112 haplogroup is unreported outside of sub-Saharan Africa and is most common in hunter/gatherer populations across sub-Saharan Africa, notably the central African Pygmies and the SAK-speaking Ju|'hoansi (fig. 4; Knight et al. 2003; Wood et al. 2005). We detected the B2b haplogroup at a high frequency in the Hadza and at a moderate frequency in the Sandawe (figs. 4 and 7c). Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Excerpts from the book "Rwanda" by J.K. Pomeray, Chelsea House Publishers, 2000
quote: History at a glance
before 1300s A.D. Rwanda is inhabited by the Twa, forest-dwelling hunters-gatherers. The Hutu, a more agressive Bantu people, migrate into Rwanda from the north.
by 1300s Many small Hutu kingdoms are established. Each kingdom centers around a clan.
1300s-1400s Small groups of the Tutsi people migrate into Rwanda from the Nile River basin. Although the Hutu outnumber the Tutsi, the Tutsi, who are warriors and cattle herders, gradually gain political and economic power -- p10
quote: ...Next to arrive in Rwanda were the Tutsi, a tall, proud people who slowly migrated from their Nile River basin homelands between the 14th and 15th centuries...The Tutsi claimed the gods had chosen them to rule the Hutu, who far outnumbered them. This claim stemmed from the Tutsi legend of three children born in "the north" (the Tutsi equivalent of heaven)... --p34
quote: ... The Tutsi are descended from nomadic cattle herdsmen and warriors from the Nile River basin who settled in Rwanda about 500 years ago. During the centuries before independence, the Tutsi controlled Rwandan society. They held almost all government positions and owned most of the land and cattle. After independence, they lost power to the Hutu. -- p61
quote: Rwandans still speak Kinyarwanda, an ancient Bantu language. -- p58
The blending of the groups
quote: These three groups (Hutu, Tutsi, Twa) share a common language and culture, even though they have been divided by geographical and historical differences. In the decades since Rwanda gained independence, divisions between the Twa, Hutu, and Tutsi began to blur as members of the three groups interacted socially and even intermarried. -- p58
This gradual blending of the groups would end by civil war and *fratricide (legally called genocide); with the mass killing of the Tutsi (500,000 - 800,000) by the Hutu, beginning in 1994; the massive tragedy began...
*fratricide: killing of one's brother - this would be how a Pan-Africanist would define it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Small groups of the Tutsi people migrate into Rwanda from the Nile River basin.
-> MISLEADING claim.
You obscure the distinction between nile river valley and nile river basin.
Rwanda and Burundi are a part of the Nile Basin, along with Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Eritrea, Kenya, the Congo and Egypt.
You DO know this?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Nile River Basin defined: A drainage basin is a region of land where water from rain or snow melt drains downhill into a body of water, such as a river, lake, dam, estuary, wetland, sea or ocean.
^ upper nile river basin.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:These three groups (Hutu, Tutsi, Twa) share a common language and culture, even though they have been divided by geographical and historical differences. In the decades since Rwanda gained independence, divisions between the Twa, Hutu, and Tutsi began to blur as members of the three groups interacted socially and even intermarried
quote:Rwandans still speak Kinyarwanda, an ancient Bantu language. --
Actually the demarcation Tutsi and Hutu has always been blurred, it only became racially coded due to Spekes Hamite myth and his intellectual-bastard progeny.
In fact, Burundi, Buha and other small areas in Northern Congo also have Hutu and Tutsi, but the origin of the concept of 'Hutu' there differs from that in Rwanda.
But even if we treated your quoted passage as being unobjectionable, how does it help you?
Oh, wait, it's supposed to explain why you have no evidence of a Tutsi Egyptian/Ethiopian language, which as of the 14th century...disappeared off the face of the earth, leaving not a single syllable of evidence in it's wake.
Question Wally -> What name would you give this hypothetical language -> Coptic? Pre Coptic Egyptian?
You write...
quote:blending of the groups
.....then you can show the later Egyptian loan words *blended* with the Bantu sub-stratem?
No?
Then here's your problem Wally....
Excuses for *lack of* evidence are not evidence.
This still leaves you with no evidence and no facts of relevance, even after all these posts....
Anything else?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, unfortunately Wally still fails to offer any substantiation for his claims while Rasol offers plenty refuting them.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ One of the contradictions in Wally's Hamite-redux mythology is revealed thru his recitation of EW Budge:
Here is EW Budge's account of the origins of the Ancient Egyptian language, and consequently the Ancient Egyptians themselves:
It is impossible for me to believe that Egyptian is a Semitic language fundamentally. There are a very large number of words that are not Semitic and were never invented by a Semitic people. These words were invented by one of the oldest African people of the Nile valley of whose written language we have any remains. Their home lay far to the south, and all that we know of Predynastic Egypt suggests that it was in the neighborhood of the **Great Lakes. EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Dover, 1920
^ If Wally believes Nile Valley civilisation originates via Great Lakes Africans - then why does he requre that Great Lakes Africans be *descendant from* dynastic Egyptians?
Because of how they look?
Because of similarities in customs?
But.... that is basis for claiming and inner-African [Great Lakes] origin for Nile Valley Civilisation in the 1st place is it not.
Why can't Great lakes Africans be direct descendants of Neolithic [and earlier] populations?
Why must they have and *exotic* origin, which must be in Egypt, [regardless of the TOTAL LACK of evidence for this]?
Wally?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ The essential discourse over hamitic myth and the Tutsi is best broken down by contrasting Carleton Coons claims of exotic origin, with Jean Hiernaux's actual evidence of indigenous origin.
Coon: In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
Hiernaux:
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa [resemble] several living populations of East Africa, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. They should not be considered closely related to Europeans. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Hiernaux's findings, supported by subsequent genetic, linguistic and archeological evidence reason that it makes little sense to posit and alien origin for African peoples such as the Tutsi - based on physique, when similar remains of Africans from 10 thousand years ago and earlier are already found in the area.
Moreover these remains, as well the phenotype of their modern descendants, actually differ in a number of ways from almost all non Africans, therefore it makes no sense to posit a non African origin.
The idea that such peoples come from Egypt, is not as far fetched as the notion that they come from Arabia, or Tibet, but the basic error of the premise the same.
There is neither any evidence to posit that Tutsi come from either Dynastic Egypt or 14th Century Ethiopia, nor is their any *rationale* for positing this notion in the absence of evidence.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Non linear thinking has nothing to do with it. Bantu did NOT originate in the Nile Valley, let alone Egypt. And not all African peoples let alone those of West Africa originated in the Nile Valley either. Being a Marxist or Communist has nothing to do with that fact either.
It has EVERYTHING to do with it, as both you and rasol are constantly and consistently demonstrating this:
Examples of linear thinking:
A)You wrote: "Bantu did NOT originate in the Nile Valley, let alone Egypt."
I never made such a claim; however, both you and rasol seem to extrapolate this idea simply because the Tutsi, perhaps the Hutu as well, came from the Nile valley, you therefore infer "originated"
B) again you write: "not all African peoples let alone those of West Africa originated in the Nile Valley either."
yet another linear lapse, what I stated was never the naive suggestion that ANY people originated in the Nile Valley but was in general an agreement with the analysis made by C.A. Diop; that at a specific and well defined period of time that Blacks clustered in the ancient Nile Valley, having come there from the African interior, the birthplace of man.
C) and rasol makes the same error in thinking when he writes "This does not prove the Tutsi originate in Dynastic Egypt."
To come from a certain region or nation, does NOT mean that that is the place of origin; again, I would never make such a naive and incorrect statement that the Tutsi originated in Dynastic Egypt! The Tutsi, like most other Africans, as Diop posits, at one time inhabited this region; Kemet, as well as Kush were economic and cultural magnets, in the same manner that today it is the USA and Western Europe. This is historical reality, has nothing to do with the "Hamitic myth", and certainly isn't brain surgery!
P.S.: Not even the Twa are indigenous to the countries of Rwanda and Burundi; it is estimated that they only appeared there about 35,000 bc!
Linear thinking/time/etc. ...where things only occur once...
Dialectical thinking/time/etc. ...there is recursion...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:It has
I never made such a claim; however, both you and rasol seem to extrapolate this idea simply because the Tutsi, perhaps the Hutu as well, came from the Nile valley, you therefore infer "originated"
Uh, no, liar, it's what you said:
quote:Wally wrote: Not only are the Tutsi migrant Africans from Ethiopia, but came *originally from Kemet.*
^ My response to you was....
quote:Don't make claims you can't prove.
^ 25 posts later, best you can do is pretend you never claimed this.
Why not just wave the 'white flag' of surrender. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I would never make such a naive and incorrect statement that the Tutsi originated in Dynastic Egypt!
Yeah you did, and now you're busted.
So now what?
Maybe you can try dissembling with regards the difference between *came originally from* and *originated in*.
That's what a liar with no self respect would do.
Deny his own words, in order to defend his lying claims.
But, what will you do?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Not even the Twa are indigenous to the countries of Rwanda and Burundi; it is estimated that they only appeared there about 35,000 bc!
This is another desparate dissembling nonsensical statement.
There are so many things wrong with it, that I won't indulge you with correcting all the errors and so helping you change the subject - which is your intellectually bankrupt strategy [dont think i don't see this].
I will say this -> Why don't you go to the United Nations in New York, and try explaining to them how Native Americans are not really indigenous to North America because the came from Eurasia 15 thousand years ago.....
Let us know when this becomes the operative conceptualisation of the word indigenous.
Until then, get back to the topic of the Tutsi, or admit that you have nothing more to say about them, in which case....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Geeez, Sometimes you don't believe what others say!
Here's part of my original statement:
quote: To understand the origins of any African people, it is first necessary to understand the patterns of African migrations throughout history:
Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley (note: this is based upon the fact of an original peopling of the Nile Valley from the south and the west (ancient Sahara regions))
Simplified chronology Vis.a.Vis Ancient Egypt Recommended reading: The Peopling of Ancient Egypt & the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script (Paperback) by Cheikh Anta Diop (Author)
Diop's chronology:
a) As humankind began in East Africa it was likely that people were black skinned.
b) People populated other continents by moving either through the Sahara or the Nile Valley.
c) In the period before the start of the great Egyptian dynasties the whole of the Nile river basin was taken over by these negroid peoples.
Diop's comments on the Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley
quote: Where did the Black populations go? When we expounded, in Nations negres et culture, the thesis of a Negro Sahara, we encountered considerable hostility from those who considered themselves experts on the subject. Today, with the recent discoveries of Henri Lhote, refutation is no longer possible. In the section of Nations negres et culture on the peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley, the route from Egypt to the southwest now assumed special significance. In fact, it passes just south of Tassili N'Ajjer, where Lhote made the most important find of cave paintings of the century, after that of the Lascaux cave. This find enables us to affirm that, contrary to the ideas imposed on the world by scholars for 150 years, Egyptian cultural influences spread for thousands of kilometers in the direction of Black Africa. Tassili N'Ajjer was probably only one stop, located 3,000 kilometers (some 1,875 miles) from the Nile Valley. Those paintings establish an evident link between Egypt, the Sahara, and the rest of Black Africa. It is certain that Nubia also was a great center for the diffusion of cultural influence from the Nile Valley, a kind of hinge between Egypt and other parts of Black Africa. . . .
...
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
It would also *behoove those of you, who do not have one, to buy a Thesaurus, since the meaning of a word is not usually fixed nor rigid...
*behoove expect Synonyms: be expected, be fitting, be needful, be required, be requisite, be right, befit, beseem, owe, suit
...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yet all of this still does not exclude you from your earlier claims of Nile Valley origins for the Tutsi which you now try to dodge.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet all of this still does not exclude you from your earlier claims of Nile Valley origins for the Tutsi which you now try to dodge.
"What we have heah, is a failya ta communicate."
You guys are discussing oranges and I'm discussing apples, and am being accused of ducking oranges!
Let me try and explain the points that I have been making in the clearest form that I can summon up:
a) The Tutsi, like the Serer, Wolof, Yoruba, Akan peoples have been identified as groups who at one point in time formed part of the cluster of Africans in the ancient Nile Valley civilization; these groups have origins in this complex. origins - ancestry, antecedents
b) In this sense, these groups originated there; using the meaning "come from" which should NOT, by the contents of my remarks be confused with the meaning of "begin." Which can be easily understood because I made the preliminary point that
c) The peoples who first inhabited the Nile Valley, themselves, did not begin in the Nile Valley either!
d) The locus (the center or source) of where Africans, and thus, mankind has been generally agreed to have been East Africa. From this point, migrations by these peoples would be in all directions (there was no grand design for everyone to migrate north and out of Africa!).
e) There is a general consensus amongst most scholars that the Tutsi migrated recently from the Nile Valley, whereas the Hutu are considered part of the "Bantu" migrations from West/Central Africa; the Twa are said to have settled in Rwanda/Urundi more than 30,000 years ago, thus
f) except for the fact that they are all the descendants of the original Humans who inhabited the area, prior to the migrations (and of course, not everyone left the region), neither of these distinct peoples remained there, but instead, were part of the great African migrations...
Documentation on the Tutsi origins or migrations is less extensive than that of other Africans, in part due to the lack of a Tutsi scholar of the caliber of say, C. A. Diop. But we do know certain things, as I have mentioned, about the oral traditions of the Tutsi which states that they came from the north, and of the reason that they now speak a "Bantu" language, having adopted the language of the Hutu majority...
When the Tutsi, Wolof, Serer, etc, left the Nile Valley, they did not leave with these identities, but rather in the same manner that "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out of them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent; but a sea at the beginning of the world, and that it was afterwards made land by the river Nile."
Thus, Ethiopian emigrants would become in time, "Egyptians"...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:There is a general consensus amongst most scholars that the Tutsi migrated recently from the Nile Valley, whereas the Hutu are considered part of the "Bantu" migrations from West/Central Africa; the Twa are said to have settled in Rwanda/Urundi more than 30,000 years ago, thus
Although Diop successfully debunked the early dishonest Egyptologists, he was also making broad statements about linguistic relationship between Wolof Fulani and AE. And he was among the scholars who advanced the idea of a Nile Valley Tutsi origin, however genetics shows that it was just ridiculous statements when you look at the genetic makeup of Wollof, Fulani and Tutsi and the fact that they all speak Niger-Congo languages. And talking about the North as Wally affirms...the North of Rwanda is Uganda not Egypt...and it seems that the Rwanda monarchy originated from there...No, Tutsi, Wolof, Serer or Fulani don't have anything to do linguistically or historically with AE. The Batwa and Bahutu can claim such ancestry as much as the Tutsis since they are almost identical linguistically and genetically with respect to the Tutsi...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. And *all* evidence shows that Tutsi are Bantus also and did not come from the Nile Valley but share the same origins as Hutu.
Posted by Nadeed (Member # 14367) on :
wally you're a congoid jareer. you have nothing to do with the tutsis or ancient egyptians or for that matter north africa.
so you can just drop all of these wild travel theories. however i have a travel "fact" for you. we east africans use to travel to west africa and capture adoons to sell to the west asians. so maybe you should go looking for your ancestors on the other side of the red sea. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ There is no such thing as a "Congoid" which is a debunked racial term. 'Jareer' is a Somali epithet for Bantus in Somalia, but Tutsi if you've been paying attention are Bantus also!
So I suggest you stop with your ignorant trolling which is beginning to (if not already) turn idiotic. Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
...You guys need to read more. The following is written almost everywhere...
quote: The Tutsi began to appear in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, migrating from the Nile region in present-day Sudan and Ethiopia south and west in search of new cattle pastures. The Tutsi are tall, martial people, and while they never accounted for more than their current 15 percent of the population, they established economic and political control of the region, effectively subduing the Twa and the Hutu majority. From the seventeenth through the nineteen centuries, the kingdom continued to expand, eventually encompassing...
"Bantu" Tutsi of Urundi
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
The fact that those Burundian Tutsi officials speak a Bantu language and have the same blood genetically as their Hutu brothers means that they are Bantu as well, Diop and other Europeans and obviously Wally don't have any proof that they came from the Nile Valley other than speculations about similarities between Tutsis and some North Eastern Africans. Some Fulani fall into that trap claiming an Ethiopian ancestry just based on features...but it has been shown that genetics and phenotype often don't correlate, as an example Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia look like Central and West Africans but they don't share anything genetically: Tutsi speak a Bantu language, are genetically linked to other Bantu even Batwa of Central East Africa...thus Tutsi are Bantu. AE spoke an Afro-Asiatic language and are related genetically to North East African and Africans from the horn...Tutsi are not related genetically to AE...it's impossible as you, Diop and others think that Tutsi came from Ethiopia, Egypt and Somalia...it's impossible genetically and to a certain extent linguistically...impossible....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ...You guys need to read more. The following is written almost everywhere...
The Tutsi began to appear in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, migrating from the Nile region in present-day Sudan and Ethiopia south and west in search of new cattle pastures. The Tutsi are tall, martial people, and while they never accounted for more than their current 15 percent of the population, they established economic and political control of the region, effectively subduing the Twa and the Hutu majority. From the seventeenth through the nineteen centuries, the kingdom continued to expand, eventually encompassing...
LOL We read all the time, which is why we know that the above excerpt is European garbage and that archaeology, genetics, and the Tutsis own traditions do not support the above conjecture! Rwandans may have fallen for the Europeans ruse, and YOU have too, but that doesn't mean everyone has.
quote:"Bantu" Tutsi of Urundi
There is no need to put quotes around the label Bantu, because that is exactly what the Tutsi are!
They speak Bantu languages and there is no evidence whatsoever that they have spoken anything else, let alone that they came from Ethiopia!
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
On that note I know that Tutsi are uncomfortable with the fact of being associated with Somali, Ethiopians or North Eastern Africans, because there are few Somalis who live in the Great Lake(Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda) region and are dismissed as Arabs because some have obvious non Black admixture(Arab blood), they have the same attitude with respect to Ethiopians...they probably would have the same attitude towards ancient Egyptians...It seems that the Tutsis view themselves as Black people without ambiguity unlike Somali and Ethiopians...And genetics doesn't contradict them since they obviously don't have Western Asian blood unlike Horners and maybe AE...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
as an example Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia look like Central and West Africans but they don't share anything genetically:
What do these Nilo-Saharans carry genetically, that is absent amongst Central and West Africans?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
E3b haplogroups are very rare in West and Central Africa, broad faced groups from those areas as well narrow faced groups (like the Tutsi) have very few of these haplogroups whereas the Ethiopian Nilo Saharans have nil E3a haplogroups, actually they even have less than the Somalis whose frequency is around 5%. Haplogroups A are also rare except among Tuaregs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: On that note I know that Tutsi are uncomfortable with the fact of being associated with Somali, Ethiopians or North Eastern Africans, because there are few Somalis who live in the Great Lake(Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda) region and are dismissed as Arabs because some have obvious non Black admixture(Arab blood), they have the same attitude with respect to Ethiopians...they probably would have the same attitude towards ancient Egyptians...It seems that the Tutsis view themselves as Black people without ambiguity unlike Somali and Ethiopians...And genetics doesn't contradict them since they obviously don't have Western Asian blood unlike Horners and maybe AE...
To add to Mystery's question, which Somalis have "obvious non black admixture"?? How is this obvious and to what features does it entail? Last time I checked, the only Somalis with Arab admixture are the Banadir minority.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:which Somalis have "obvious non black admixture"
Somalis are among the closest people to Yemen geographically, they lived side by side for thousands years...some have obvious foreign admixture, it's not only confined to the Banadir people...although genetic doesn't necessaraly correlate with phenotype, we cannot forget the fact that genetic sampling shows a frequency of 15% of West Asian ancestry among Somali on the Y chromosome side...the Banadir are less than 1% of the population. Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
E3b haplogroups are very rare in West and Central Africa, broad faced groups from those areas as well narrow faced groups (like the Tutsi) have very few of these haplogroups whereas the Ethiopian Nilo Saharans have nil E3a haplogroups, actually they even have less than the Somalis whose frequency is around 5%. Haplogroups A are also rare except among Tuaregs.
*Wrong answer. The question was: what did these Nilo-Saharans carry genetically that is *absent* from Central and West Africans?
E3b is by no means absent or rare in West Africans. In fact, its coastal north areas are replete with this lineage...but of course, to you, like the Eurocentrists that you parrot, something which you proclaim to be free of yourself but tag it onto Africans whom you proclaim to be living closely with Euro folks, that part of Africa ceases to be part of west Africa, but you go onto hypocritically put sub-Saharan east African into one basket as Northeast Africa...just as your Eurocentric mentors do:
E3b in sub-Saharan West Africa extends as far west as Senegal, a region which has one of the highest frequencies of E3a, but no Bantu speakers. According to Cruciani et al.'s break down of Hg E frequencies:
At least according to this study, certain E3b-M78 chromosomes appear more frequently in the Senegalese Mandikas than the Tuaregs. It is all a matter of sampling, which only takes into account only a given section of a society at given time.
*As far as Ethiopian Nilo-Saharan groups having nil E3a - according to you, which study specifically dealing with "Ethiopian Nilo-Saharans" and *not* a composite of diverse Ethiopian ethnicities, attests to this?
* You say: "Haplogroups A are also rare except among Tuaregs." - by Africa I
^This is not supported by evidence. Haplogroup A-M90 pops up in various tested west African groups in various studies, but perhaps an example of a single study that lays to rest almost every point you've put forth in your comment, is this:
The Guinea-Bissau Y chromosome pool is characterized by low haplogroup diversity (D=0.470, sd 0.033), with the predominant haplogroup E3a*-M2 shared among the ethnic clusters and reaching a maximum of 82.2% in the Mandenka people. The Felupe-Djola and Papel groups exhibit the highest diversity of lineages and harbor the deep-rooting haplogroups A-M91, E2-M75 and E3*-PN2, typical of Sahel's more central and eastern areas. Their genetic distinction from other groups is statistically significant (P=0.01) though not attributable to linguistic, geographic or religious criteria. Non sub-Saharan influences were associated with the presence of haplogroup R1b-P25 and particular lineages of E3b1-M78...
The predominance and high diversity of haplogroup E3a*-M2 suggests a demographic expansion in the equatorial western fringe, possibly supported by a local agricultural center. The paternal pool of the Mandenka and Balanta displays evidence of a particularly marked population growth among the Guineans, possibly reflecting the demographic effects of the agriculturalist lifestyle and their putative relationship to the people that introduced early cultivation practices into West Africa. The paternal background of the Felupe-Djola and Papel ethnic groups suggests a better conserved ancestral pool deriving from East Africa, from where they have supposedly migrated in recent times. Despite the overall homogeneity in a multiethnic sample, which contrasts with their social structure, minor clusters suggest the imprints of multiple peoples at different timescales: traces of ancestral inhabitants in haplogroups A-M91 and B-M60, today typical of hunter-gatherers; North African influence in E3b1-M78 Y chromosomes, probably due to trans-Saharan contacts; and R1b-P25 lineages reflecting European admixture via the North Atlantic slave trade. - Rosa et al. 2007
Granted that this study itself has its intellectual shortcomings, like E3b1-M78 being deemed as "non sub-Saharan influences", it is noteworthy for the lineages it does mention in West Africans sampled.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Also AFRICA I, why do you insist that Somalis are mixed with Yemenis when the vast majorit of Somalis do not carry any Arab ancestry?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:That means that they are Bantu as well, Diop and other Europeans and obviously Wally don't have any proof that they came from the Nile Valley
^ Africa = Bottom line.
Wally = argue in circles when you have no proof.....
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:"Bantu" Tutsi of Urundi
^
"Afro-Asiatic" Hamar of Ethiopia.
^ Now Wally resorts to attempting to restrict African phenotype to stereotypes of Bantu true Negro.
It's just sad how misguided Africanists eventually end up repeating white-supremacist mythology almost ver batim.
Meanwhile, you have failed in over a week of 'free-opportunity' to dissemble, to make any point, or present any facts of relevance.
There is *no* evidence that Tutsi come from dynastic Egypt or Ethiopia, and you know it, so any continued claims by you to this effect as dismissed as propaganda-lie.
Luckily for you, the conversation is waundering off topic.
Maybe that can save you, it has before.... Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Diop's comments on the Peopling of Africa from the Nile Valley
Boooooooo.
The questions asked that you duck and run away from, just pile up, and so embarrass you.
While you lean on Diop like a crutch, with commenatary irrelevant to your claims that Tutsi originate in Dynastic Egypt.
Since then, you've turned around and denied claiming that the Tutsi have any specific origin [maybe you should reconsider both your argument and the title of *your* thread].
And you throw Diop in front of us as martyr for your ridiculous arguments and lack of proof.
But I'll discuss Diop line for line anyway, because right or wrong he's always coherent, and doesn't run away, or play rhetorical games....like you do.
Diop:
quote:Where did the Black populations go? When we expounded, in Nations negres et culture, the thesis of a Negro Sahara, we encountered considerable hostility from those who considered themselves experts on the subject.
^ Yes, relates the following, which I posted on page one:
Archeological data, or the absence of it, have been interpreted as sug-gesting a population hiatus in the settlement of the Nile Valley betweenthe epipaleolithic and the neolithic/predynastic, but this apparent lack could be due to material now being covered over by the Nile (see Connorand Marks 1986, Midant-Reynes 2000, for a discussion). Analagous toevents in the Atacama Desert in Chile (Nuñez et al 2002), a moister moreinhabitable eastern Sahara gained more human population in the latepleistocene-early holocene (Wendorf and Schild 1980, Hassan 1988,Wendorf and Schild 2001). If the hiatus was real then perhaps many Nile populations became Saharan. - SOY Keita.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Diop: Today, with the recent discoveries of Henri Lhote, refutation is no longer possible.
Wally, when we attempt to warn you against outdated Diop quotes, you refuse to listen.
In doing so, you play yourself cheap, and make a fool of yourself as you just did.
Henri Lhote:
The Lhote Hoax
Lohote published in his book two paintings which had an unmistakable ancient egyptian influence, yet were strangely different. This caused quite a stir in scholarly circles, as it seemed like unrefutable proof of contact between the Tassili and Ancient Egypt. Eventually it emerged, that the paintings were done by one of the playful artists of the Lhote team, who was familiar with the ancient egyptian style. The hoax misled Lhote himself, who argued very authentically about this cultural link in his book, and probably only became aware that he was set up much later (The pictures were reproduced up to the early seventies editions of his book). By now the paintings have been discretely erased from Jabbaren and Aurenghet, and the Touareg guides shake their head if the photos are shown, having never seen them.
Wally when are you going to get it thru your stubbornly obsolete skull, that Eurocentrists like Lhote are only interested in claiming demic-diffusion of every element of African high culture from and ultimately *non African* in their twisted view - Dynastic Egypt.
The case is actually the saharan high culture itself long precedes dynastic Egypt, and is one of the sources of Ancient Nile Valley Civilization.
The artwork in question is most particularly related to the Fulani, and is even referenced as proto-Fulani, and dates from as early 8000 years ago.
This also re-opens the issue of the contradiction in your Egypto-centric discourse, which need to claim and *Egyptian origin* for everything, even things which predate Egypt.
And when you can't show this....you retreat behind childishly circular arguments [does anyone originate anywhere? ],and then congratuate yourself for non linear thinking.
Dude.....pleease.
See the following, update your intellect, and stop mis-using Diop...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet all of this still does not exclude you from your earlier claims of Nile Valley origins for the Tutsi which you now try to dodge.
^ Trying and failing. To run away from a claim, [rewording, rephrasing, dissembling, changing the subject] is to admit that the claim was foolish bo begin with.
case closed.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
Tutses are nothing but another Nilotic African group. They belong to the Nilotic stock, Just like the Masai, Nuers, Dinkas, etc...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Tutses are nothing but another Nilotic African group. They belong to the Nilotic stock, Just like the Masai, Nuers, Dinkas, etc...
Well, Nilo-saharan is most properly a language, it's not really a 'stock', or common ancestry.
My take on Nilo saharan is as follows....
* Like all language families, it's boundaries are not clear, and there is likely both a deep-time relationship and recent loan word relationship between Nilo-saharan, Niger Congo, and Afrisan [so called Afro Asiatic].
Nilo saharan speakers may be among the originators of cattle domestication, and helped to spread it thru the Nile Valley, the sahara, and West Africa.
Cattle rearing is a kind of culture, which may, in the sahara, tend to favor [via selection] and elongated phenotype.
Thus these Saharans spread through-out Africa along different language and lineage lines.
Fulani and Tutsi are primarily West African - genetically, and speak Niger Congo languages.
Dinka and Masai are East African genetically and speak Nilo saharan.
Oromo and Hamar are East African genetically and speak Afrisan.
People forget that the ancient and original African cattle culture spread all the way thru Southern Africa, and now encompasses South African Bantu and Khoisan speakers as well.
The lesson should be that ancestry [or stock], language and phenotype are distinct, and have complicated relationships.
And African American who thinks he can look at Shaquille O'Neil and pronounce him 'Congoid', and then look at Kobe Bryant and pronounce him 'Nilotic' where these are 'distinct stocks'..... is just kidding himself.
He will end up in Wally's position where the claim is repeated but no proof is ever presented, because the claim makes no sense and no proof exists.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Tutses are nothing but another Nilotic African group. They belong to the Nilotic stock, Just like the Masai, Nuers, Dinkas, etc...
That's a bold statement...what is Nilotic African group for you?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
While Lhote was certainly a European he was not Eurocentric in any sense of the word as it applies to being anti-black. For instance, see his attribution of metallurgy to "Sudanese" (clickable link) in the face of standard archaeology which claimed iMazighen origins or Levantine origins for iron in Africa.
To Lhote's credit he had nothing to do with the Bird Headed Women painting or other paintings reminescent of ancient Egyptian art.
Members of his art team pulled that one over on him. When he realized what happened he saw to it that later editions of his work excluded the fraud and all textual references to it.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: While Lhote was certainly a European he was not Eurocentric in any sense of the word as it applies to being anti-black. For instance, see his attribution of metallurgy to "Sudanese" (clickable link) in the face of standard archaeology which claimed iMazighen origins or Levantine origins for iron in Africa.
To Lhote's credit he had nothing to do with the Bird Headed Women painting or other paintings reminescent of ancient Egyptian art.
Members of his art team pulled that one over on him. When he realized what happened he saw to it that later editions of his work excluded the fraud and all textual references to it.
^ You're right. I stand corrected on the characterisation of Lhote as a Eurocentrist.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:What we have heah, is a failya ta communicate.
^ translation: failed thesis. circular arguments. bad excuses.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMFO
Using Wally's pic against him!
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
A and E3b haplogroups are rare in West Africa. From your source:Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective Alexandra Rosa,corresponding author1,2 Carolina Ornelas,1,2 Mark A Jobling,3 António Brehm,2 and Richard Villems1
quote:The paternal background of the Felupe-Djola and Papel ethnic groups suggests a better conserved ancestral pool deriving from East Africa, from where they have supposedly migrated in recent times. ......... The Djola's oral tradition claims an arrival from Sudan in the 15th-16th centuries which is supported by their carrying the lowest fraction of E3a* in our dataset (58.0%). At the same time, the relatively short time of residence and/or the genetic isolation on cultural grounds has not contributed to a greater homogeneity among the peoples. The Papel, curiously also affiliated to the Bak-speakers, may either represent a legacy left by earlier inhabitants of the Guinean delta, survivors of an ancient pool through demographic reductions and expansions, or later arrivers who have preserved a more discrete genetic identity.
Of greater prevalence in the East quadrant of Africa and among South African Khoisan (~12% and 15%, respectively; [2,5]) the paragroup E3b*-M35 is common to Felupe-Djola and Papel (~2%) but is also found among Fulbe and Mandenka (~4%). Its presence at ~2% in Guinea-Bissau and ~5% in Senegal may also indicate loose relationships to the North, where it is widespread at rather low frequencies (2–4%, [1,26,33-35]. A similar scenario of Eastern prevalence and North African spread traces the African distribution of E3b1-M78 (~26% in Sudan and Ethiopia and 19% in NW-African Arabs), not to mention the ~7% in the Near Eastern and European people [1,5,26,33-35]. In Guinea-Bissau this haplogroup attains the highest frequency so far reported for West Africa (~4%). ..... Conclusion: The analysis of our data provides further evidence for the homogeneity of the Y chromosome gene pool of sub-Saharan West Africans, due to the high frequency of haplogroup E3a-M2. Its frequency and diversity in West Africa are among the highest found, suggesting an early local origin and expansion in the last 20–30 ky. Hypothesizing on the existence of an important local agricultural centre, this could have supported a demographic expansion, on an E3a-M2 background, that almost erased the pre-existing Y chromosome diversity. Its pattern of diversity within Mandenka and Balanta hints at a more marked populational growth, these people possibly related to the local diffusion of agricultural expertise. The Papel and Felupe-Djola people retain traces of their East African relatives, to which the short timescale of residence in Guinea-Bissau and higher isolation from major influences have contributed. In the near absence of archaeological data, the signatures of North, Central and East Africans, traceable in less frequent extant paternal haplogroups, fit well with the linguistic and historical evidence regarding the origin and admixture processes of particular ethnic groups. Minor influences of North and East Africa, in particular, are corroborated by mtDNA data.
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
Tutsi are West African now, rasol? I'm confused.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Tutsi probably originated in Western or Central Sahara based on genetics and the genetic affiliation between Ankole cattle in the Great Lake region of Africa where the Tutsi live and Kuri cattle in Chad.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Tutsi are West African now, rasol? I'm confused.
The Tutsi are of course Central Africans, but they are Bantu also and as genetics shows they share lineages not only with other Bantu of Central Africa but with other non-Bantu peoples of West Africa via E3a lineages.
AFRICA I's findings on the Tutsi's cattle only further supports this.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The "issue" itself evaporates once we stop trying to separate Africans into stereotypes.
In South Africa Aparteid Boers contrived the idea that Bantu are immigrants, and only Khoisan are native.
This was nice ruse rhetoric since it facilitated a denial of the existence of the indigenous Black majority.
In reality the Apartheid line between Bantu and Khoisan makes no sense as up to 1/3rd of the maternity of South African Bantu is traceable to Khoisan female - pre Bantu expansion, and up to 30 percent of some Khoisan paternity is likewise traceable directly to the Bantu expansion.
Too, Bantu languages of South Africa have unique characteristics relating them to Khoisan languages, so even the language distinction is not absolute.
What is sensible from a Khoisan and Bantu perspective of course is the recognition that they are inextricably related, and both indigenous.
Even the geographical boundaries within Africa become meaningless over time as all Africans ultimately come from rift valley and our ancestories from that point on have waundered all over the continent.
As Africans, we have to stop letting Eurocentrists out-manouver us into repeating after *their* concepts of ethnicity, which are invaribably meant to service bogus European claims to other peoples history, other peoples lands, and other peoples resources.
This should be the hard-won lesson of this thread.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
A and E3b haplogroups are rare in West Africa.
Your post speaks of cluelessness. You were asked to produce genetic markers that you intend to attribute to Ethiopian Nilo-Saharans that are supposedly ****absent****[intensely emphasized, because you keep yourself ignorant of the word] in West Africans, but you produce none. Remember, you said this:
as an example Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia look like Central and West Africans but they don't share anything genetically - Africa I
This is clearly not supported by evidence, or else you would have delivered - you can’t deliver what doesn’t exist. Your desperate self can only then cling onto evidence used to discredit your post above, and try to use it to make yet another ridiculous claim.
Guineans have all the lineages that you’ve proclaimed to be rare in West Africa, and Guineans are but only one nationality of west Africa. You were shown yet another independent study that reveals E3b lineages in Senegalese Mandinkas, Tuaregs and Moroccans, along with a link which shows more of the same in that region. You keep harping on about how Blacks who live with Whites in a single nation are prone to being brainwashed by Eurocentric propaganda, but your claims show that you are the one who suffers from this condition. You repeat word for word what your Eurocentric teachers have taught you without critical analysis, and have been unable to break the mental shackles. Case in point, is your idea of what even constitutes 'west Africa', your unwavering unfounded stereotypes of Africans into regional "types", and your imaginery absolute genetic "apartheid" between Africans.
Genetic studies can only deal with a certain sample size, and since this never covers an entire nation or region, what are the odds that a rare lineage would be *noticeably* represented in a sample from a designated region not only once, but time and again. You need to start thinking out of the box and you cannot do this, if you don’t understand the science at hand, but simply parrot what you think is being said in one or the other study.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
A and E3b are rare among west Africans...your own sources say that and everyone knows it. There is a strong genetic homogeneity in WA as your article mentioned...you know better.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: A and E3b are rare among west Africans...your own sources say that and everyone knows it. There is a strong genetic homogeneity in WA as your article mentioned...you know better.
There are some West Africans with not insignificant amounts of E3b, including Wolof and Taureg, and Mauritania Berber.
Don't forget South East and Southern Africa tends to have the highest amount of underived E3b, presumably dating back to paleolithic migration of Rift Valley Africans to both the North [horn] and South [cape].
The point is not to divide East from West, but only to distinguish fact from fiction where Tutsi origin is concerned.
There is no evidence they originate in Dynastic Egypt, or Ethiopia.
Europeans started this myth, not the Tutsi and not the Hutu. Other people just repeat it without proof or thought, which is the worse way to spread a rumor.
Posted by EriDjEthioSom (Member # 14399) on :
Tutsi were originally Massai type of people who use to rule the majority Bantu primitives in Central Africa. Bantu are the shame of Africa and they gave us all a bad image with their canibalism, Voodoo, Dudu, Zombies, Fufu and so on. They also look like apes. I am really sorry really that they hunted and eaten the poor pgmies into extintion. I am glad they don't live any where near to my country Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Mod please remove the above and ban.
Other discussant should give the mod a chance to ban rather than reply.
Posted by EriDjEthioSom (Member # 14399) on :
^ For expressing my views?
Posted by Charlie Bass (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: ^ For expressing my views?
Mayne, quit trolling the forum and get a life. Is ES now a troll's haven? This is annoying. If there's a drawback to this forum its that mods cannot immediately ban trolls like you you idiot.
Posted by EriDjEthioSom (Member # 14399) on :
^ Saying Bantus have hunted the small men pgmies inti extintion or they pranctise Voodoo and black magic isn't trolling my friend. It's a fact.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: ^ Saying Bantus have hunted the small men pgmies inti extintion
Europeans brought pygmies back in cages and hunted Bushmen like animals.
quote:or they pranctise Voodoo and black magic isn't trolling my friend. It's a fact.
Compare the so called evils done by voodoo with Christianity and Islam, plus voodoo priests are supposed to be healers not curse people
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: Tutsi were originally Massai type of people who use to rule the majority Bantu primitives in Central Africa. Bantu are the shame of Africa
Bantus spread iron working technology and Civilization throughout Africa
4. The Bantu Migrations
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
I might be confused but aren’t most of Africa's civilizations Bantu?
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
A and E3b are rare among west Africans...your own sources say that and everyone knows it.
Like the studies posted here, that contradict you.
Tell me:
What is West Africa? Where does it begin and end?
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
There is a strong genetic homogeneity in WA as your article mentioned...you know better.
Try me. According to what study, telling us that only a single lineage is found in WA?
For a supposed African, you sure are quite ignorant of Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: Tutsi were originally Massai type of people who use to rule the majority Bantu primitives in Central Africa. Bantu are the shame of Africa and they gave us all a bad image with their canibalism, Voodoo, Dudu, Zombies, Fufu and so on. They also look like apes. I am really sorry really that they hunted and eaten the poor pgmies into extintion. I am glad they don't live any where near to my country
ROTFLMAO
I'm sorry, but sometimes the studpidity is so great one can only laugh! Yet at the same time I am deeply disturbed and can only wonder what actual harm this guy is capable of! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: Tutsi were originally Massai type of people who use to rule the majority Bantu primitives in Central Africa. Bantu are the shame of Africa
Bantus spread iron working technology and Civilization throughout Africa
Correct. Before the Bantu expansions/migrations, Central and Southern Africans were living in the stone age.
^ Notice all the 'Bantu' kingdoms of Central and Southern Africa.
Also, this thread has already shown that Tutsi are and have been Bantu! They were not Nilotic nor Afrasian speaking groups from the Horn or the Nile Valley. This is proven through archaeology, linguistic, and genetics, not to mention the Tutsis' own oral histories!
As for the other nonsense of hunting and eating Pygmies to extinction,.. LMAO Well we know that is just crazy fantasy by our Bantu-phobic friend. Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
Which kingdoms on that map are Bantu, does it include west Africa like Mali as will as east/south Africa? The migrations started some where in modern eastern Nigeria right, so was Nok the originater?
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
This map doesn't make sense.
If you are going to make a map of ancient societies then half of these names should be excluded. But if your going the whole way to Medieval times then alot of soceties are missing.
I mean what the hell is "Lunda" "Lozi", "Luba" and "buganda", how old are these places? If they are from "middle ages" then why don't i see Moqdishu, Brava, Merka and Zeyla which were international trading cities in Somalia known from Persia to the whole of Middleaeast, Northern Africa, India and China. Why don't i see the empires of Marocco such as Almoravid and Almohad that streched the whole way into European coasts like spain and sicily? And also Harar with it's walled city and Mosques considered one of the holiest places of Islam? Is this a Bantucentric map??
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Try me. According to what study, telling us that only a single lineage is found in WA?
That's what you said just in the above quote...quote me... A and E3b haplogroups are rare among broad faced west Africans compare to broad faced Africans in East Africa...you are disgressing...the focus is on the origin of the tutsis...one poster reminded you about that...
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: I mean what the hell is "Lunda" "lozi" and "buganda", how old are these places? If they are from "middle age" times then why don't i see Moqdishu, Brava, Merka and Zeyla which were international trading cities in Somalia known from Persia to the whole of Middleaeast, Northern Africa, India and China.
Lunda was an established pre-colonial African empire, or confederation with its capital comprised of 175,000 inhabitants and a formidable military force. Medieval Somali consisted of as you put it.."trading cities".. The map is an overview of actual kingdoms and empires, not trading cities... Though curiously, the Swahili city-states are included, so you actually may have a point.
Posted by Nefar (Member # 13890) on :
"Bantu are the shame of Africa and they gave us all a bad image with their canibalism, Voodoo, Dudu, Zombies, Fufu and so on."
lmao. This statement was so ignorant it was funny. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
I have the impression that for many Somali: Bantu = Black without Arab ancestry or something similar. The way they dump all Africans in that category is puzzling. I've been victim of that categorization by Yonis. But I think it's pure ignorance anyway. It's like anything that was not in contact with the Arabs is backward. It is pretty similar to the Northern Arab mentality but with a spin: they are Somalis not Arabs...
Posted by Nefar (Member # 13890) on :
^ I really don't think most Somalis think that way. maybe a few especially on ES.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Try me. According to what study, telling us that only a single lineage is found in WA?
That's what you said just in the above quote...quote me... A and E3b haplogroups are rare among broad faced west Africans compare to broad faced Africans in East Africa...you are disgressing...the focus is on the origin of the tutsis...one poster reminded you about that...
You've been exposed as a person who's clueless about Africa, but pretends to know something about it.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
You can't eve quote me...you are not only clueless about Africans but also about your own sources..
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: You can't eve quote me...
You'd find your nonesensical quote(s) in my response(s)which has been pulverized instantly, with no effective comeback from you or answers to the specific questions asked, but you are too incapacitated to take notice.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
You pulverized yourself with your own sources...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
My words have been marked, apparently:
with no effective comeback from you or answers to the specific questions asked; case in point:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
You pulverized yourself with your own sources...
^The best you can do. A joke.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Sundiata: Lunda was an established pre-colonial African empire, or confederation with its capital comprised of 175,000 inhabitants and a formidable military force. Medieval Somali consisted of as you put it.."trading cities"..
Moqdishu and other trade locations in Somalia were internationally known during the early middle ages from China to the Medditeranian Europe(that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language), i don't think i can say the same international trade existed when it comes to "Lunda". That's why i consider this map Bantucentric.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
You can't eve quote me...you are not only clueless about Africans but also about your own sources...
You might think that a clueless non-African who babbles on about African issues is a bad thing, but it doesn't get as bad as a self-proclaimed African who is densely ignorant of Africa, and is exactly what he charges other posters with: a pristine Eurocentric parrot, who wouldn't know how genetic studies are supposed to be used, even if a pamphlet was thrown at you and hit your head like a ton of bricks.
Where are your answers to those primary school level questions I threw at you? That's right, you aren't intellectually equipped to answer them.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
That's religious folklore, propagated by some clerics through centuries. Same things happends in indonesia and western China. You will never meet a Darod that considers himself as from anywhere than Somalia. Somalis especially Darods don't really like arabs, Arabs such as Saudis.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by markellion:
quote:Originally posted by EriDjEthioSom: Tutsi were originally Massai type of people who use to rule the majority Bantu primitives in Central Africa. Bantu are the shame of Africa
Bantus spread iron working technology and Civilization throughout Africa
Only partly true, in that yes, iron technology was spread by Bantu migrations to the regions where they headed, but iron technology itself in West Africa predates this migration.
IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY
24-06-2002 10:00 pm Paris - Africa developed its own iron industry some 5,000 years ago, according to a formidable new scientific work from UNESCO Publishing that challenges a lot of conventional thinking on the subject.
Iron technology did not come to Africa from western Asia via Carthage or Merowe as was long thought, concludes "Aux origines de la métallurgie du fer en Afrique, Une ancienneté méconnue: Afrique de l'Ouest et Afrique centrale". The theory that it was imported from somewhere else, which - the book points out - nicely fitted colonial prejudices, does not stand up in the face of new scientific discoveries, including the probable existence of one or more centres of iron-working in west and central Africa and the Great Lakes area.
The authors of this joint work, which is part of the "Iron Roads in Africa" project (see box), are distinguished archaeologists, engineers, historians, anthropologists and sociologists. As they trace the history of iron in Africa, including many technical details and discussion of the social, economic and cultural effects of the industry, they restore to the continent "this important yardstick of civilisation that it has been denied up to now," writes Doudou Diène, former head of UNESCO's Division of Intercultural Dialogue, who wrote the book's preface.
But the facts speak for themselves. Tests on material excavated since the 1980s show that iron was worked at least as long ago as 1500 BC at Termit, in eastern Niger, while iron did not appear in Tunisia or Nubia before the 6th century BC. At Egaro, west of Termit, material has been dated earlier than 2500 BC, which makes African metalworking contemporary with that of the Middle East.
The roots of metallurgy in Africa go very deep. However, French archaeologist Gérard Quéchon cautions that "having roots does not mean they are deeper than those of others," that "it is not important whether African metallurgy is the newest or the oldest" and that if new discoveries "show iron came from somewhere else, this would not make Africa less or more virtuous."
"In fact, only in Africa do you find such a range of practices in the process of direct reduction [a method in which metal is obtained in a single operation without smelting],and metal workers who were so inventive that they could extract iron in furnaces made out of the trunks of banana trees," says Hamady Bocoum, one of the authors.
This ingenuity was praised in the early 19th century by the Tunisian scholar Mohamed el-Tounsy, who told of travelling in Chad and Sudan and coming across spears and daggers made "with the skill of the English" and iron piping with "bends and twists like some European pipes, but more elegant and graceful and shining so brightly they seem to be made of silver." ...
Courtesy UNESCO.org
The theory that sub-Saharan Africa borrowed its iron technology from other cultures is no longer tenable. The fact is that the continent invented and developed its own iron metallurgy as far back as the third millennium B.C. -
Author(s) I.A. Akinjogbin, D.A. Aremu, H. Bocoum, P. de Maret, J.M. Essomba, P. Fluzin, J.F.Jemkur, L.-M. Maes Diop, B. Martinelli, G. Quéchon, E.E. Okafor, A. Person. Prefaced by Doudou Diène. Edited by Hamady Bocoum. Book Binary File DossierPresse.pdf Editor(s) UNESCO Publishing Publication Date 01 Jan 2004
quote:Desperation The act of despairing or becoming desperate; a giving up of hope. A state of despair, or utter hopeless; abandonment of hope; extreme recklessness; reckless fury.
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
I'm just waiting on sammy to ban him, just ignore him (EriDjEthioSom).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Moqdishu and other trade locations in Somalia were internationally known during the early middle ages from China to the Medditeranian Europe(that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language), i don't think i can say the same international trade existed when it comes to "Lunda". That's why i consider this map Bantucentric.
Nobody said this map was perfect. Yes some kingdoms are missing-- like Garama of Libya-- and you have Carthate included even though it was a Phoenician colony. The map is mainly focused on urban kingdoms which Bantus did in fact have, but I seriously doubt the makers of the map are Bantu or the people involved "Bantucentric" since it was made in an American University.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:I have the impression that for many Somali: Bantu = Black without Arab ancestry or something similar. The way they dump all Africans in that category is puzzling. I've been victim of that categorization by Yonis. But I think it's pure ignorance anyway. It's like anything that was not in contact with the Arabs is backward. It is pretty similar to the Northern Arab mentality but with a spin: they are Somalis not Arabs...
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nadeed: wally you're a congoid jareer. you have nothing to do with the tutsis or ancient egyptians or for that matter north africa.
so you can just drop all of these wild travel theories. however i have a travel "fact" for you. we east africans use to travel to west africa and capture adoons to sell to the west asians. so maybe you should go looking for your ancestors on the other side of the red sea.
Please stop spreading you propaganda about Somalis traviling around central and southern Africa for catching slaves. You're a big lier.. I don't even think you're Somali.. Why're making Somalis look like fools and insulting our fellow Africans like that? The Arab Omanis and Yemenites brought Bnatus to Somalia because it was difficult to enslave nomads. Most of the decendants of these Arabs slavetrader who came to Somalia are the Reer XAmars(Benaadirs).. Read history loser.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
The kids on this picture look much like Somalis
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo: These kids on this picture look much like Somalis
It was this picture I tried to post..
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: [QUOTE]A and E3b haplogroups are rare among broad faced west Africans compare to broad faced Africans in East Africa...
Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, how are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
Posted by Maahes (Member # 8482) on :
I know an ambassador who is ethnic Tutsi. He claims that that the Tutsi are descendants of the Watusi.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:which Somalis have "obvious non black admixture"
Somalis are among the closest people to Yemen geographically, they lived side by side for thousands years...some have obvious foreign admixture, it's not only confined to the Banadir people...although genetic doesn't necessaraly correlate with phenotype, we cannot forget the fact that genetic sampling shows a frequency of 15% of West Asian ancestry among Somali on the Y chromosome side...the Banadir are less than 1% of the population.
Somalis aren't mixed with Arabs. We've no J lineage associated with Arabs! Perhaps the only Somalians with Arab ancestry are the Reer Xamars(Banadirs) and they are a minority.
Somalis mixed???????? You don't have any proofs for that.. That's BS.. Somalis are associated with Arabs only because we're Muslims. We're Cushitic Africans.. Cushitic Africans are older than Bantus why're you people yapping about us being mixed.. Cut that shi't please ..
And not all Somalis have straight hair(not even most). We've our own unique look like all other African tribes have their own look. Somalis are tall with slender elongated bodies, long necks, high cheek bones, faces that are long and narrow, foreheads that are high and steep, noses that are narrow and straigt, thickness of the lips,skin that ranges from very light brown to almost Black, hair varies between wooly, curly, and straight. I could go on. Somalis look like Black Africans´. We've skinnier features than "most" Aficans.
Cushitic Africans have "predominant East African component (i.e. E3b)" and cushites like Somalis have a smaller percantage E3a too.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nefar: ^ I really don't think most Somalis think that way. maybe a few especially on ES.
I agree with nefar... it's so stupid how some people are generalazing Somalis by some lonely fools who're trolling around this forum.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
ohh... I am Daarood... And I am not from Yemen or near that area. The Somalis you're talking about are Reer Xamars(mixed Somalis)like the Banaadirs and they're minority in Somalia(around 1%). They're not even considered Somalis back home.
By the way Darood was Jeberti and Jebertis are Habeshas and not Yemenites.. The only reason why some Somali clanes claim they've an Arab ancestors WHO CAME TO SOMALIA THOUSANDS YEARS AGO is because we're Muslims.. Yeah I said because we're Muslims.. There's Indoenesians and many other Muslims who claim they've Arab ancestor because they look up to them as Muslims. Get over all this Arab/Somali nonsense...
If Somalis are mixed with Arabs why haven't we changed our culture much like the northern sudanese, Swahili people etc. They adopted much Arab culture`??? Our culture are nothing Arabic.. Even our language is totally different from Arabic.. Somalia is one of the few African countries who still speak their African language as the official language.. Please move on from this Arab caucasian Somali nonsense.. Somalis are Black Africans with their own unique look period
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
That's religious folklore, propagated by some clerics through centuries. Same things happends in indonesia and western China. You will never meet a Darod that considers himself as from anywhere than Somalia. Somalis especially Darods don't really like arabs, Arabs such as Saudis.
Thanx for explaining this.. Some people seem to not understand it..
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
Araweelo, you're right. It's the same with Ethiopians. Yesterday I was on this other site arguing with this woman who believes all Ethiopians are mixed with Italian and Arab. She believes all East Africans before they all became mixed looked like the San and the Twa people. I tried to get her to come here so y'all could set her straight. She says that she is entitled to her beliefs. I'm like what an idiot. Your beliefs don't count. Science has already disproved your beliefs.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Araweelo, you're right. It's the same with Ethiopians. Yesterday I was on this other site arguing with this woman who believes all Ethiopians are mixed with Italian and Arab. She believes all East Africans before they all became mixed looked like the San and the Twa people. I tried to get her to come here so y'all could set her straight. She says that she is entitled to her beliefs. I'm like what an idiot. Your beliefs don't count. Science has already disproved your beliefs.
I even know some of our own people who think they're mixed because of their features but even though they think they're mixed they never relate to Arabs as some people on this thread think. I've discussed with many people on other forums and they're always comparing Horn Africans with other Africans tribes. They always try to say "oh you look lesser Africans than most Africans" or "you people are mixed with the slavetraders of East Africa" blah blah..
I showed these idiots DNA facts and scientific proofs that we arent mixed and even that isnt enough for them to understand HORN AFRICANS AREN'T MIXED. I am tired of explaining the same sh.it to people all the time. We're some of the oldest African tribes so how can our features be lesser African??
And the woman you discussed with is seriuosly retarded.. I mean why does she think we're mixed with San people? Last time I checked there was no San people in east AFrica... By the way they're much lighter than us on average.. If we were mixed with them and Caucasians we would be very light.. What a ignorant
And what is it with the Italians??? LooL... What's the next Ethiopians are part native Americans????
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
Go to answers.yahoo.com and type in Ethiopians and Somalis in the search engine. You will be shocked at the amount of dumb, ignorant questions and responses involving whether they're black or not.
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
ohh... I am Daarood... And I am not from Yemen or near that area. The Somalis you're talking about are Reer Xamars(mixed Somalis)like the Banaadirs and they're minority in Somalia(around 1%). They're not even considered Somalis back home.
By the way Darood was Jeberti and Jebertis are Habeshas and not Yemenites.. The only reason why some Somali clanes claim they've an Arab ancestors WHO CAME TO SOMALIA THOUSANDS YEARS AGO is because we're Muslims.. Yeah I said because we're Muslims.. There's Indoenesians and many other Muslims who claim they've Arab ancestor because they look up to them as Muslims. Get over all this Arab/Somali nonsense...
If Somalis are mixed with Arabs why haven't we changed our culture much like the northern sudanese, Swahili people etc. They adopted much Arab culture`??? Our culture are nothing Arabic.. Even our language is totally different from Arabic.. Somalia is one of the few African countries who still speak their African language as the official language.. Please move on from this Arab caucasian Somali nonsense.. Somalis are Black Africans with their own unique look period
With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
Where did you hear Darod was a Jeberti Araweelo? I've never heard this before.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, how are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
I don't understand your question, what are you trying to say...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Correct why is there a tomb of Sheik Issaq( an Iraqi or Yemeni) in Somaliland, why the Dir and Hawiye don't claim an Arab ancestry unlike the Darod and Issaq. Please note it is a source of pride for them(Issaq and Darods). I met however many Hawiye who are claiming to be the real Somali, I'm not sure if it's related to the fact that they don't claim an Arab ancestry. I'm not sure about the Dir, since I don't know many Gadabursi or Issa people, do they think the same way as the Hawiye?
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
AFRICA,
What is your interest in Somalis and why don't you reveal your nationality? I am Reer Xamar or what they call Banadiri. I was only correcting her.
You insult Somalis every time here and you expect me to tell you some thing?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Read my post and analyze the rhetoric, I'm not asking you any question...and with respect to your question I already mentioned that I was from downtown Africa, do some research and you'll find out where it is...
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
Okay, is 'downtown Africa' located in Congo?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Not really it's a special place in Africa that I call downtown Africa...By the way how did you escape from the Moriyans?
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
I hope that 'special place in Africa' is not a Congolid country. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
What's a 'Congolid" country...By the way are you from Mogadishu? I have the impression that HornAfrican=Nadeed...As a Banaadir(mixed Somali/Persian and Arab) he might have some mixed feelings about is non African heritage...I think the more he writes the more he reveals himself: Nadeed, Nadeedhasaquestion, HornAfrican is one person who happens to be Banaadir...that's why he's so racist against Black Africans...
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, how are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
I don't understand your question, what are you trying to say...
Evergreen Writes:
You claim that haplogroup E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans. How are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:You claim that haplogroup E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans. How are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
Yes based on existing studies it's clear that broad faced west African have much less E3b haplogroups compared to broad faced east africans like the Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia or the East African Bantus from Kenya and Tanzania...E3b is definitely rarer among non Berber West African on average compare to other Black African from East and Southern Africa...Maybe I'm wrong, then please correct me...
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
The admin on this side can trace and confirm that I not Nadeed or Neededhasquestion. Now if you must know in every day life we don't call ourselves Banadir, we are called Reer Xamar which means in Somali people of Mogadishu. Just like the settled tribes/clans in the south. Banadir on the other hand was the Italian provice which was divided into greater Mogadishu, Middle and Lowe Shabeelle region in the 80s. The Reer Xamar are different tribes, most have Somali origins. There is no Persians in Mogadisho or with us. There are some Indians and Arabs who live with us but they are distict they are called Mawalad or Arabs. So don't tell me what you heard or read from former Somali nomads.
How am I racist against Black Africans, when I am one? There is nothing called African heritage or culture that I know of. Last time I was Africa we were all different ethnic groups.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Somali culture...the so called "nomads" as you put it have an African culture (they have an African heritage in their culture and blood) whereas Yemeni have an Asian culture...do you see the difference...by the way I have a question for you..have you ever lived in Somalia and for how long?
Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
Your wrong. Somali culture is not all about nomads. Only sub culture of Somalis are nomads. I hope you know in the south you will not find many nomadic tribes and it's in the south were great majority live even though they might not be politically dominant. Somali culture is Somali. Somalis are African. Yemeni Arab culture is Yemeni Arab culture but the Yemenis are middle eastern or Asian.
I have lived in Somalia most of my life.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:You claim that haplogroup E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans. How are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
Yes based on existing studies it's clear that broad faced west African have much less E3b haplogroups compared to broad faced east africans like the Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia or the East African Bantus from Kenya and Tanzania...
First, how do you know the facial structures of the peoples sampled, when that information was never given to you? If not, then cite the study which describes the facial morphology of the contributors of the samples.
Second, going back to a question from me that you dodged earlier, can you cite a study that purports to have studied "Nilo-Saharan speaking Ethiopians" independently from other groups therein, and has revealed that the E3b percentages amongst them, is higher than that of what you refer to as "broad faced west Africans".
quote:Originally posted AFRICA I:
E3b is definitely rarer among non Berber West African on average compare to other Black African from East and Southern Africa...Maybe I'm wrong, then please correct me...
You've abandoned your earlier claim about *no genetic relationship* between West, Central and Nilo-Saharans of east Africa, while never admitting to the error, but go onto speak of "rarity" of E3b amongst west Africans. When you were pushed further on that claim, along with citations of studies attesting to E3b lineages in different west African groups, you now "upgraded" that to non-Berber west Africans. It shows just how your claims are crumbling around you. So, what you now do, is to simply partition west Africa as you see fit, to downplay not only the diversity found therein, but also to artificially bolster your shaky claim about Hg E3b being rare in West Africa, as well as single out what you refer to as "broad faced West Africans" as THE "west Africans" - a tactic typically used by far rightwing loon eurocentrists and medicentrists, whenever they want to propagate mythology about the "Forest Negro".
And yes, I intend to correct you. If one were to pick specific sub-clades of E3b, where would that leave your claim cited above; would it hold true? It is all about perspective and the prevailing agenda of the party who's perspective is in question.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:It is all about perspective and the prevailing agenda of the party who's perspective is in question.
quote:Desperation The act of despairing or becoming desperate; a giving up of hope. A state of despair, or utter hopeless; abandonment of hope; extreme recklessness; reckless fury.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by HornAfrican:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
ohh... I am Daarood... And I am not from Yemen or near that area. The Somalis you're talking about are Reer Xamars(mixed Somalis)like the Banaadirs and they're minority in Somalia(around 1%). They're not even considered Somalis back home.
By the way Darood was Jeberti and Jebertis are Habeshas and not Yemenites.. The only reason why some Somali clanes claim they've an Arab ancestors WHO CAME TO SOMALIA THOUSANDS YEARS AGO is because we're Muslims.. Yeah I said because we're Muslims.. There's Indoenesians and many other Muslims who claim they've Arab ancestor because they look up to them as Muslims. Get over all this Arab/Somali nonsense...
If Somalis are mixed with Arabs why haven't we changed our culture much like the northern sudanese, Swahili people etc. They adopted much Arab culture`??? Our culture are nothing Arabic.. Even our language is totally different from Arabic.. Somalia is one of the few African countries who still speak their African language as the official language.. Please move on from this Arab caucasian Somali nonsense.. Somalis are Black Africans with their own unique look period
With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Listen my friend.. i don't think you read my previous posts.. I said yes they claim their ancestor who came to Somalia THOUSANDS years ago were Arab... But they never claim they're Arabs and I am one myself and know what I am talking about.. the oly Somalians who consider themself Arabs are the Banaadirs and not ethnic Somalis.. And yes there's many muslim Asians who claim they're descendants of arabs while they're just like the other Asians who don't claim they've Arab ancestor.. Why is that poor??? that's exacly what it's..
I will say it again .. Some Somali clanes claim they've Arab ancestors because we love our religion and look up to them.. our DNA shows we arent mixed and both clanes Daroods and Isaaqs still have their African culture and language and look like the other Somali clanes who don't claim they've arab ancestors..
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Correct why is there a tomb of Sheik Issaq( an Iraqi or Yemeni) in Somaliland, why the Dir and Hawiye don't claim an Arab ancestry unlike the Darod and Issaq. Please note it is a source of pride for them(Issaq and Darods). I met however many Hawiye who are claiming to be the real Somali, I'm not sure if it's related to the fact that they don't claim an Arab ancestry. I'm not sure about the Dir, since I don't know many Gadabursi or Issa people, do they think the same way as the Hawiye?
They say they are "the real Somalis" because they don't claim they've Arab ancestor... But they are not more Somalis than Daroods and Isaaqs..
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Daroods and Isaaqs still have their African culture and language and look like the other Somali clanes who don't claim they've arab ancestors...
So HornAfrican, since you lived in Southern Somalia where the Hawiye are the majority...do you see any physical differences between nomad Southern Clans and Northern Clans?
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Where did you hear Darod was a Jeberti Araweelo? I've never heard this before.
Darood Ismail Jeberti.... He's habesh and not Arab:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
ohh... I am Daarood... And I am not from Yemen or near that area. The Somalis you're talking about are Reer Xamars(mixed Somalis)like the Banaadirs and they're minority in Somalia(around 1%). They're not even considered Somalis back home.
By the way Darood was Jeberti and Jebertis are Habeshas and not Yemenites.. The only reason why some Somali clanes claim they've an Arab ancestors WHO CAME TO SOMALIA THOUSANDS YEARS AGO is because we're Muslims.. Yeah I said because we're Muslims.. There's Indoenesians and many other Muslims who claim they've Arab ancestor because they look up to them as Muslims. Get over all this Arab/Somali nonsense...
If Somalis are mixed with Arabs why haven't we changed our culture much like the northern sudanese, Swahili people etc. They adopted much Arab culture`??? Our culture are nothing Arabic.. Even our language is totally different from Arabic.. Somalia is one of the few African countries who still speak their African language as the official language.. Please move on from this Arab caucasian Somali nonsense.. Somalis are Black Africans with their own unique look period
With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Listen my friend.. i don't think you read my previous posts.. I said yes they claim their ancestor who came to Somalia THOUSANDS years ago were Arab... But they never claim they're Arabs and I am one myself and know what I am talking about.. the oly Somalians who consider themself Arabs are the Banaadirs and not ethnic Somalis.. And yes there's many muslim Asians who claim they're descendants of arabs while they're just like the other Asians who don't claim they've Arab ancestor.. Why is that poor??? that's exacly what it's..
I will say it again .. Some Somali clanes claim they've Arab ancestors because we love our religion and look up to them.. our DNA shows we arent mixed and both clanes Daroods and Isaaqs still have their African culture and language and look like the other Somali clanes who don't claim they've arab ancestors..
The Banadiris who claim Arabs are actually real Arabs from Yemen and Oman. They don't dwell or go out of way to prove their Arabness because they are real Arabs. The Darood or even Isaq on the other hand either go out of their way to prove their non existance Arab roots or have this unhealthy dislike of Arabs for no reason at all. You seem to be confused about what Banadiri is, Reer Banaadir is just another name to mean Reer Xamar that is the people who use to live in old Mogadishu who are made of many tribes most of them are ethnic Somali, like my tribe the Bandhabow who trace their origins to Samaale. There are Arabs and Indians who came to live in Mogadishu at different time and became assimilated to the culture of old Mogadishu, just as Eritreans who were brought by the Italians later they are all Reer Xamar but they are distict from us. The Arabs who live in Golweyn, Afgooye, Janaale, Jowhar, Buuloburde are not Reer Xamar or Banadiri.
I say Darood or Isaaq claim of Arab origins because ofreligious reason if poor becuse the Dir and Hawiye are Muslims and very religious compare to the Darood and Isaaq and they don't claim any Arab origins.
Darood don't claim Habashi origins. You don't even know how much you have offended the honour of your tribe. I hope you don't say that in front of one your proud tribesmen Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Daroods and Isaaqs still have their African culture and language and look like the other Somali clanes who don't claim they've arab ancestors...
So HornAfrican, since you lived in Southern Somalia where the Hawiye are the majority...do you see any physical differences between nomad Southern Clans and Northern Clans?
The really nomadic tribes in the south are Garre and Gaaljecel. There is no physical diffrent between Somalis from different regions, but their is a cultural different from the tribes south of Hiiraan and those who live north of Hiiraan.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:You claim that haplogroup E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans. How are you defining "rare" in this case? What study are you using to assess these genes in broad faced Africans?
Yes based on existing studies it's clear that broad faced west African have much less E3b haplogroups compared to broad faced east africans like the Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia or the East African Bantus from Kenya and Tanzania...
First, how do you know the facial structures of the peoples sampled, when that information was never given to you? If not, then cite the study which describes the facial morphology of the contributors of the samples.
Second, going back to a question from me that you dodged earlier, can you cite a study that purports to have studied "Nilo-Saharan speaking Ethiopians" independently from other groups therein, and has revealed that the E3b percentages amongst them, is higher than that of what you refer to as "broad faced west Africans".
quote:Originally posted AFRICA I:
E3b is definitely rarer among non Berber West African on average compare to other Black African from East and Southern Africa...Maybe I'm wrong, then please correct me...
You've abandoned your earlier claim about *no genetic relationship* between West, Central and Nilo-Saharans of east Africa, while never admitting to the error, but go onto speak of "rarity" of E3b amongst west Africans. When you were pushed further on that claim, along with citations of studies attesting to E3b lineages in different west African groups, you now "upgraded" that to non-Berber west Africans. It shows just how your claims are crumbling around you. So, what you now do, is to simply partition west Africa as you see fit, to downplay not only the diversity found therein, but also to artificially bolster your shaky claim about Hg E3b being rare in West Africa, as well as single out what you refer to as "broad faced West Africans" as THE "west Africans" - a tactic typically used by far rightwing loon eurocentrists and medicentrists, whenever they want to propagate mythology about the "Forest Negro".
And yes, I intend to correct you. If one were to pick specific sub-clades of E3b, where would that leave your claim cited above; would it hold true? It is all about perspective and the prevailing agenda of the party who's perspective is in question.
Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, these are legitimate questions. If you are to be considered an active participant on this forum I would ask that you address with clarity reasonable questions such as this.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by HornAfrican:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by HornAfrican:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:that's why we have many somalis who can trace back their roots from Moqdishu to Iran,Iraq, india or whereever they think they came from but are somalilized in both culture and language
Sheikh Darod came from Yemen...since you are Darod..you are probably from there as well...
ohh... I am Daarood... And I am not from Yemen or near that area. The Somalis you're talking about are Reer Xamars(mixed Somalis)like the Banaadirs and they're minority in Somalia(around 1%). They're not even considered Somalis back home.
By the way Darood was Jeberti and Jebertis are Habeshas and not Yemenites.. The only reason why some Somali clanes claim they've an Arab ancestors WHO CAME TO SOMALIA THOUSANDS YEARS AGO is because we're Muslims.. Yeah I said because we're Muslims.. There's Indoenesians and many other Muslims who claim they've Arab ancestor because they look up to them as Muslims. Get over all this Arab/Somali nonsense...
If Somalis are mixed with Arabs why haven't we changed our culture much like the northern sudanese, Swahili people etc. They adopted much Arab culture`??? Our culture are nothing Arabic.. Even our language is totally different from Arabic.. Somalia is one of the few African countries who still speak their African language as the official language.. Please move on from this Arab caucasian Somali nonsense.. Somalis are Black Africans with their own unique look period
With due all respect you don't know nothing about the Reer Xamar. Darood and Isaaq not only claim to have Arab origins, it's also source of pride for them. Saying they claim because of religion is a weak argument because Dir and Hawiye are Somali tribes and Muslims too their source of pride as a tribe unlike the Darood and Isaaq is being Samaale or original Somali.
Listen my friend.. i don't think you read my previous posts.. I said yes they claim their ancestor who came to Somalia THOUSANDS years ago were Arab... But they never claim they're Arabs and I am one myself and know what I am talking about.. the oly Somalians who consider themself Arabs are the Banaadirs and not ethnic Somalis.. And yes there's many muslim Asians who claim they're descendants of arabs while they're just like the other Asians who don't claim they've Arab ancestor.. Why is that poor??? that's exacly what it's..
I will say it again .. Some Somali clanes claim they've Arab ancestors because we love our religion and look up to them.. our DNA shows we arent mixed and both clanes Daroods and Isaaqs still have their African culture and language and look like the other Somali clanes who don't claim they've arab ancestors..
The Banadiris who claim Arabs are actually real Arabs from Yemen and Oman. They don't dwell or go out of way to prove their Arabness because they are real Arabs. The Darood or even Isaq on the other hand either go out of their way to prove their non existance Arab roots or have this unhealthy dislike of Arabs for no reason at all. You seem to be confused about what Banadiri is, Reer Banaadir is just another name to mean Reer Xamar that is the people who use to live in old Mogadishu who are made of many tribes most of them are ethnic Somali, like my tribe the Bandhabow who trace their origins to Samaale. There are Arabs and Indians who came to live in Mogadishu at different time and became assimilated to the culture of old Mogadishu, just as Eritreans who were brought by the Italians later they are all Reer Xamar but they are distict from us. The Arabs who live in Golweyn, Afgooye, Janaale, Jowhar, Buuloburde are not Reer Xamar or Banadiri.
I say Darood or Isaaq claim of Arab origins because ofreligious reason if poor becuse the Dir and Hawiye are Muslims and very religious compare to the Darood and Isaaq and they don't claim any Arab origins.
Darood don't claim Habashi origins. You don't even know how much you have offended the honour of your tribe. I hope you don't say that in front of one your proud tribesmen
Saxiib.. You misundestood me... I didnt say Darood people consider Darood Ismaciil Jeberti Habesh. Daroods like Ogadens have much dislike for Habesh people. What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab. And what do you mean about Hawiye and Dir be more religious?? didn't you get what I said?? there's Indonesians who claim they've Arab ancestors. This kind of claiming Arab ancestor are founded amongst many Muslims and not only Somalis.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, these are legitimate questions. If you are to be considered an active participant on this forum I would ask that you address with clarity reasonable questions such as this.
I replied to your earlier post by the following...
quote:AFRICA I: Maybe I'm wrong, then please correct me...
If you want to be an active and serious participant in this forum, please address the above post...
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Africa I, these are legitimate questions. If you are to be considered an active participant on this forum I would ask that you address with clarity reasonable questions such as this.
I replied to your earlier post by the following...
quote:AFRICA I: Maybe I'm wrong, then please correct me...
If you want to be an active and serious participant in this forum, please address the above post...
Evergreen Writes:
I cannot reasonably be expected to address your post until you define your terms. I reiterate:
1. What study did you use as a source for your claims on the distribution of haplogroup E3b among Broad faced East and West Africans?
2. How do you quantify "rare" when you claim that haplogroup E3b is "rare" amoung broad faced West Africans? What is the genetic precentage that a frequency slips below to make it "rare"?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Evergreen, The answers you are looking for are already posted here, please read the whole thread...let me help you, this was my original post:
quote:The fact that those Burundian Tutsi officials speak a Bantu language and have the same blood genetically as their Hutu brothers means that they are Bantu as well, Diop and other Europeans and obviously Wally don't have any proof that they came from the Nile Valley other than speculations about similarities between Tutsis and some North Eastern Africans. Some Fulani fall into that trap claiming an Ethiopian ancestry just based on features...but it has been shown that genetics and phenotype often don't correlate, as an example Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia look like Central and West Africans but they don't share anything genetically:
. I meant to say that it is rare to find E3b haplogroups in West Africa(I was only thinking about non Berber groups). My point was to show that narrow faced Africans and broad faced Africans don't have necasserily the same genetic makeup. As an example Tutsi and Somali don't have much in common genetically, same thing with broad faced Ethiopian and broad faced West African. If you can prove it otherwise, please do so.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: I meant to say that it is rare to find E3b haplogroups in West Africa(I was only thinking about non Berber groups). My point was to show that narrow faced Africans and broad faced Africans don't have necasserily the same genetic makeup. As an example Tutsi and Somali don't have much in common genetically, same thing with broad faced Ethiopian and broad faced West African. If you can prove it otherwise, please do so.
Evergreen Writes:
The problem with your position is that you are using subjective, qualitative terms such as "rare" and "in common" within a scientific, quantitative context. One person's "rare" may be another person's "non-rare". How do you measure rare and "in common"? All Africans share "in common" haplogroup E and L lineages.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
All those terms are you used within an African context...Again E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans, whereas it is common among broad faced East Africans.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: All those terms are you used within an African context...Again E3b is rare among broad faced West Africans, whereas it is common among broad faced East Africans.
Evergreen Writes:
I can accept your position as a personal one. However, until you are willing to qualify your position with quantitative data it is to be considered opinion and non-scientific.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
This just the result of one many studies, I can provide you with more if you want: It is clear the further you go towards West Africa, you will find less haplogroups E3b
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: This just the result of one many studies, I can provide you with more if you want:
Evergreen Writes:
Can you please quote from this source addressing the correlation between facial width and haplogroup E3b in WA as you have asserted? I have read this study and found no such information therein.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Well if one assume that the majority of West Africans are broad faced, one can deduct that the fact that E3b haplogroups are rare in West Africa compare to East Africans means that it is also rare among broad faced Africans (and it is also rare among narrow faced West and Central Africans: Fulanis and Tutsis).
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Well if one assume that the majority of West Africans are broad faced, one can deduct that the fact that E3b haplogroups are rare in West Africa compare to East Africans means that it is also rare among broad faced (and obviously among narrow faced West and Central Africans: Fulanis and Tutsis).
Evergreen Writes:
Do **YOU** assume that all/most West Africans are broad faced? If so, what is the width of a broad faced West African? What are the geographic parameters of WA?
Also, is E3b "rare" in Europe?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Yes I also assume that the majority of Africans are broad faced within an African context...knowing that there are broad faced Africans and narrow faced Africans...
quote:Also, is E3b "rare" in Europe?
Yes E3b is rare in Europe as well, since the Greek population and other Southern Europeans who carry it more substantially constitute a relatively small percentage of the European population. E3b is rare overall in Europe as it is rare among non berber speaking West Africans.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Yes I also assume that the majority of Africans are broad faced within an African context...knowing that there are broad faced Africans and narrow faced Africans...
Evergreen Writes:
What is the width that differentiates a broad faced West African from a narrow-faced one? What are the geographic parameters of WA?
Also, is E3b "rare" in Europe?
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Here are what Hierniaux measured among elongated Africans so called narrow faced Africans: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
I hope that can give you some indications.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
I don't want to discuss the same **** over and over again..
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
I don't want to discuss the same **** over and over again..
Your link doesn't prove anything of what you said, re-read my post again. "Jaberti" did not and does not equal habesha.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
I don't want to discuss the same **** over and over again..
Your link doesn't prove anything of what you said, re-read my post again. "Jaberti" did not and does not equal habesha only.
Jeberti is a habesh tribe.. What are you talking about??? The link I posted shows that Darood Ismaaciil Jeberti was from that tribe and related to other Habeshas like Tigrays..
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
I don't want to discuss the same **** over and over again..
Your link doesn't prove anything of what you said, re-read my post again. "Jaberti" did not and does not equal habesha only.
Jeberti is a habesh tribe.. What are you talking about??? The link I posted shows that Darood Ismaaciil Jeberti was from that tribe and related to other Habeshas like Tigrays..
You can't even read your own link! Since when was Jaberti a "tribe"?? It's just a name that describes the muslims of Ethiopia and Eritrea, would also describe the muslims of Somalia if it wasn't for the fact that 99.9 percent of Somalis are Muslims, thus makes such a name obsolete and useless in Somalia. Again, there is NO tribe called Jaberti and Jaberti does not equal Habesha, now get that through your skull.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by Araweelo:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Araweelo wrote: What I said is Darood Jeberti was Habeshi because Jeberti people are Habesh people and not Arabs. The Daroods think Darood was an Arab but he was Habesh and not Arab.
Wrong! Jaberti was something early muslims in the horn were called, northern somalia became muslim very early, thus the name jaberti encompassed all these people. The name Darod (originally Tarod) Ismael jaberti says nothing about his origin let alone him being Habesha. IT was just a somali sheik. Even if he called himself habesha, the name Habesha during the 6th-7th century was used by arabs to name virtually all people of the horn (almost as Maghrebis). Today however it's mostly christian semetic speakers that it generally refers to. Also another reason why Jebertis of Eritrea dislike being called habesha since it's today synanomous with christians of Eritera and Ethiopia and they consider themselves a different entity from these groups.
I don't want to discuss the same **** over and over again..
Your link doesn't prove anything of what you said, re-read my post again. "Jaberti" did not and does not equal habesha only.
Jeberti is a habesh tribe.. What are you talking about??? The link I posted shows that Darood Ismaaciil Jeberti was from that tribe and related to other Habeshas like Tigrays..
You can't even read your own link! Since when was Jaberti a "tribe"?? It's just a name that describes the muslims of Ethiopia and Eritrea, would also describe the muslims of Somalia if it wasn't for the fact that 99.9 percent of Somalis are Muslims, thus makes such a name obsolete and useless in Somalia. Again, there is NO tribe called Jaberti and Jaberti does not equal Habesha, now get that through your skull.
If you don't like the fact that they aren't Arabs that's you problem .. You can came up with thousands excuses if you want to... And I dont think you read the link I posted..
"The Jeberti (also spelled Jabarti, Jaberti, Jebarti) are a Tigrinya- and Arabic-speaking group mostly found in Eritrea with a wider diaspora community in neighboring countries, primarily on the Arabian Peninsula. There are also small numbers of Jeberti living in Ethiopia. They are currently attempting to achieve recognition as a minority group in both countries. Also the second largest clan of Somalia the Darod clan are descendents of Ismael Jeberti. Though they don't see themself as a different ethnic group from their fellow Somalis unlike the Eritrean Jebertis who want to be an own ethnic group.
Early in the history of Islam the Prophet Mohammed and his followers found sanctuary in the Kingdom of Aksum. When the Prophet returned to the Arabian Pennisula some of these refugees remained while some Aksumites converted to Islam. These people were called, Jeberti (the elect of God)•. One of their oldest settlements is said to be Negash, in the Tigray Region."
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
What about the third definition in your link that states what Yonis has been saying all along?
"Jebertis are all Muslims and the term came to encompass all Ethiopians and, later, other Africans who have converted to Islam."
You probably shouldn't completely accept or substantiate content from a source akin to wikipedia anyway.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Araweelo wrote: If you don't like the fact that they aren't Arabs that's you problem .. You can came up with thousands excuses if you want to... And I dont think you read the link I posted..
You're thick skulled and quite dumb, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Anyone else with normal reading comprehension skills can see the fallacy in your argument, neither your link or your errenous belief can change the fact that Jaberti did not and does not mean a "tribe" of Habesha. But if that's what you want to believe then knock yourself out. I'm done with you.
Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by nur23_you55ouf: What about the third definition in your link that states what Yonis has been saying all along?
"Jebertis are all Muslims and the term came to encompass all Ethiopians and, later, other Africans who have converted to Islam."
You probably shouldn't completely accept or substantiate content from a source akin to wikipedia anyway.
And later on it says:
"When the Prophet returned to the Arabian Pennisula some of these refugees remained while some Aksumites converted to Islam."
Hate it or love they weren't Arabs as you want them to be.... Posted by Araweelo (Member # 14322) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Araweelo wrote: If you don't like the fact that they aren't Arabs that's you problem .. You can came up with thousands excuses if you want to... And I dont think you read the link I posted..
You're thick skulled and quite dumb, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Anyone else with normal reading comprehension skills can see the fallacy in your argument, neither your link or your errenous belief can change the fact that Jaberti did not and does not mean a "tribe" of Habesha. But if that's what you want to believe then knock yourself out. I'm done with you.
Then CIAOOOO.... They're not Arabs keep dreaming.. And they're Habesh because they're Tigrays.. So who's dumb??? You don't want to understand Darood Ismail JEBERTI aren't Arab dumbas's...
PS: Please stop using different usernames.. I saw many of the comments you made on some threads and it's actually funny how you're using the same usernames to support you claims.. I think many people on this forum figured out you're using different usernames. LMAO...
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Hate it or love they weren't Arabs as you want them to be....
Strawman argument, i never said anything about arabness, and next time you want to disprove something try atleast to replace it with something resembling truth instead of another preposterous fairy tale. Stupid cow.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:PS: Please stop using different usernames.. I saw many of the comments you made on some threads and it's actually funny how you're using the same usernames to support you claims.. I think many people on this forum figured out you're using different usernames. LMAO...
And which usernames are these you stupid cow? The only username i've ever used was Yonis, and i lost the password since i was always on automatic logg in, but when i moved back to gothenburg from my school i had to log in again which was ages last time i did that and ofcourse i forgot the password which brought me to the new Yonis2.
if you have nothing better to do than making accusations i would advise you to continue waving that AU flag, imbecile. Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
quote:f you have nothing better to do than making accusations i would advise you to continue waving that AU flag, imbecile.
AU flag? Like African Union...
Posted by Henu (Member # 13490) on :
Yonis2 and Araweelo, cool it with the insults or I'll be forced to give you both a warning.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I: Here are what Hierniaux measured among elongated Africans so called narrow faced Africans: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
I hope that can give you some indications.
Evergreen Writes:
Thank you, but can you please address my questions -
What is the width that differentiates a broad faced West African from a narrow-faced one? What are the geographic parameters of WA?
Also, is E3b "rare" in Europe?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Why has a thread about the origin of Tutsi (a Bantu people) all of a sudden turned into 'The Horner's Corner' (to quote a past poster in here)?!! LOL
To HornAfrican, 'AFRICA I' is a Habesha which means he is as much a Horn African as YOU. Not like it matters, although the guy is nutty for being obsessed with African peoples' physical appearances! Some of what 'AFRICA' says is ignorant true enough, but some of what you say is no different with your writings of "Congolid" and such which is very reminicent of past (banned) trolls like Nadeed and Leba!
To Araweelo, I believe Yonis is correct as the link you provided mentioned nothing of Jaberti's ethncity. Yonis's finding makes more sense that the name was applied to Horn Africans who were already converted to Islam.
And lastly, 'HornAfrican' makes an interesting point when he speaks of urban cultures in Somalia being in south further away from Yemen and Arabia proper.
I find it funny how people make the generalization that all Horn Africans were nomads or that all Arabs were nomads when obviously there were sedentary peoples among both groups. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am just somewhat perturbed by the constant talk of Somalis having 'Arab' ancestry, when "Arabs" themsevles have dubious ancestry! Not to mention the many Yemenis who look not much different from Horn Africans simply because they themselves are of Horn African descent! It would probably be more accurate to say Yemenis have Somali ancestry than the other way around.
What's funny is that early south Arabian sedentary kingdoms especially those of Yemen were created by people who in appearance were strikingly similar to Horn people (black). And in Biblical texts were described as literally 'Arabian Kushites'.
So even if Darood and Issaq legends are true that their ancestors came from Yemen, perhaps it would not make much of a difference since these people could very well have origins in the Horn anyway!!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Here are what Hierniaux measured among elongated Africans so called narrow faced Africans: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
I hope that can give you some indications.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny is that early south Arabian sedentary kingdoms especially those of Yemen were created by people who in appearance were strikingly similar to Horn people (black). And in Biblical texts were described as literally 'Arabian Kushites'.
So even if Darood and Issaq legends are true that their ancestors came from Yemen, perhaps it would not make much of a difference since these people could very well have origins in the Horn anyway!!
Evergreen Writes:
Good point!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Well if one assume that the majority of West Africans are broad faced, one can deduct that the fact that E3b haplogroups are rare in West Africa compare to East Africans means that it is also rare among broad faced (and obviously among narrow faced West and Central Africans: Fulanis and Tutsis).
That's all you've been doing: throwing out your personal "assumptions" that lack objective spine.
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Here are what Hierniaux measured among elongated Africans so called narrow faced Africans: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
I hope that can give you some indications.
This clearly doesn't answer all the *specific* various questions and requests put before you, including the one pertaining to a single study that objectively detailes the connection between the facial structures of contributors of DNA samples and the markers identified.
You cite this Hiernaux cranio-metric compilation, without elaboration of your understanding of the post, as some sort of support for your unsubstantiated posts. It brings to question, whether you understood the citation. Prior to that, you posted a Luis et al. map, which shows select samples from select countries. Not only do you ignore Hiernaux table detailing diversity amongst Africans, *including* West Africans, thereby contradicting you, but you also fail to see the contradiction in your citations from studies whose results were arrived at independently from one another, and the ends to which you were hoping to use them; the Luis et map shows that the Tutsi samples of that study, predominantly constituted of the E3a-marker bearing chromosomes, yet the separate study and independently derived results of the Hiernaux piece cited, shows that the nasal and cephalic indices [their 'modal' rep., I take it] of the Tutsi models examined were quite comparable to the Galla and the designated Somalis, whom you acknowledge as largely E3b bearing "elongated" and "so called narrow faced" Africans groups.
^Since apparently the markers don't tell us the cranio-metric specificities, all the more reason the following warrants evidential backed up:
Yes based on existing studies it's clear that broad faced west African have much less E3b haplogroups compared to broad faced east africans like the Nilo-Saharans from Ethiopia or the East African Bantus from Kenya and Tanzania...- by Africa I
...and this:
Well if one assume that the majority of West Africans are broad faced... - by Africa I
You've dodged this question several times already, but why would you "assume" that, when you've noted that this was "clear" from the unnamed "existing studies" that told you about the genetic matter in question?
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
I meant to say that it is rare to find E3b haplogroups in West Africa(I was only thinking about non Berber groups). My point was to show that narrow faced Africans and broad faced Africans don't have necasserily the same genetic makeup. As an example Tutsi and Somali don't have much in common genetically, same thing with broad faced Ethiopian and broad faced West African. If you can prove it otherwise, please do so.
Again, perspective: For instance, these two groups pretty much share the YAP+, M96, P2 and several other markers, barring *relative* frequencies of certain post-P2 UEP markers.
On a side note, your elusive study(s) detailing both the genetic and the facial structures of "broad faced Ethiopian and broad faced West African" has not been forgotten.
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Let me repeat myself with: E3b haplogroups are rare among non Berber speaking West Africans compare to broad faced East and Southern Africans...please prove that I'm wrong using scientific studies...
Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Evergreen...I already answered one of your question, please read the thread and then come back. Otherwise you are wasting my time...please don't repeat a question I already answered...don't waste my time.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Let me repeat myself with: E3b haplogroups are rare among non Berber speaking West Africans compare to broad faced East and Southern Africans...please prove that I'm wrong using scientific studies...
That's what you've been reduced to, repeating hot air. What's new? Answering the questions at hand, perhaps(?); NOT!
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
...please prove that I'm wrong using scientific studies...
Ever been taught that one can't prove a *delusion* wrong? Apparently, not. What study have you cited, fulfilling these request:
First, how do you know the facial structures of the peoples sampled, when that information was never given to you? If not, then cite the study which describes the facial morphology of the contributors of the samples.
Second, going back to a question from me that you dodged earlier, can you cite a study that purports to have studied "Nilo-Saharan speaking Ethiopians" independently from other groups therein, and has revealed that the E3b percentages amongst them, is higher than that of what you refer to as "broad faced west Africans".
^Produce the studies which meet these requirements. Also, feel free to answer other outstanding questions that have apparently overwhelmed you enough to dodge them.
Posted by Mystery Solver (Member # 9033) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
And yes, I intend to correct you. If one were to pick specific sub-clades of E3b, where would that leave your claim cited above; would it hold true? It is all about perspective and the prevailing agenda of the party who's perspective is in question.
Meanwhile going back to this question, unattended by Africa, I'll hereby use Cruciani et al. 2004 examples...
Going by specific sub-clades of E3b, for select samples from Cruciani et al.’s collection, we have:
E-M78 %
Ethiopian Jews n = 22 9.1
Amhara n = 34 8.8
Ethiopian Oromo n = 24 32
Wolayta n = 12 16.7
Somali n = 23 52.1
Borana (Oromo) from Kenya n = 7 71.4
Kenya - Bantu n = 28 3.6
Kenyan Nilo-Saharans n = 18 11.1
Senegalese Mandinka n = 16 6.3
Niger Tuaregs n = 22 4.5
Southern African groups had no E-M78
E-M35* %
But when it comes to undifferentiated E-M35 lineages, contrast that to the lack of E-M78 chromosomes:
Southern African !Kung n = 64 10.9
Southern African Khwe n = 26 30.8
Southern African Bantu n = 8 12.5
Ethiopian Jews n = 22 9.1
Amhara n = 34 2.9
Ethiopia Oromo n = 12 12
Ethiopia Wolayta n = 12 16.7
Somali n = 23 17.4
Kenya Borana n = 7 14.3
No detection noted in Senegalese Mandika and Niger Tuaregs
E-M81 %
Tuaregs n = 22 9.1
Aside from Tuaregs, only northern Egyptians and coastal northwest African Tamazight groups were noted for E-M81.
So, if we went by this study alone, and examined the frequency of certain E3b sub-clades amongst certain sub-Saharan groups, we will likely get different answers for the respective clades. If the question was asked about M78, it could be said that based on the study at hand, it is 'rare' in Southern African groups, and lower in Kenyan Bantus than either the Senegalese Mandinkas or Niger Tuaregs. Conversely, the Kenyan Nilo-Saharan samples show relatively higher frequencies than either the Senegalese Mandinkas or Niger Tuaregs based on this study. The Senegalese Mandinka M78 frequency even compares with that in some of the sub-Saharan samples from East African regions located above Kenya.
For E-M35 undifferentiated, the trend is reversed, wherein the E-M35* chromosomes in either Kenyan groups or Southern groups are more prevalent than in the aforementioned Sub-Saharan West African samples. Here, Southern African groups compare closely, if not higher in some cases, with those in sub-Saharan East African groups.
Similarly, E-M81 appears more prevalent in sub-Saharan West Africa than in either sub-Saharan East Africa or Southern African samples where it is 'rare', according to this study.
"Perspective"; as demonstrated, it can make a difference depending on what angle the perception is undertaken. It is doubtful that an objective person can come out of examining this study, and proclaim that E-M78 chromosomes are 'rare' in West Africa, including amongst sub-Saharan West Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I am just somewhat perturbed by the constant talk of Somalis having 'Arab' ancestry, when "Arabs" themsevles have dubious ancestry! Not to mention the many Yemenis who look not much different from Horn Africans simply because they themselves are of Horn African descent! It would probably be more accurate to say Yemenis have Somali ancestry than the other way around.
What's funny is that early south Arabian sedentary kingdoms especially those of Yemen were created by people who in appearance were strikingly similar to Horn people (black). And in Biblical texts were described as literally 'Arabian Kushites'.
So even if Darood and Issaq legends are true that their ancestors came from Yemen, perhaps it would not make much of a difference since these people could very well have origins in the Horn anyway!!
Do any 'Horners' have anything to say about this?
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
I think you're unnecessarily trying to explain away any possibility of foreign admixture. While I don't think Sheikh Darood or Ishaaq were necessarily real people, even if they were, there's no need to try to "negrify" them. Sure, plenty of Yemenis have East African ancestry, but they are their own people with their own ancestry.
Posted by Nefar (Member # 13890) on :
quote:'Horners'
oh...would you all...PLEASE stop using terms like "horners" and The Horn of Africa ...PLEASE?!
so irritating.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nefar:
quote:'Horners'
oh...would you all...PLEASE stop using terms like "horners"...PLEASE?!
so irritating.
Do you suggest a better word? It's a quick means of reference, and easily understood( simply think of it as a slang word).
Although you can see its flaws, aren't you at least vaguely aware of what its reffering to(the latter is what counts after all)?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom: I think you're unnecessarily trying to explain away any possibility of foreign admixture. While I don't think Sheikh Darood or Ishaaq were necessarily real people, even if they were, there's no need to try to "negrify" them. Sure, plenty of Yemenis have East African ancestry, but they are their own people with their own ancestry.
I am not in any way trying to explain away admixture in Horn Africans. Of course there is admixture as denoted by the presence of J lineage in Ethiopia and K and L lineages in Somalia. My whole point is why do people always emphasize Eurasian ancestry in Africans when the converse is just as true! Hence, the claim that Africans have not only Eurasian ancestry but that these ancestors were light-skinned. There are various Yemeni groups that are black, some of whom having ancestry from Africa. That is all I am saying. By the way, "negrify" is a silly term first coined by white scholars.
quote:Originally posted by Nefar:
quote:'Horners'
oh...would you all...PLEASE stop using terms like "horners" and The Horn of Africa ...PLEASE?!
so irritating.
LOL I agree! But remember it was a 'Hor', I mean an East African from the 'Horn' region who first started using that silly term in the first place! Posted by AFRICA I (Member # 13222) on :
Yom, you are going to far: Sheikh Issaq existed, here his tomb in Somaliland:
Isaaq Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source
The Isaaq (also Isaq, Ishaak) (Somali language: Reer Sheik Isaxaaq); is one of the main Somali clans. The Isaaq mainly live in Somaliland and the Somali Region of Ethiopia. The populations of the four major cities of Somaliland– Hargeisa, Burco, Berbera, and Ceerigaabo – are predominantly Isaaq.
Tradition states that the Isaaq clan was founded by the arrival of Sheikh Isaq from Arabia in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. He settled at the coastal town of Maydh in modern day Somaliland, where he married into the local Dir clan. His tomb is in Maydh. Posted by HornAfrican (Member # 14279) on :
There are certain things people from outside Somalis or don't understand how tribal politics works in Somalia cannot understand. Isaaq by origins are Dir. This is some thing their neighbours considered them past and present, their old poets confirm this even their educated class know and don't hide it. But they don't want to be seen as Dir, not because majority of them really care if they Arabs in origins or even want to be Arabs. They want to be an independent tribe like the Hawiye and Darood with equal share of power, being part of Dir doesn't allow them this. They even feel being part of Somalia wouldn't allow them this and that's why they want a country where they make up the majority. The Darood on the other hand is too complicated story that I am not going to explain.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Makes perfect sense. Mind you Somalis are not the only people in Africa who have such ancestral legends rooted in politics; nor is this phenomenon found in Africa alone.
An example would likely be the ancient Greek tribe called Danaans and their claim of their ancestral progenitor Danaus being Egyptian!
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
I know this an old thread but the point made below is so true,not just the maya but many other groups had different concepts of time,in africa time was considered generative - it is something that is generated day after day.It was NOT linear.
We are so colonised in our thinking these strange new terms "bantu","nilotic" "semetic" etc the ancient africans did not use these terms.If we want to understand egypt we must have some knowledge of african anthropology and african percepetions of themselves and those surrounding them.
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I am afraid that you guys are repeating the linear thinking of Westerners;ie, each graph shows a single starting point as if this is the original home of certain African peoples... Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Non-Westerners, such as the Maya, saw the world in a different fashion and in a similar fashion that Africans and other Orientals saw it: Dialectically, in a non-linear, recurring manner:
The fact that the Nile Valley had been occupied at a much earlier period, of peoples moving northward and eventually out of Africa, does not preclude the fact of later migrations, specifically of the historical Africans, nor does it preclude that these same Africans would, at various periods, as Diop explained, move southwards as well as westwards; like the ebb and flow of the tides.
Diop was a "Marxist" and his method of analysis exhibited this way of non-linear thinking, a thinking that was also exemplified by the Maya, the Ancient Egyptians, etc...
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
Dr. Wilhelm Bleek used the term "Bantu" in it's current sense in 1862.This term has caused more insanity and death then people can bear to imagine [rwandan genocide for a start] as did terms like "hottentot/bushman et al" in the namibian genocide.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: I know this an old thread but the point made below is so true,not just the maya but many other groups had different concepts of time,in africa time was considered generative - it is something that is generated day after day.It was NOT linear.
That's true and I whole heartedly agree, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread. Remember that Wally got scolded for using such a blatant red-herring.
quote:We are so colonised in our thinking these strange new terms "bantu","nilotic" "semetic" etc the ancient africans did not use these terms. If we want to understand egypt we must have some knowledge of african anthropology and african percepetions of themselves and those surrounding them.
I agree that we should not rely too much on foreign concepts and instead use the native terms and phrases of the peoples in discussion, but I don't see the problem in still using the linguistic terms of Westerners such as 'Bantu', 'Nilotic', etc. True they are not native to the African peoples they describe but they are in no way negative or desparaging, and they are also still linguistically valid not to mention convenient. Unless you have better terms to use.
quote: Dr. Wilhelm Bleek used the term "Bantu" in it's current sense in 1862. This term has caused more insanity and death then people can bear to imagine [rwandan genocide for a start] as did terms like "hottentot/bushman et al" in the namibian genocide.
Yours is a false cause argument. The name 'Bantu' itself is a perfectly valid linguistic term and one that is actually native in origin unlike the other Western linguistic designations. It is not the term itself that is the problem so much as its political and blantanlty erroneous usage. Thus all Rwandans both victims and perpertrators of the genocide were Bantus. Just as the victims of the Holocaust were as much Germans as the perpetrators. The terms that were the real problem were the bogus racial ones such as "Hamite" in the case of Rwanda and "Aryan" in the case of Germany.
And yes it's true that "Hottentot/bushmen" were colonialists terms, the racial motivation behind them were same.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Here's the filopeeeeno obsessed like a deranged nazi with Africans.
Djehuti wrote: ------------------------------ The name 'Bantu' itself is a perfectly valid linguistic term ------------------------------
Is anyone not surprised that this filopeeeeno who hates the majority of Africans and believes in and I quote "inate inferiority to others" would say something like the above.
Their is not one group that calls themselves "bantu", especially prior to Europeans in Africa.
Djehuti you should stick with hanging out with your racist buddies at those race loon forums.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti,
Why are you inudating this wonderful forum with both of your suttle and blatent racial views?
Why?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Gaygoyle9<-- wrote: Here's the filopeeeeno obsessed like a deranged nazi with Africans.
How am I obsessed with Africans when all I do is make a few knowledgeable responses about the topic. I'm not the one who creates these threads about Africans, you moron.
Here YOU are, the derranged nutcase obsessed with ME as seen with your three posts addressing me! LOL Sorry but you aren't getting my Pinoy d*ck. Since you brought up 'nazis', why don't you hook up with your neo-nazi boyfriend Wako-Ako?
I didn't even bother clicking your link; it's not even a direct link to a site but a google search! LOL I don't bother clicking any of your google search links. So what? I see it's about Filipino slaves. So? Most people educated on history know that after the ban on African slavery, Americans turned to slaves from Asia. Not just the Philippines but other countries like Indonesia, Malaysian, Vietnam, India, and even China. Your point?
quote: Djehuti wrote: ------------------------------ The name 'Bantu' itself is a perfectly valid linguistic term ------------------------------
Is anyone not surprised that this filopeeeeno who hates the majority of Africans and believes in and I quote "inate inferiority to others" would say something like the above.
Exactly where (and I mean cite an exact post) did I speak of any "inate inferiority"??! How is my defense of the linguistic classification of 'Bantu' an expression of 'hatred' for "the majority of Africans"??!
quote:Their is not one group that calls themselves "bantu", especially prior to Europeans in Africa.
Of course there is no specific group with the actual title of 'Bantu' but it is a native word which means people, you depraved dummy!
url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_languages
The word Bantu was first used by Wilhelm Heinrich Immanuel Bleek (1827-1875) with the meaning 'people', as this is reflected in many of the languages of this group. A common characteristic of Bantu languages is that they use a stem form such as -ntu or -tu for 'person', and the plural prefix for people in many languages is ba-, together giving ba-ntu "people".
ROTFL at your ignorance and stupidity!
quote:Djehuti you should stick with hanging out with your racist buddies at those race loon forums.
I don't have any racist buddies, but I do have psycho fags like YOU chasing me around this forum. Cut it out!
quote: Djehuti, Why are you inudating this wonderful forum with both of your suttle and blatent racial views?
Why?
I give no such views, you delusionally derranged queer! Show me where I did?!!
You need serious pyschological help.
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
Bantu means "people" but it was only specific to one south african tribe,Bleek took all incidences of "Ba" in african languages and termed everybody bantu and of course every african who was lithe,tall,long nosed and whatnot was non-bantu.
Everyone knows lingustic terms are loaded with politics/power and get taken over as anthropological terms.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: I know this an old thread but the point made below is so true,not just the maya but many other groups had different concepts of time,in africa time was considered generative - it is something that is generated day after day.It was NOT linear.
That's true and I whole heartedly agree, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread. Remember that Wally got scolded for using such a blatant red-herring.
quote:We are so colonised in our thinking these strange new terms "bantu","nilotic" "semetic" etc the ancient africans did not use these terms. If we want to understand egypt we must have some knowledge of african anthropology and african percepetions of themselves and those surrounding them.
I agree that we should not rely too much on foreign concepts and instead use the native terms and phrases of the peoples in discussion, but I don't see the problem in still using the linguistic terms of Westerners such as 'Bantu', 'Nilotic', etc. True they are not native to the African peoples they describe but they are in no way negative or desparaging, and they are also still linguistically valid not to mention convenient. Unless you have better terms to use.
quote: Dr. Wilhelm Bleek used the term "Bantu" in it's current sense in 1862. This term has caused more insanity and death then people can bear to imagine [rwandan genocide for a start] as did terms like "hottentot/bushman et al" in the namibian genocide.
Yours is a false cause argument. The name 'Bantu' itself is a perfectly valid linguistic term and one that is actually native in origin unlike the other Western linguistic designations. It is not the term itself that is the problem so much as its political and blantanlty erroneous usage. Thus all Rwandans both victims and perpertrators of the genocide were Bantus. Just as the victims of the Holocaust were as much Germans as the perpetrators. The terms that were the real problem were the bogus racial ones such as "Hamite" in the case of Rwanda and "Aryan" in the case of Germany.
And yes it's true that "Hottentot/bushmen" were colonialists terms, the racial motivation behind them were same.
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
Great post Djehuti,something for me to look into. Yemens have the highest incidence of maternal sub saharan mtdna among arabs,any cause for all these black grandmothers?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's funny is that early south Arabian sedentary kingdoms especially those of Yemen were created by people who in appearance were strikingly similar to Horn people (black). And in Biblical texts were described as literally 'Arabian Kushites'.
So even if Darood and Issaq legends are true that their ancestors came from Yemen, perhaps it would not make much of a difference since these people could very well have origins in the Horn anyway!!
Evergreen Writes:
Good point!
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Djehuti,
Why are you inudating this wonderful forum with both of your suttle and blatent racial views?
Why?
I would ignore argyle104 barely worthy of response.
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
"The terms that were the real problem were the bogus racial ones such as "Hamite" in the case of Rwanda"
Yes I know,it was a clear case of favouritism on the germans part with the tutsis,linguists barely know the power of their terminology to seperate and divide.Since the hutu and tutsi had the same language and cultural habits.I would love to know if the tutsi loathed the "bantu" Hutu prior to the germans arriving?
Incidentally the Hutu and Twa are considered among some africans as the ancient parents of all africans "Everyone comes from the Hutu and Twa".
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
How sick. I told you this boy has been going around on this forum since '05 claiming that Africans were the worlds slaves and his response is evidence.
Djehuti wrote: -------------------------------------- Most people educated on history know that after the ban on African slavery, Americans turned to slaves from Asia. --------------------------------------
Fool do some research sometimes instead of jocking on the posts of others like some kind of puppy.
People from England, France, and Germany, as well as other non-Africans were being sold at the same time that Africans were.
Your little deranged backdoor tactic to regulate slavery as something exclusively African has just been debunked.
People, I and others have said many times this boy was a liberal racist who delusionally believes in a racial hierarchy where Africans are the lowest.
How sick.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti wrote:
-------------------------------- Not just the Philippines but other countries like Indonesia, Malaysian, Vietnam, India, and even China. --------------------------------
Yet another example of the racial hierarchy insanity that dominates this boy's mind. Notice how he says "even China" as if the Chinese are somehow above the other countries. As if there is something about them that makes them above slavery compared to the others. Why do you think this way Djehuti? Why do you rank some people above others? Why have you let the white man sodomize your mind? That is not intelligent at all.
Isn't your thinking reminisent of the Nazis in Germany and the way they regarded the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, the eastern Europeans, and the people of the United Kingdom who weren't from England? We don't even have to go into how they felt about the rest of the non-European people of the world.
Djehuti what is wrong with your mind?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
since there is no editing feature let me clarify.
-------------------------- the people of the United Kingdom who weren't from England --------------------------
(meaning the Irish, Scotish, and Welsh).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: I would ignore argyle104 barely worthy of response.
You're right, but I respond just to see him expose himself for the psychotic idiot he is. Notice he makes all these false accusations of me but fails to prove them. In the mean time he desperately makes multiple posts about me, I take it grab for my d***, I mean attention.
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: "The terms that were the real problem were the bogus racial ones such as "Hamite" in the case of Rwanda"
Yes I know,it was a clear case of favouritism on the germans part with the tutsis,linguists barely know the power of their terminology to seperate and divide. Since the hutu and tutsi had the same language and cultural habits. I would love to know if the tutsi loathed the "bantu" Hutu prior to the germans arriving?
But you fail to see the point that 'Bantu' in its original and correct designation was a linguistic term. As such, all Rwandans-- *Ba-Tutsi, *Ba-Hutu, and even *Ba-Twa, are all Bantu as shown in their languages. And it wasn't the Germans but the Belgians who conquered Rwanda and began the racial divide. They began to notice stereotypical differences such as the Ba-Tutsi tending to be taller with so-called "caucasoid" features and so by the popular racial notions of that time assumed that they are descended from ancient black caucasoid i.e. 'Hamitic' race. As such, they promoted and patronized the Ba-Tutsi while oppressing the Ba-Hutu as "true negroids" and thus "true Bantu". Of course, they disregarded all linguistic, cultural, and even historical accounts of the natives themselves in favor of 'Hamitic' Egyptians or Arabians being the ancestors of the Tutsi.
It was Europeans through their notions of race that created racial hierarchies in the first place, not only in Africa but the rest of the world. Which is why I think Gaygoyle, the pyscho white Euro feels guilty about this and projects his guilt about "racial hierarchy" on to me, a person of color. LOL
quote:Incidentally the Hutu and Twa are considered among some africans as the ancient parents of all africans "Everyone comes from the Hutu and Twa".
Considered by whom?? Who thinks this??! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Of course I won't even bother responding to his other posts of lies but...
quote:Gaygoyle9<-- wrote: since there is no editing feature let me clarify.
-------------------------- the people of the United Kingdom who weren't from England --------------------------
(meaning the Irish, Scotish, and Welsh).
It is obvious that the degenerate boy-george suffers from white guilt over the racism including racial hierarchies created by his people of the British empire and other European colonial powers, so not only does he project his guilt on to me, but he also tries to exempt himself by pointing out the various other peoples of the UK, as if racism is not found among those peoples as well!
ROTFLOL Posted by Sabalour (Member # 14023) on :
Does anyone have similar stats for Fulbe?
I have been indirectly informed that French Bio-Anthropologist Alain Froment had presented a communication dealing with such measurements of Egyptian statues, reaching the conclusion that Kemetians could not have been anyhow morphologically similar to most inner at the 1996 Dakar Cheikh Anta Diop colloquium, and that this study had been disregarded by most attendants, who were however largely hardcore Diop followers.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by AFRICA I:
Here are what Hierniaux measured among elongated Africans so called narrow faced Africans: Tutsi of Rwanda:
* Head length: 198 mm * Head breadth: 147 mm * Face height: 125 mm * Face breadth: 134 mm * Nose height: 56 mm * Nose breadth: 39 mm * Relative trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 92.8 * Nasal Index: 69.5
Masai:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 140 mm * Face Height: 121 mm * Face Breadth: 137 mm * Nose Height: 54 mm * Nose Breadth: 39 mm * Relative Trunk length: 47.7 * Cephalic Index: 72.8 * Facial Index: 89.0 * Nasal Index: 72.0
Galla(Oromo):
* Stature: 171 cm * Head length: 190 mm * Head Breadth: 147 mm * Face Height: 122 mm * Face Breadth: 133 mm * Nose Height: 53 mm * Nose Breadth: 37 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.3 * Cephalic Index: 77.6 * Facial Index: 91.5 * Nasal Index: 69.0
Sab Somali:
* Stature: 173 cm * Head length: 194 mm * Head Breadth: 145 mm * Face Height: 119 mm * Face Breadth: 134 mm * Nose Height: 49 mm * Nose Breadth: 36 mm * Relative Trunk length: 49.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.7 * Facial Index: 88.5 * Nasal Index: 72.8
Warsingali Somali:
* Stature: 168 cm * Head length: 192 mm * Head Breadth: 143 mm * Face Height: 123 mm * Face Breadth: 131 mm * Nose Height: 52 mm * Nose Breadth: 34 mm * Relative Trunk length: 50.7 * Cephalic Index: 74.5 * Facial Index: 94.1 * Nasal Index: 66.0
I hope that can give you some indications.
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
Belgians/germans either way it was colonialism that brought the divide in,and no they didnt all refer to themselves as ba this and ba that prior to colonialism the khoisan for istance called themselves zhu twa si [the harmless people] and any everyone else zosi.
Are there really people employed in measuring egyptian statues to find out how non "bantu" they are that's incredible,my god I did'nt know eurocentrists were so hardcore.All that time would be far better spent learning about their germanic and celtic tribal ancestors,I can't find a single book on them in the local bookstore.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Tutsi at a refugee camp
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: Belgians/germans either way it was colonialism that brought the divide in, and no they didnt all refer to themselves as ba this and ba that prior to colonialism the khoisan for istance called themselves zhu twa si [the harmless people] and any everyone else zosi.
I don't argue with Europeans causing the divide, I merely point out that linguistic terms were not the reason but racial ones. 'Ba' is a common prefix found in the languages of Bantu peoples which simply means 'all' or collective. The whole topic of this thread that you apparently miss is the perpetuation of Eurocentric lies that the Tutsi are not true natives of Rwanda. The author of this thread only continues the Eurocentric lie that the Tutsi originate from the Nile Valley or even Egypt, when that is not the case at all. The Tutsi are a Bantu speaking people who arrived in Rwanda long with other Bantu peoples including their Hutu breathren.
quote:Are there really people employed in measuring egyptian statues to find out how non "bantu" they are that's incredible,my god I did'nt know eurocentrists were so hardcore. All that time would be far better spent learning about their germanic and celtic tribal ancestors,I can't find a single book on them in the local bookstore.
Again "Bantu" is a language. I take it you refer to features the Euros designate as "caucasoid" or "negroid". I don't think they do this anymore-- as in actually measure the features. But you have to understand that it's all in vain because race does NOT exist. So called "caucasoid" features are found among many Africans and "negroid" features found among aboriginal Asians of the tropics etc. Today's Eurocentrics are fighting a lost war.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LMAO That's not me. I don't know who that is, but I'm not even black.
Please stop trolling this thread with your psychosis, thankyou. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Oh and since I can't edit...
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: ...the khoisan for istance called themselves zhu twa si [the harmless people] and any everyone else zosi.
'Khoisan' are not a single people but are composed of mainly two groups-- The San (bushmen) and the Khoin-Khoin (pastoralists)-- both are their native names.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
yep I offically give up on the concept of race and ethnicity I've seen to many arabs who look hungarian,pacific islanders who look ethiopian,africans who look indian,latinos who look greek,germans who look like yeminis etc.
[/QUOTE]Again "Bantu" is a language. I take it you refer to features the Euros designate as "caucasoid" or "negroid". I don't think they do this anymore-- as in actually measure the features. But you have to understand that it's all in vain because race does NOT exist. So called "caucasoid" features are found among many Africans and "negroid" features found among aboriginal Asians of the tropics etc. Today's Eurocentrics are fighting a lost war. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
yes I know the khoikhoi and the san are seperate but they came together quite recently.
Still you're right its only the san who call themselves zhu twa si,but alot of these groups call themselves twa.Since this is the egypt forum the twa are apparently the infamous pygmies the egyptians worshipped.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I should, but I kinda miss the flaming these losers create. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Afrosaxon: yep I offically give up on the concept of race and ethnicity I've seen to many arabs who look hungarian, pacific islanders who look ethiopian, africans who look indian, latinos who look greek, germans who look like yeminis etc.
'Race' and ethnicity are two different things. You don't have to give up on the latter since ethnicity, although subjective, is still more solid in terms of its basis of language and culture than race is. 'Race', while relating to ethnicity is totally fake in that it relies solely on phenotypic stereotypes, many aspects of ethnicity and even genetic lineages themselves shatter such stereotypes. So while "negroids" and "caucasoids" don't exist, Germanic Europeans and Bantu Africans do!
quote:yes I know the khoikhoi and the san are seperate but they came together quite recently.
Still you're right its only the san who call themselves zhu twa si, but alot of these groups call themselves twa. Since this is the egypt forum the twa are apparently the infamous pygmies the egyptians worshipped.
The Twa of Rwanda are a different people from the San and they speak Bantu languages not click languages or those spoken by Khoisan. Also, it's still not known for sure if the pygmies the Egyptian expeditioners brought back were Twa or not. I mean it could be, but it's not certain.
Posted by Afrosaxon (Member # 15871) on :
twa translates as "no cattle people" alot of the mini-africans are twa.San do share minor B2b traces with them.
The central twa have elaborate oral histories about egyptians,worshipped bes the pgymy as they did,and ankhs were found in the area what more proof do you need?Besides that letter from some pharoh all panicky abt his prized pygmy.I bet half those egyptian dwarves are pygmies.
anyway off topic - not abt tutsi.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Do you have sources for this? If what you say is true, I don't know why I haven't heard much about it before.
You say the Twa have oral legends about the Egyptians, how so??
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:yes I know the khoikhoi and the san are seperate but they came together quite recently.
^ Even khoikoi, and san are not -two- peoples.
There are many peoples who khoisan languages.
South African San and Tanzanian Sandawe are no more related than say - Swahili and Xhosa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Thanks for the info, Rasol.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Bumped in response to 'Hamitic caucasoid' thread.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: How sick. I told you this boy has been going around on this forum since '05 claiming that Africans were the worlds slaves and his response is evidence.
Djehuti wrote: -------------------------------------- Most people educated on history know that after the ban on African slavery, Americans turned to slaves from Asia. --------------------------------------
Fool do some research sometimes instead of jocking on the posts of others like some kind of puppy.
People from England, France, and Germany, as well as other non-Africans were being sold at the same time that Africans were.
Your little deranged backdoor tactic to regulate slavery as something exclusively African has just been debunked.
People, I and others have said many times this boy was a liberal racist who delusionally believes in a racial hierarchy where Africans are the lowest.
How sick.
Everybody knows what you say about Djehuti is the exact opposite argyle. I don't see one thing racist against black people that you posted which Djehuti has said.
What is sick is your making up lies about people who are trying to contribute to knowledge about Africans and overcome the lies of Euronuts. He apparently got you mad back some time ago about something and you can't get over it. Posted by The Old Doctore (Member # 18546) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Bumped in response to 'Hamitic caucasoid' thread.
There are two Tutsi individuals that have been tested with 23andme and both of them cluster in between West Africans and NE Africans. One of them was determined to be 37% Niger-Kordofanian, 36% Cushitic, 13% Maasai, and 13% Sandawe by Razib's STRUCTURE run(s) and various other autosomal programs... so relativey around 60% indigenous East African vs. 40% "Bantu". The other Tutsi sample is ~15% more indigenous East African (the first Tutsi individual is 1/4th Hutu, so likely affecting his affinity), and is closer to the Somali than he is to the Nigerians or even Luhya Kenyans.
The first Tutsi guy is 45% Cushitic, 40% Niger-Kordofanian or "Bantu", and 15% Nilotic. The second Tutsi guy is likely 60% Cushitic, 25% Niger-Kordofanian, and 15% Nilotic. The Hutu are likely on average less than 10% Cushitic, around 4-7%, with some outliers who are more and a similar amount of Nilotic ancestry... so around 75-80% Niger-Kordofanian or "Bantu".
The Tutsi did likely migrate from further east and only expanded into Rwanda/Burundi relatively recently alongside fellow traditionally pastoralist groups like the Hema. They are most similar to groups like the Kikuyu, Chagga, and Mbugu who are also Bantu speakers, but possess very significant Afrasan ancestry.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Word has that 23andme is a racist site/side.
Posted by The Old Doctore (Member # 18546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Word has that 23andme is a racist site/side.
23andme isn't a site, it's a genetic/health company.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Word has that 23andme is a racist site/side.
23andme isn't a site, it's a genetic/health company.
Ok thanks, but word is that it's racist and biased.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I have been doing some recent updated research about rwanda. Does anybody know of any new recent threads on this forum?
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Here is latest update info. Some folks in other forums are saying this is not true below and tutis are a mixed with europeans whites or horn of africans that have white admixture etc.. Of course the info below debunks that and that's not true at all reading the info below.
Origins of Hutu Tutsi and Twa Anthropological argument
quote: While most supporters of the migration theory are also supporters of the "Hamitic theory", namely that the Tutsi came from the Horn of Africa, a later theory proposed that the Tutsi had instead migrated from nearby interior East Africa, and that the physical differences were the result of natural selection in a dry arid climate over millennia. Among the most detailed theories was one put forward by Jean Hiernaux, based on studies of blood factors and archeology. Noting the fossil record of a tall people with narrow facial features several thousand years ago in East Africa, including locations such as Gambles Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania, Hiernaux argues that while there was a migration, it was not as dramatic as some sources have proposed. He explicitly attacks the Hamitic theory that migrants from Ethiopia brought civilization to other Africans.
However, in light of recent genetic studies, Hiernaux's theory on the origin of Tutsis in East Africa appears doubtful. It has also been demonstrated that the Tutsis harbor little to no Northeastern African genetic influence on their paternal line. On the other hand, there is currently no mtDNA data available for the Tutsi, which might have helped shed light on their background.
The Rwandan myth of the Tutsi and Hutu difference was perpetuated by the Belgian Colonial Administration, helped by filmmaker Armand Denis during the 1930s.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Tutsi Origins and classification
quote:
The definition of "Tutsi" people have changed through time and location. Social structures were not stable throughout Rwanda, even during colonial times under the Belgian rule. The Tutsi aristocracy or elite was distinguished from Tutsi commoners.
When the Belgian colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined "Tutsi" as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical features of a longer thin nose, high cheekbones, and being over six feet tall, all of which are common descriptions associated with the Tutsi.
Tutsis are said to have arrived in the Great Lakes region from the Horn of Africa.
Tutsis are considered to be of Cushitic origin, although they do not speak a Cushitic language, and have lived in the areas where they presently inhabit for at least 400 years, leading to considerable intermarriage with the Hutu in the area. Due to the history of intermingling and intermarrying of Hutus and Tutsis, some ethnographers and historians are of the view that Hutu and Tutsis cannot be called distinct ethnic groups.
Many analysts as well as inhabitants of the Great Lakes Region, carrying on the tradition, distinguish the Tutsi – as "Cushitics" – from Bantu people like the Hutu and several ethnic groups in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and in Uganda (excluding the Hima). However, Bantu is a linguistic classification (see the Bantu lemma as well as the lemma on Bantu people – the latter says: "Bantu people are the speakers of Bantu languages"). As the Tutsi speak the same Bantu language as the Hutu, they are Bantu (speaking) people.
Genetics
quote:
Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome generally indicate that the Tutsi, like the Hutu, are largely of Bantu extraction (60% E1b1a, 20% B, 4% E-P2(xE1b1a)). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (under 3% E1b1b-M35), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. However, the Tutsi have considerably more haplogroup B paternal lineages (14.9% B) than do the Hutu (4.3% B).
mtDNA (maternal lineages)
quote:
There are no peer-reviewed genetic studies of the Tutsi's mtDNA or maternal lineages. However, Fornarino et al. (2009) report that unpublished data indicates that one Tutsi individual from Rwanda carries the India-associated mtDNA haplogroup R7.Further individual 23andme DNA tests suggest that Tutsi mtDNA lineages are associated with local East African Hunter-gatherer maternal haplogroups, particularly haplogroup L0, with very few associated with West African mtDNA lineages. A good number also carry West-Eurasian mtDNA lineages, particularly M1a, K1a; but also J1 and R0
Autosomal DNA (overall ancestry) In general, the Tutsi appear to share a close genetic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutus. However, it is unclear whether this similarity is primarily due to extensive genetic exchanges between these communities through intermarriage or whether it ultimately stems from common origins:
quote: [...] generations of gene flow obliterated whatever clear-cut physical distinctions may have once existed between these two Bantu peoples – renowned to be height, body build, and facial features. With a spectrum of physical variation in the peoples, Belgian authorities legally mandated ethnic affiliation in the 1920s, based on economic criteria. Formal and discrete social divisions were consequently imposed upon ambiguous biological distinctions. To some extent, the permeability of these categories in the intervening decades helped to reify the biological distinctions, generating a taller elite and a shorter underclass, but with little relation to the gene pools that had existed a few centuries ago. The social categories are thus real, but there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi.
Tishkoff et al. (2009) found their mixed Hutu and Tutsi samples from Rwanda to be predominantly of Bantu origin, with minor gene flow from Afro-Asiatic communities (17.7% Afro-Asiatic genes found in the mixed Hutu/Tutsi population).
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Rwandans.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
By the way i mention rwandans,above and below,not just the tutsi. Some more rwandans.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Keep in mind for now i am mostly posting beauty pics etc..
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
More pictures of rwandans and other blacks here.
Topic: BLACK BEAUTY, spin-off from Black in Latin America thread
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
