The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Hey Lion, you sorry-ass lying piece of sh1t. What's with all of those pictures of White and almost White people, they're NOT Mozabite's!
The Mozabite people are a Berber ethnic group living in M'zab in the northern Sahara. They speak Tumzabt. Most of them are Ibadi Muslims. Nearly all of them read and write Arabic, though they use the Zenata dialect of the Berber language, for which they have no surviving written form.
Mozabites live in five oases, namely, Ghardaia, Beni-Isguen, El-Ateuf, Melika and Bounoura and two other isolated oases farther north, Berriane and Guerrara
Market in Ghardaïa
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
There's a difference between "Haratin" Mozabite and ethnic Mozabite, the Mozabite tested in the Tishkoff study were ethnic Mozabite who look like your average Northern Saharan/Coastal North African; lighter skin, etc. The ethnic Mozabite population is 49% non-"Saharan/Dogon" and 51% "Saharan/Dogon"... with them possessing more African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" blue (40%) than non-African "European" blue (20%).
ethnic Mozabite
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
For example if you isolated African-Americans as they are now in regards to genetics and phenotype, predomiantly West/Central African (87%) and non-African (13%). And you leave them on that island isolated from other groups for a thousand years, while genetically they're still 87% African and 13% non-African, physically due to sexual trends in the AA community... the general phsyical appearance would be more in line with modern day Coastal North Africans or at least Creoles or Puerto Ricans. Think modern day Cape Couloureds who are largly African, 79%, but appear more "mixed" or non-African than they "should" be according to genetics.
The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"... therefore why todays more modern Madagascar population resemble Africans much more than they do Southeast Asians... most of them being physically identical to Southern and Eastern African populations, even if they're almost genetically equally African and Southwest Asian. People who resemble Asians are an extreme minority.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.
I am not at all sure the Mozabites are good representatives of North Africa. They are North Africans but if I remember, Tishkoff's sample was Mozabites in Algeria, which she labels as "saharan" leaving out huge areas North Africa- Chad, Mali, Niger, etc. See the map from her study below. If the Mozabites are being studied by themselves fine, but when they start slapping broad labels on like 'Saharan' or "rperesentative" we should be on the alert.
Basically Tishkoff's "representative Saharans" are Algerians - a very skewed sample that some may then try to link to "Eurasians". You can see the same old stacked deck sampling game being run as in previous studies of North Africans and Saharans. The more the Saharans can be "Caucasianized" the more Egypt can be detached from its African context. Let's be skeptical of some of Tishkoff's methods. See Bosch below, doing the same thing with purported "North Africans" ...
similar skewed sampling:
and see the skewed sampling they are running below with southern Egyptians.. They went all the way to Algeria to get samples, while neglecting Nubia, and the Sudan right next door.
more skewed samples and stacked decks Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
I'd specifically like to see the response from "the cowardly lion" to Doctoris, as Doctoris was specifically called out...albeit no doubt from a misunderstanding of what was posted originally...
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: There's a difference between "Haratin" Mozabite and ethnic Mozabite, the Mozabite tested in the Tishkoff study were ethnic Mozabite who look like your average Northern Saharan/Coastal North African; lighter skin, etc. The ethnic Mozabite population is 49% non-"Saharan/Dogon" and 51% "Saharan/Dogon"... with them possessing more African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" blue (40%) than non-African "European" blue (20%).
ethnic Mozabite
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
For example if you isolated African-Americans as they are now in regards to genetics and phenotype, predomiantly West/Central African (87%) and non-African (13%). And you leave them on that island isolated from other groups for a thousand years, while genetically they're still 87% African and 13% non-African, physically due to sexual trends in the AA community... the general phsyical appearance would be more in line with modern day Coastal North Africans or at least Creoles or Puerto Ricans. Think modern day Cape Couloureds who are largly African, 79%, but appear more "mixed" or non-African than they "should" be according to genetics.
The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"... therefore why todays more modern Madagascar population resemble Africans much more than they do Southeast Asians... most of them being physically identical to Southern and Eastern African populations, even if they're almost genetically equally African and Southwest Asian. People who resemble Asians are an extreme minority.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia
Stop running from your beatdown and answer the question.
What makes someone 'x' % this, 'y' % this, 'z' % this, etc.?
We're still waiting...................
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia,
Apparently you're illiterate. Those south African coloreds are actually descendents of Malaysian, South Asian, and Chinese slaves brought over to South Africa.
Yet another scholarly beatdown you've suffered at my hands.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
don't front on the doc he's an actual doctor, who the hell are you?
.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thus, in KwaZulu-Natal, most coloureds come from British and Zulu heritage, while Zimbabwean coloureds come from Shona or Ndebele mixing with British and Afrikaner settlers. Griqua, on the other hand, are descendants of Khoisan and Afrikaner trekboers. Despite these major differences, the fact that they draw parentage from more than one 'naturalised' racial group means that they are 'coloured' in the southern African context. Such people did not necessarily self-identify this way; some preferred to call themselves 'black' or 'Khoisan' or just 'South African'.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
below I will quote Doctoris Scientia's two posts exactly in complete form from the thread called
"Horn Africans and Ancient Egyptians - same group" (thread starter osirion)
Basically in my initial post I compiled a couple of his posts, keeping context, the main difference is that I put up the photos he had selected but had put them in link form. Below are the exact quotes with the links. Go to the links and you will see that the photos I used in my initial thread here are from the Doctor. I didn't really change or add anything. I have returned the photos to the original safe link only format as to not upset anyone:
_____________________________________________ page two, 6th post
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: In regard to the Mozabite in Algeria.
Mozabite = 40% African Blue + 20% Eurasian Blue = 60 % Blue.
In addition to the 40% composed of both Cushitic (Purple) and Niger-Kordafanian (Orange).
Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Mozabite = 40% African Blue + 20% Eurasian Blue = 60 % Blue.
In addition to the 40% composed of both Cushitic (Purple) and Niger-Kordafanian (Orange).
Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Them being 80% African, really kills the whole East Africans are mulatto theory. LOL.
____________________________________ page two, 12th post
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Doc, does Tishkoff et all make this distinction you are making "Eurasian Blue" and "African Blue" in the study ? Is this difference indicated in the map color charts?
Yes, it does. Thats why the team who took part in the study labeled blue in regards to Africa as "Saharan/Dogon" and blue in regards to Eurasia as "European" < whatever that means, "Southwest Asian" is much more accurate since Europe had little influence on any human gene-pool, even it's own.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predomiantly African. Even if you disgarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African.
do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thats not true, as AA are a mix of various African Tribes, the 20% just rep. Europeans.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
tribal leaders from Ghardaia, Algeria
girl from from Ghardaia
Mozabite
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.
I am not at all sure the Mozabites are good representatives of North Africa. They are North Africans but if I remember, Tishkoff's sample was Mozabites in Algeria, which she labels as "saharan" leaving out huge areas North Africa- Chad, Mali, Niger, etc. See the map from her study below. If the Mozabites are being studied by themselves fine, but when they start slapping broad labels on like 'Saharan' or "rperesentative" we should be on the alert.
Basically Tishkoff's "representative Saharans" are Algerians - a very skewed sample that some may then try to link to "Eurasians". You can see the same old stacked deck sampling game being run as in previous studies of North Africans and Saharans. The more the Saharans can be "Caucasianized" the more Egypt can be detached from its African context. Let's be skeptical of some of Tishkoff's methods. See Bosch below, doing the same thing with purported "North Africans" ...
similar skewed sampling:
and see the skewed sampling they are running below with southern Egyptians.. They went all the way to Algeria to get samples, while neglecting Nubia, and the Sudan right next door.
more skewed samples and stacked decks
The Tishkoff study sampled several Saharan populations, from Chad, Mali, Sudan, and several other West African Saharan groups from several other countries. So while the Mozabite may not represent the entire Saharo-North African sub-region, since their genetic ancestry is drastically different from that of Chad and Mali, they are a good representation of the general Berber/Arab speaking Northwest African population... with the Kabyle and the Tuareg representing two extremes.
Also, "Saharan/Dogon" represented the ancestral group in question to the "ancestral" African blue, given the fact that the ancestral group showed a greater affinity to the Dogon then it did do either the Mozabite or the Beja. Meaning that the Dogon are genetically more closer to the source population than any other group with possession of the above ancestry. Therefore why they chose "Saharan/Dogon" over that of "Saharan/Mozabite" or "Saharan/Beja".
The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
Check out my previous post, in which I explain why Coastal and Northern Saharan populations look the way they do.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Doctoris Scientia,
Apparently you're illiterate. Those south African coloreds are actually descendents of Malaysian, South Asian, and Chinese slaves brought over to South Africa.
Yet another scholarly beatdown you've suffered at my hands.
LOL... "scholarly beatdown", yeah ok sure.
South African coloureds are predomiantly African derived populations with a minor European input, and an even smaller "Asian" contribution.
"The major ancestral components of the South African Coloured population are predominantly Khoisan (32–43%), Bantu-speaking Africans (20–36%), European (21–28%) and a smaller Asian contribution (9–11%), depending on the model used."
52-79% African 30-39% non-African
Predomiantly African, no matter what way you cut it.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jari-Matamoros: do not forget ,some african americans have no admixture had all,about 20%.
Thats not true, as AA are a mix of various African Tribes, the 20% just rep. Europeans.
100% C/S.
African-Americans as a group are 87% African, and only 13% European.
80% of all African-Americans are at least 75%. 70% of all African-Americans are at least 85%. 42% of all African-Americans are 100% African or quite near 100%. 20% of all African-Americans are atleast 50-75% African. 5% of all African-Americans have any trace of Native American ancestry. So if you do, your special. =)
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia
Stop running from your beatdown and answer the question.
What makes someone 'x' % this, 'y' % this, 'z' % this, etc.?
We're still waiting...................
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I FOUND THE THIS the u.s. census on african american.is seem all blacks in america are called african americans even recent african groups. ____________ quote-
Most African Americans are the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations. As an adjective, the term is usually spelled African-American.
the breakdown like this.
On census forms, the government depends on individuals' self-identification. Due in part to a centuries-old history within the United States, historical experiences pre- and post-slavery, and migrations throughout North America, contemporary African Americans possess varying degrees of admixture with European ancestry. A lesser percentage also have Native American ancestry.
# 58 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one great-grandparent);
# 19.6 percent of African Americans have at least 25 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one grandparent);
# 1 percent of African Americans have at least 50 percent European ancestry (equivalent of one parent); and
# 5 percent of African Americans have at least 12.5 percent Native American ancestry (equivalent to one great-grandparent).
_______________- this means out of the 40 million blacks in the u.s. around 32 million have some form of admixture form another race and about and 8 million do not have any admixture from any other race.
some say that up to 70% of black americans have some form of white admixture instead of 77%. lamin mention once before it may be lower then even 70%,but 77% is what we got so far. this may get lower in the future or not.
___________________________________________
remember there are a few african americans in not represented here that have european or white dn that have less then 12% or less then 4% or 3%.
same with native american dna. very few have like like less then 12 has well.large number of african americans with native american dna have white dna too,that is why it number is rounded off, of african americans with admixture to around 80%,while the 20% of african american with no admixture,are really are a admixture of unmixed blacks. you just remind us of something,when folks think of admixture or mixed they always think of racial mixture when speaking of blacks,but with whites it's always mixture with in their own group and there racial mixture is always most of the time left out,but overall most african americans are a mixture of african black african ethnic groups.
that is what mark shriver the geneticist told once has well.
___________________________---
true Jari-Matamoros any african americans that do not have any white or native american dna is a mixture of unmixed black groups from africa,of course there are a few that come from only one ethnic group from africa when tested but that is few. chris tucker for an example has only 10% native ameica dna but they trace has african dna to only one ethnic group in angola. Don Cheadle on on the the show who do you think you are? thought he had some native dna,but it turn out that he had none.on the show they wil; mention if he has other dna but they did not so i assume he has no white dna has will,so don seem to be a unmixed black.
_____________
i wonder if africa americans were isolated for 1000 years if most or a large chunk would they turn out to look more like dominicans,the black looking one that is, or not. puerto ricans ,well most of them do not look black at all,so the closest look if isolated would be dominicans,or overall just remain he basically the same look,but it's hard to tell the future on that one if african american would lie like if isolated,i have not really thought of that one.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
Doctoris said: The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
OK fair enough. It is a good approach to take- breaking down the color coding. I have seen some on the web try to twist it into some sort of vague "Eurasian" grouping.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Doctoris said: The blue among the Mozabite, like you already mentioned, is of mixed origin, unlike the Dogon or the Beja. Meaning they possess both ancestral indigenous African Saharan and more recent non-African admixture. But than again the ancestral African admixture forms the majority of the "blue" found among the Mozabite, +/-30%, with the recent non-African blue forming the minority, +/-20%. Mozabite are therefore 40% African minus the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestry, 40% African "Saharan/Dogon", and only 20% non-African. Therefore tearing apart any theory that Berber/Arab North Africans, while receiving limited non-African admixture, for the most part are indigenous Africans, i.e. not "Caucasoid", genetically related to other Africans.
OK fair enough. It is a good approach to take- breaking down the color coding. I have seen some on the web try to twist it into some sort of vague "Eurasian" grouping.
Right. Even when the study itself points out the multi-origins of the "blue" colour characterized in the groupings of ancestral groups. This study, while some may deny it, is a nightmare for Eurocentrics, not only does it debunk massive admixture among most East and North African populations, it proposes significant gene-flow from Africa into "Western Eurasia".
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Kendo, You mentioned some comments I made a while back on Kittles's Y-chromosome study of AAs. He claimed that 27% of AAs showed European male Y DNA, while with AA females it was 5%.
This seems to be supported by direct haplogroup analysis of AA males. The percentage with E3a ranges from 67-75%--as the research goes.
But what I find puzzling is that given that AA males were always in proximity to AA females during the days of captivity and subsequently, this would mean that for any given year the vast majority of offspring of AA females would have AA fathers--as is the case even today when legal restrictions on "inter-racial mating" have been removed; so how could it be that only 20% have only direct African ancestry?
The Tishkoff study offers a hint of the breakdown. If the actual European genomic input is 13% then it would be highly unlikely that that 13% be spread among 80% of the population, or even among 60%.
Seems as if kittles's numbers would be more reliable: Tishkoff's 13% would be spread over some 27%(Kittles) of the AA population bearing in mind that some AAs--according to customary sociological principles---might have as much as 75-85% European ancestry.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
kittles and shriver work together for a short while i think,shriver was the one i spoke to a few years ago. he was one that mention to to about 80% of african americans had some form admixture.he mention to me the combined study was for all black groups america,but all were labeled african american.
has you know of the recent research,about 58% of african americans have about 12.5 white dna,so it seems the the % of white dna is for the average african american is not has high has folks thought.
folks who though they had native american dna,turns out they did not have it or have white dna.
in some regions in america you have some on averge having about 25% white dna ,other region it's lower then then 10% and some areas african americans with no admixture has awhole.this wouldbe 20% of african american american with no admixture.they tend do be more so among other blacks over the years.
what most folks seem to be more surprise at is such a low % of african americans with native american dna.
I thought it was much higher,but it turn out to be much lower ,but i am not really surprised.
___________________________________
anyway this berber study is what i what to focus on now.let's talk about it the berber study on thist thread and clear up a some facts about berbers.i remember recent i was going back and forth on another about the berbers.i show him some pictures of berbers that were black,but this fool kept telling me they were not berbers but berber slaves.he did not even post pictures of brown pictures.this guy wastrying to post every white looking berber has much has he could.i find it amazing the mindset of these folks who do that.
even the moors.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
anyway this berber study is what i what to focus on now.let's talk about it the berber study on thist thread and clear up a some facts about berbers.i remember recent i was going back and forth on another about the berbers.i show him some pictures of berbers that were black,but this fool kept telling me they were not berbers but berber slaves.he did not even post pictures of brown pictures.this guy wastrying to post every white looking berber has much has he could.i find it amazing the mindset of these folks who do that.
even the moors.
the lion:The thread is talking specifically of Mozabite Berbers of Northern Algeria. If somebody posted pictures of Tuareg Berbers from somewhere else such as Mali who look "black" to you it would be unremarkable. You would say," yeah so what, they're African, they look black what did you expect" and I would agree.
But I posted all the photos below that doc linked of Mozabites, specifically, who according to him, are 80% African indigenous according to DNA from the large Tishkoff study- that's more African than Barack Obama, regardless of whether or not they don't look black enough for your liking.
quote: Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:Mozabite are therefore about 80% African.
.
quote:photos Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia::
quote: Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
Right. Even when the study itself points out the multi-origins of the "blue" colour characterized in the groupings of ancestral groups. This study, while some may deny it, is a nightmare for Eurocentrics, not only does it debunk massive admixture among most East and North African populations, it proposes significant gene-flow from Africa into "Western Eurasia".
The blurb below is from one website on the Tishkoff study. Can you or anyone break it down into "plain English"? Is the author saying that:
a)the "R haplogroup has certain unique markers found only in Africa, markingit out as the "original"?
b) Hence any variants found in Europe or the Middle East such as R1 and subsets of the original African 'R"?
c) Hence any Africans that later have R1, do not have a "European/Middle Eastern" variant, but are themselves just another parallel group that picked up the subsets from the "original "R"?
In other words, the 'R" group is a tree with several sub-branches of variants. Europeans and Middle easterners picked up one of the branches. Certain groups of Africans ALSO picked up the same branches as the Europeans, parallel with them. So a branch labeled 'European" is not that at all, but simply another variant picked up by other Africans as well, parallel to the Europeans/Measterners? Both the Africans and Europeans sit on the same branch, being both joint recipients from the original African mother-source?
The Africans therefore owe nothing to the Europeans/Middle Easterners. They are parallel recipients from the original source at various times and places?
----
d) Now if a, b and c above are true, what data would be needed to support such an argument- the unique markers of the African original? What would be the boundaries and limitations of the argument? What are concrete examples from the field in support of this argument? The b;urb below? Other?
By all means, correct the above scenarios if in error. Just trying to establish various strands of reasoning clearly.
"Again quite misleading. Yes, understandably, "low" levels of shared ancestry attributable to potential "European" ancestry, might be correlated with "low level" incidences (~1.7 %) of R1b [pertaining the Rosa et al.'s (2007) Guinean sample] or relics of this ancestry attained from coastal northwestern populations [Imazighen] seen on the mtDNA side [Cherny et al. 2006], as cited in the main post. However, in the case of Fula samples, from northern Cameroon through to Sudan, a good degree of presumed shared "European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue]" may very well actually be linked to common "distant" ancestry, as the paraphyletic R*-M207 and R1*-M173 markers suggest; these latter two are essentially rare to absent in "Middle Eastern" and "European" populations, which are mainly characterized by more downstream markers, especially European populations, who have no upstream markers for R1. Now, because R1b and R1a markers are still 'molecularly' linked to the upstream R*, any group bearing the latter or else any intermediary nodes between the upstream R* and the downstream R1a and R1b will "appear" to share ancestry with Europeans and/or possibly "Middle Easterners", which could misleadingly be misread as ancestry from "European/Middle East". Given the features of northern Cameroonian and Sudanese Fula sample uniparental male gene pool, it is a safe bet that this is the underlying issue at work, especially when the red flag of "moderate" levels is evoked; the Fula uniparental gene pool specifics, whether maternal or paternal, simply do not bear out "moderate" ancestry from "Middle East" or "Europe". --
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
^ You basically got the main point of the above quote, in that R lineages in much of Africa, in particular West/Central Africa, are in way the product of a back-migration from "Europe" or "Southwest", and that the groups who possess these said lineages are therefore not the product of mixture from "Eurasia" into Africa. African groups possess ancestral upstream lineages in associated with haplogroup R, i.e. R*-M207 and R1*-M173. Making any "European" or "Middle Eastern" origin of those markers among Africans impossible, in that these non-Africans groups carry downstream lineages. The above quote also indirectly like many other studies proposes an African origin for Haplogroup R, and many of the other Haplogroups spanning both Africa and "Eurasia", i.e. IJK (and it's descendants), M1, N etc.
Also, R1a and R1b are found in Europe, they are downstream mutations, any R* or R1* found in the Middle East, none have been found in Europe, are found among African derived populations in places like the Dead Sea at lower levels than in Africa.
R1a and R1b are also found in Africa, i.e. Coastal North Africa, at very low levels.
Also, like the quote said as well, the uni-parental ancestry of the Fulani and Chadic populations show no trace of any non-African ancestry.
The recent Tishkoff study even goes further in proving the above point. The Tishkoff study finds no non-African ancestry among the Chadic or Fulani groups, both groups also possess miniscal levels of the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestral group, who form the ancestral group which recently donated ancestry to non-Africans. Therefore suggesting an origin of Haplogroup R among another group other than the ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" cluster.
"The fact that Chadic speakers have high frequencies of a maker deemed "Eurasian" : R1 but have little possibly "Saharan/Dogon" or "Eurasian" yet cluster with Southern Sudan / Central Sudanic + forms their OWN cluster is very telling about the coalescence location of such Chadic speakers themselves. And also how Eurasian Blue is/was NOT spread."
"The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13 in the global analysis and at K <8 in the Africa analysis. Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations."
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
I imagine that the relevant and parallel question is the extent of that kind of population modification taking place in North Africa. The possibility of such probably explains the often noted disconnect between phenotype and genotype.
Posted by benabramsson (Member # 17730) on :
They came here before columbus Dr Ivan van Sertima http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IywJ1DGuecY Does anyone know how much of this is true
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
I imagine that the relevant and parallel question is the extent of that kind of population modification taking place in North Africa. The possibility of such probably explains the often noted disconnect between phenotype and genotype.
check you private email. thanks.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: ^ You basically got the main point of the above quote, in that R lineages in much of Africa, in particular West/Central Africa, are in way the product of a back-migration from "Europe" or "Southwest", and that the groups who possess these said lineages are therefore not the product of mixture from "Eurasia" into Africa. African groups possess ancestral upstream lineages in associated with haplogroup R, i.e. R*-M207 and R1*-M173. Making any "European" or "Middle Eastern" origin of those markers among Africans impossible, in that these non-Africans groups carry downstream lineages. The above quote also indirectly like many other studies proposes an African origin for Haplogroup R, and many of the other Haplogroups spanning both Africa and "Eurasia", i.e. IJK (and it's descendants), M1, N etc.
Also, R1a and R1b are found in Europe, they are downstream mutations, any R* or R1* found in the Middle East, none have been found in Europe, are found among African derived populations in places like the Dead Sea at lower levels than in Africa.
R1a and R1b are also found in Africa, i.e. Coastal North Africa, at very low levels.
Also, like the quote said as well, the uni-parental ancestry of the Fulani and Chadic populations show no trace of any non-African ancestry.
The recent Tishkoff study even goes further in proving the above point. The Tishkoff study finds no non-African ancestry among the Chadic or Fulani groups, both groups also possess miniscal levels of the "Saharan/Dogon" ancestral group, who form the ancestral group which recently donated ancestry to non-Africans. Therefore suggesting an origin of Haplogroup R among another group other than the ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" cluster.
"The fact that Chadic speakers have high frequencies of a maker deemed "Eurasian" : R1 but have little possibly "Saharan/Dogon" or "Eurasian" yet cluster with Southern Sudan / Central Sudanic + forms their OWN cluster is very telling about the coalescence location of such Chadic speakers themselves. And also how Eurasian Blue is/was NOT spread."
"The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13 in the global analysis and at K <8 in the Africa analysis. Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations."
Indeed. Check your mail for that other report.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
These photos show the interesting contrast to the Berber-looking people of Ghardaia. The Ibadites were originally Berbers mainly Zenata and many in fact were supposed to have been Jews. Since Jews were more inclined to stay to themselves in a very late period the Jews of Wargla are called "as black as Negroes".
The land of M'zab was settled by the Iranians who formed the Rustamite Kingdom there in the 8th century. Thus we can see the obvious contrast still playing out today in the differing phenotypes. The Iranians coming over 1000 years to various regions of North Africa as they did in Yemen so they are of course going to have African blood after these many centuries.
On the other hand I haven't heard of Haratin being among the early Ibadites. The Iranians described the Berbers like the Masmuda as "black Africans". The darker skinned Ghardaia in Mike's picture certainly look more like pure Berbers of Zenata stock they came from resembling many of their Tuareg, Masmuda, Sanhaja relatives today.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lion: [qb] The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
One can perhaps see some Balkan or Greek influence in the attire of these women.
[IMG]
These photos show the interesting contrast to the Berber-looking people of Ghardaia. The Ibadites were originally Berbers mainly Zenata and many in fact were supposed to have been Jews. Since Jews were more inclined to stay to themselves in a very late period the Jews of Wargla are called "as black as Negroes".
The land of M'zab was settled by the Iranians (Eurasiatics) who formed the Rustamite Kingdom there in the 8th century along with the indigenous clans of Berbers. Thus we can see the obvious contrast still playing out today in the differing phenotypes. The Iranians came and settled over 1000 years ago in various regions of North Africa (as they did in Yemen during the Sassanid era) so they are of course going to have African blood after these many centuries.
On the other hand I haven't heard of Haratin being among the early Ibadites. The Iranians in their texts describe the Berbers like the Masmuda as "black Africans". The darker skinned Ghardaia in Mike's picture certainly look more like pure Berbers of Zenata stock they came from - unlike the Nilo-Saharan originated Haratin - resembling many of their Tuareg, Masmuda, Sanhaja relatives today.
M''zab Berbers of Ghardaia
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
The dark skinned Berbers of Figuig in eastern Morocco belong to this same ancient African stock once known as Berber in North and East Africa. Such people once occupied much of the Mediterranean. Berbers of Figig Oasis were of Zenaga (Sanhaja stock) and had inherited the prosperity of the Midieval Kingdom of Sijilmasa. It was during this time Berbers started becoming mixed with Iranians and other Eurasiatics.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scienta:
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scienta:
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
doc goes by the DNA
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scienta:
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
I 100% agree, I'm in no way denying the fact of significant non-African admixture into the Northern Coastal/Northern Saharan Berber/Arab population, but that these particular populations are biologically more related to other Africans than they are no-Africans. They're predominant "divergent" physical appearance being the result of sexual preferences among the general North African population, explaining the general appearance of the Berber/Arab speaking peoples. Theres no need for any extensive admixture, a limited 20% non-African genetic input is enough to change the general appearance of a particular population, depending on the sexual trends of that population.
Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African. That number is likely going to be the same in much of Berber speaking North Africa. With the Tuareg/Haratin/Siwa/Moors representing one extreme and the Kabyle/Riffan representing the other.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion: doc goes by the DNA
Nice to know, so do i.
The Mozabites' "predominant divergent" phys appearance is explained as
quote:Originally posted by the Doc:
Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred
There was also extra continental influence coming from those of a lower social status (i.e. the circassian slaves and European (mostly female) slaves.
Proximity also played a part in exaggerating both the higher social and lower social status influences: Saharan Africa's biggest populations are at its edges fueling extremes like the Tuareg and Kabyle and thusly North Africa's (which is the Mediterranean Coast and Northern Sahara) largest populations are going to be the ones at the Mediterranean Coast instead of in the middle of the Sahara.
I too can draw parallels -- as much as paternal European ancestry shows up in black American U.S.A.) Middle Passage descended individuals to this day, a percentage reflecting mixing patterns before say the 1960's and most certainly much higher than the current percentage of such interracial pregnancies or marriages. Simply put lower social status can cause population growth as well, but yeah i can see how in N.A. the new and more urban extra-continentals with more status would have influence as well.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African.
Is this taking into account both parental markers (X and Y)?
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
_____________80% tropically adapted
.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Still continuing to show your inability to comprehend I see. Using your imbecilic understanding of tropically adapted, modern Greeks who show 25% African E derivatives are 25% tropically adapted. That's not how it works kid. Tropical adaptations are resulted from osteological analysis, not DNA.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Still continuing to show your inability to comprehend I see. Using your imbecilic understanding of tropically adapted modern Greeks who show 25% African E derivatives are 25% tropically adapted.
That's not how it works kid. Tropical adaptations are resulted from the study of osteology, not DNA.
we are not talking about Greeks. that is a Mozabite Berber provided by doc as well as the other pics in the initial thread, doc's links. Also, tropical adaptation are traits determined by DNA
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
And? We weren't talking about tropical adaptations either, and your failure to see the point I made with the Greeks further shows your incompetence.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: doc's links
nice disclaimer.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Also, tropical adaptation are traits determined by DNA
They're determined by the environment and through osteological studies, not DNA.
As I've stated, using your mis-comprehension, then modern Greeks are 25% tropically adapted simply because they're Y-chromosome shows African admixture, without the actual osteological data to confirm this you're going out on a limb. No pun intended.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: And? We weren't talking about tropical adaptations either, and your failure to see the point I made with the Greeks further shows your incompetence.
How about making a point about Mozabite Berbers in a thread about Mozabite Berbers? Why would these North Africans not be tropically adapted?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
How about I corrected your incompetence concerning tropical adaptations in this thread, yet again, and now you're running, yet again. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: How about I corrected your incompetence concerning tropical adaptations in this thread, yet again, and now you're running, yet again.
All modern humans are tropical adapted regardless of skin color. How many times must you be told.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^No, all modern humans are not tropically adapted lil Mikey, I've proven this to you a number of times in the past. You, like "the cowardly lion", always fail to grasp the concept. Btw, I noticed somewhere you wrote that white skin was supposedly adapted to the cold, when its not (lighterskin is adapted in response to lesser UV, not cold), and never was said to be. We're talking about limb proportions, osteology, I.e, higher brachial and crural indices. Not about height either, for example Pygmies show higher brachial and crural indices than Europeans who on average are taller.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Kendo, your points are noted. But it was Kittles who did the research on AA Y-chromosome analysis, not Shriver.
Tishkoff put the AA European genetic load as 13%--not 20% as was the standard claim for many years. Admittedly, one must take any sampling analysis with the proverbial grain of salt.
Compound that with the Kittles claim that 5% of AA females demsonstrate maternal MtDNA of European provenance. So there you have it: Kittles claims 27% and 5%(females) and Tishkoff claims 13%---so how does all that produce 58% European DNA.
Add to this the question of whether there was any year when the majority of offspring of AA females was not AA male?
I guess it all depends on the definition of AA male. The Europeans sought to ensure that no non-European genes enter their gene pool--hence they walled themselves off genetically with the so-called "one-drop rule". I guess they assumed that a dilution factor of 1/32 was genetically safe--since at that point all phenotypical traces of African ancestry would have been "washed" out.
On the other hand, the fact that the BW offspring in the U.S. is usually palmed off into the AA ethnic community would mean some annual genetic leakage into that community. The result would some incremental "whitening" of the AA community--thus making that group more palatable to the European community--and some have been conditioned to accept and promote that socio-genetic policy.
oh,i see what you mean.i think you misunderstood me.i did not mean to say that most african americans are 58% european in dna,i meant to say most african americans 12.5% european dna on average or little less
that will be about 23 million african americans out of 40 million african americans.so thier was a misunderstanding there.keep in mind up to 8 million do not have any admixture at all.
that's all from on this topic,just want to clear the misunderstanding.
back to the topic, berbers.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
kenndo, lamin, Doctoris Scientia, and anyone else:
What is the genesis for this obsession that you have that AAs must be mixed?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
kenndo, lamin, Doctoris Scientia:
I thought Africans have the highest diversity of any group of people on the planet.
Do you believe this is not true? Do you believe that Africans look alike?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia,
If a scientist is going to produce a study or some other scientific hypothesis, shouldn't that person be at least familiar with the history of the object of the experiment?
For example if someone is going to study the solar system, rain forest, moon, grand canyon, etc. They normally are versed in the history of those entities, thus aiding in their ability to properly research them.
Therefore Doctoris Scientia, is it not bad scholarship that people like Tishkoff, Shriver, Kittles do not know basic history that other people for example South Asians were brought to America as slaves?
That is at the least sloppy, unintelligent, and incompetent scholarship.
Doctoris Scientia?...............
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African.
Is this taking into account both parental markers (X and Y)?
I'm not exactly sure if the study, the recent "pan-African" Tishkoff study, mentioned anything particular in regard to the parental markers of the Mozabite. But in regard to the Mozabite, don't they possess some of the highest frequencies of E-derived lineages in North Africa?
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: kenndo, lamin, Doctoris Scientia, and anyone else:
What is the genesis for this obsession that you have that AAs must be mixed?
I've said nothing in that regard, African-Americans are biologically a predominant African population, 87%, with some limited non-African admixture, 13%.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African.
Is this taking into account both parental markers (X and Y)?
I'm not exactly sure if the study, the recent "pan-African" Tishkoff study, mentioned anything particular in regard to the parental markers of the Mozabite. But in regard to the Mozabite, don't they possess some of the highest frequencies of E-derived lineages in North Africa?
But what does their Mtdna tell us?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia wrote: ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
And I will once again ask the question that you are so desperately avoiding. What makes someone % this, % that, % the other?
Since when can humans be broken down into components like chemistry experiments?
We're waiting.............................
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scienta:
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
I 100% agree, I'm in no way denying the fact of significant non-African admixture into the Northern Coastal/Northern Saharan Berber/Arab population, but that these particular populations are biologically more related to other Africans than they are no-Africans. They're predominant "divergent" physical appearance being the result of sexual preferences among the general North African population, explaining the general appearance of the Berber/Arab speaking peoples. Theres no need for any extensive admixture, a limited 20% non-African genetic input is enough to change the general appearance of a particular population, depending on the sexual trends of that population.
Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African. That number is likely going to be the same in much of Berber speaking North Africa. With the Tuareg/Haratin/Siwa/Moors representing one extreme and the Kabyle/Riffan representing the other.
Whatever the case may be it is striking that genetic studies would be done on the people of the M'zab region without the articles mentioning the large settlement of Iranians in the region. From what I've read the early genetic research on the Mzab claimed them the people of the region to be have a good amount of Eurasian genes. Of course, neither these early or the more recent studies mention the fact that a large number of Iranians several hundred years ago are documented as among the settlers which is equally important in as much as it lets us remember who the original Berbers were, what they looked like, and where they came from.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctoris Scienta:
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
True, but there is evidence that extra-continental influence is the case, so although we can't randomly attribute various things to it we must acknowledge it.
Most notably for Coastal Northern Africa there are the European and West Asian extra-continental nations and empires, the trafficking of circassian women which by the Islamic era had escalated to a massive trade of Christian sex slaves from places as far North as England. To factor these in with an even less (back then) densely and more sparsely inhabited North Africa's polygamy and it's easy to see how extra-continental influence could progress..
I 100% agree, I'm in no way denying the fact of significant non-African admixture into the Northern Coastal/Northern Saharan Berber/Arab population, but that these particular populations are biologically more related to other Africans than they are no-Africans. They're predominant "divergent" physical appearance being the result of sexual preferences among the general North African population, explaining the general appearance of the Berber/Arab speaking peoples. Theres no need for any extensive admixture, a limited 20% non-African genetic input is enough to change the general appearance of a particular population, depending on the sexual trends of that population.
Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African. That number is likely going to be the same in much of Berber speaking North Africa. With the Tuareg/Haratin/Siwa/Moors representing one extreme and the Kabyle/Riffan representing the other.
Whatever the case may be it is striking that genetic studies would be done on the people of the M'zab region without the articles mentioning the large settlement of Iranians in the region. From what I've read the early genetic research on the Mzab claimed the people of the region to have mainly Eurasian genetic relationship. Of course, neither these early or the more recent studies mention the fact that a large number of Iranians several hundred years ago are documented as among the regions settlers which is equally important in as much as it lets us remember who the original Berbers were and what they looked like in the Mzab before the Iranian conquest
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Any ways biologically, the Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and 20% non-African.
Is this taking into account both parental markers (X and Y)?
I'm not exactly sure if the study, the recent "pan-African" Tishkoff study, mentioned anything particular in regard to the parental markers of the Mozabite. But in regard to the Mozabite, don't they possess some of the highest frequencies of E-derived lineages in North Africa?
But what does their Mtdna tell us?
From what I hear they possess the highest levels of U6 in North Africa, 30%. Other than that...
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
So then when you said they were 80% African and 20% non African, I take it you were speaking about the Y chromosome individually?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
If it is believed that Africans have the highest diversity of anyone on the planet, then I ask once again why is it that every other day someone is proclaiming that AAs are mixed?
Wouldn't African Americans reflect the same diversity of Africans? Why or why not?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: If it is believed that Africans have the highest diversity of anyone on the planet, then I ask once again why is it that every other day someone is proclaiming that AAs are mixed?
Wouldn't African Americans reflect the same diversity of Africans? Why or why not?
It has been documentation that there has been much recent admixture of peoples entering the area of North Africa from Europe and the Middle East since Islamic times. When people talk about the diversity of Africans they can be referring to this.
Blacks in America on the same hand reflect genetic diversity because they are not purely African in origin. Most of the African ancestors of blacks originated in tribes that came from south of the Sahara and not north of it. There African ancestors therefore, did not have the same degree of admixture with peoples who had come from outside of the continent of Africa. In any case most Africans like all other people in the world are a mixture of different biological populations whether of similar complexion or not.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote:
quote: It has been documentation that there has been much recent admixture of peoples entering the area of North Africa from Europe and the Middle East since Islamic times. When people talk about the diversity of Africans they can be referring to this.
Define "admixture" and explain how "admixture" occurs.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote:
quote: Blacks in America on the same hand reflect genetic diversity because they are not purely African in origin.
Clarify their origins if as you say they are not all African. What would these other origins be?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote:
quote: Most of the African ancestors of blacks originated in tribes that came from south of the Sahara and not north of it.
And you know this how?
And even if it is true what difference does it make? Are you saying that we should ignore those brought from anyplace other than what you seem to be comfortable with?
Why would you be comfortable with slaves coming from south of the sahara and not comfortable with slaves coming from north of the sahara?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Anyone who believes that African Americans are mixed can answer the following question:
Is the reason you think AAs are mixed because
A. You believe that Africans are not diverse, therefore since you see the diversity of AAs, you form the conclusion that AAs are mixed.
Or
B. You believe that Africans are diverse, but in your mind you believe that the only people who would have been brought over as slaves are those whom you delusionally believe are "negroid".
If 'B', why do you assign slavery based on bogus pseudoscience race taxonomies?
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: So then when you said they were 80% African and 20% non African, I take it you were speaking about the Y chromosome individually?
No, 80% of the entire Mozabite gene-pool are of African origin... in regard to the 14 ancestral African populations noted by Tishkoff. 20% being due to recent admixture from non-African sources.
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche wrote:
quote: It has been documentation that there has been much recent admixture of peoples entering the area of North Africa from Europe and the Middle East since Islamic times. When people talk about the diversity of Africans they can be referring to this.
Define "admixture" and explain how "admixture" occurs.
Barack Obama
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: If it is believed that Africans have the highest diversity of anyone on the planet, then I ask once again why is it that every other day someone is proclaiming that AAs are mixed?
Wouldn't African Americans reflect the same diversity of Africans? Why or why not?
Did you not read my post, African-Americans are predomiantly African... with limited non-African admixture. Meaning not anything significant to dramatically impact the population biologically, in regards their relationship with other Africans.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: So then when you said they were 80% African and 20% non African, I take it you were speaking about the Y chromosome individually?
No, 80% of the entire Mozabite gene-pool are of African origin... in regard to the 14 ancestral African populations noted by Tishkoff. 20% being due to recent admixture from non-African sources.
You stated above that you didn't have the data on the Mtdna, so I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.
Can you post both Y chromosome and Mtdna data on the Mozabites please.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Doctoris Scientia,
Are the Japanese admixed?
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Doctoris: No, 80% of the entire Mozabite gene-pool are of African origin... in regard to the 14 ancestral African populations noted by Tishkoff. 20% being due to recent admixture from non-African sources.
You stated above that you didn't have the data on the Mtdna, so I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.
Can you post both Y chromosome and Mtdna data on the Mozabites please.
Tishkoff does not break out the mtDNA, or Y-chrom data on them. Mostly STRUCTURE and other diagrams are offered.
quote: "We genotyped a panel of 1327 polymorphic markers, consisting of 848 microsatellites, 476 indels (insertions/deletions), and three SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms), in 2432 Africans from 113 geographically diverse populations -----------------
"A number of Africans (predominantly CMA, Fulani, and eastern Afroasiatic speakers) exhibit low to moderate levels of European-Middle Eastern ancestry, consistent with possible gene flow from those regions."
---
What seems strange about Tishkoff's study is her identification of a "Saharan' group based on the Mozabites from Algeria, beta Israel from Ethiopia, and some Beja from the Sudan. What happened to Niger, Chad or Mali as being 'Saharan"?
In the meantime, you notice on the diagram, that Chad, which is very much a part of the Saharan geographic scene, is nowhere near the claimed 'Saharan" category. Notice also how the Mozabites and other reputed "Saharans" are grouped to form a "Western Eurasian" grouping - another nebulous label.
---------------
Tishkoff claims her purpose is to: "Characterizing the pattern of genetic variation among ethnically diverse African populations is critical for reconstructing human evolutionary history, clarifying the population history of Africans and African Americans, and determining the proper design and interpretation of genetic disease association studies (1, 6), because substructure can cause spurious results Furthermore, variants associated with disease could be geographically restricted as a result of new mutations, genetic drift, or region-specific selection pressures Thus, our in-depth characterization of genetic structure in Africa benefits research of biomedical relevance in both African and African-diaspora populations."
--------------------------
It all sounds good, but how does the nebulous "Saharan" category "clarify" the population history of Africans? And how do shaky claims of alleged "moderate" European-Middle eastern ancestry among the Fulani or eastern afro-Asiatic speakers reflect African population history in a balanced way? And exactly how will disease research benefit from the above with its nebulous categories? Tishkoff doesn't exactly say.
Something doesn't quite add up with Tishkoff's study. It is biled as "comprehensive" but the sampling and labeling leave much to be desired.
What are you thoughts on the above MOM in terms of:
a) The 'Saharan" category
b) The Saharan "Eurasian" grouping
(c) The "low to moderate" European/Asiatic ancestry on Fulani/eastern Afroasiatic speakers?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
the lion wrote: ------------------------ ------------------------
The temporary pause on my moratorium on responding to no life race loon losers has been lifted.
No time for you. : )
HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche wrote:
quote: Most of the African ancestors of blacks originated in tribes that came from south of the Sahara and not north of it.
And you know this how?
And even if it is true what difference does it make? Are you saying that we should ignore those brought from anyplace other than what you seem to be comfortable with?
Why would you be comfortable with slaves coming from south of the sahara and not comfortable with slaves coming from north of the sahara?
We know thru dna. No it doesn't make a difference. As for your other questions, you don't need address me with them because they are me with them because such matters are irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I personally love the fact that many of my ancestors came from different parts of tne world and that those that came from Africa were also of diverse. I understand certain cultures don't appreciate the idea of being "mixed" - its like a bad word. However, biological populations wherever they are have usually arisen from separate groups amalgamating at some level. That's just a fact of nature - and history. Berbers like Americans and like African Americans are people who arose from diversity that share a related groups of dialects and some sociopolitical history.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
The "Saharan" group is predominantly affiliated with the Dogon in Mali, than they are to the Mozabite. Therefore an African predominance in regard to the "Saharan/Dogon" cluster. I've already went through this before.
"It is a fallacy to interpret the "Saharan/Dogon" (blue) cluster in the Tishkoff study as a full blown Non-African cluster.The "Saharan/Dogon" cluster increases in Frequency going from East Africa to North Africa, while the "Cushitic" (purple) cluster decreases going from East Africa to Northern/Western Africa."
note: the scientist most likely had a hard time distinguishing between true Eurasian blue and African ( ancestral) blue.
Therefore it's more then likley that most of the blue associated with Eurasia,amoung the three Saharan groups, the Dogon, the Mozambite, and the Beja are that of the indigenous Saharo-Sudanic ancestral group that eventually gave rise to the younger Eurasian group.
Uni-parental ancestry dosen't support European admixture.
"it is worth noting that the uniparental gene pool, the paternally-inherited one in particular, featured fairly low incidence of ancestry suggestive of ultimate European ancestry. Citing Hassan et al. (2008), the Beja male gene pool comprised of only ~ 5% ancestry that could *potentially* be linked to European origin [Hassan et al. (2008)"
Only 2% of the Ethiopian gene-pool can be linked to an non-African origin, according to uni-parental ancestry.
"Seeing that a cluster that is Eurasia and/or Africa is found HIGHEST among an isolated West African population can tell you SOMETHING about its affinity. That is why its is called the "Dogon Cluster" and not the Mozabite Cluster."
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
To demonstrate, you can see below the frequencies arranged in descending order for both the "Saharan/Dogon" (Blue) and "Cushitic" (Purple) cluster in all the Afroasiatic populations sampled by Tishkoff.
"Saharan/Dogon" (blue) cluster frequencies in AA populations Mozabite 51.00% Beja_Hadandawa 21.30% Beja_Banuamir 18.50% Beta_Israel 17.00% Gabra 3.70% Rendille 3.30% Baggara 2.90% Borana 2.40% Kotoko 1.60% Burji 1.60% Konso 1.50% Wata 0.70% Hausa_Cameroon 0.60% El_Molo 0.60% Hausa_Nigeria 0.50% Mandara 0.50% Fiome 0.50% Ouldeme 0.40% Burunge 0.40% Yaaku 0.40% Giziga 0.30% Mada 0.20% Zulgo 0.20% Podokwo 0.20% Zime 0.20% Iraqw 0.20% Massa 0.10%
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote:
quote: We know thru dna.
Are you in the labs?
Isn't it funny how you all are always moaning and groaning about how ("white", "eurocentric", "racist", fill in the term) scientists are lying, misinforming, etc and can't be trusted with regards to African history, but your always begging for the next "study" or other scientific propaganda to be crammed down your throat.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Its also the same thing with these ancestry dna businesses. On one hand you are all crying and wailing about how businesses in general are scandalous, out for themselves, and don't give a damn about Africans. And yet there are idiots who will give them hundreds of dollars to tell them what they supposedly are. If businesses are as greedy, unethical, and unscrupulous as everyone says they are, then what in the world would make someone believe they are even sending those samples to the lab or even examining them. Its cheaper and more profitable to just wait the 3 to whatever weeks and just let some computer throw out bogus ethnic results. How would the fool whose trusting them even know?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche,
Since you believe that "berbers" and "African Americans" are "mixed", tell us groups who you believe are NOT mixed.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche,
Your problem is that you have bought into the sick eurocentric propaganda that there was a phenotype to slavery. That is not only historically false, but also depraved in its very essence. Its purpose is to enable west Europeans to steal Ancient Egypt. They can't say they have a relationship with people they used as slaves. Therefore they have to divide Africans into phenotypes, then claim the ones who are supposedly "negroes" were the slaves and not the ones who are supposed caucasians who surprise, surprise are the very people west euros need to claim Ancient Egypt.
Why would there be a phenotype to slavery and how do you explain the diversity of the slaves in not only the U.S. but the rest of the Americas?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche,
Your problem is that you have bought into the sick eurocentric that there was a phenotype to slavery. That is not only historically false, but also depraved in its very essence.
Why would there be a phenotype to slavery and how do you explain the diversity of the slaves in not only the U.S. but the rest of the Americas?
Argyle - at this point you need to explain what slavery has to do with this discussion. Are you confusing me with Mike or something? Yes slaves black and white were brought to America and North Africa, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this post about the Mozabites.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote: --------------------------------------- Argyle - at this point you need to explain what slavery has to do with this discussion. Are you confusing me with Mike or something? Yes slaves black and white were brought to America and North Africa, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this post about the Mozabites. ---------------------------------------
Per the first sentence of the opening post on this thread:
"The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans"
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche,
Your problem is that you have bought into the sick eurocentric propaganda that there was a phenotype to slavery. That is not only historically false, but also depraved in its very essence. Its purpose is to enable west Europeans to steal Ancient Egypt. They can't say they have a relationship with people they used as slaves. Therefore they have to divide Africans into phenotypes, then claim the ones who are supposedly "negroes" were the slaves and not the ones who are supposed caucasians who surprise, surprise are the very people west euros need to claim Ancient Egypt.
Why would there be a phenotype to slavery and how do you explain the diversity of the slaves in not only the U.S. but the rest of the Americas?
what do records show about the number of slaves who were Egyptian being sold into slavery and transported to America?
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
Doctoris Scientia, question.
what region of Asia does the 20% non-African ancestry of Mozabite Berbers come from? Excuse me if you have already answered this. thank you
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche,
Its very noticeable to everyone how you are avoiding answering the questions asked of you regarding phenotype and slavery. Why? Are you afraid that your racial dogma will be exposed?
Well its too late it already has.
Newsflash for you and everyone else, media and propagandic history is formulaic. And its formulaic for a reason.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Doctoris Scientia, question.
what region of Asia does the 20% non-African ancestry of Mozabite Berbers come from? Excuse me if you have already answered this. thank you
If we go by mt-dna information in regard to the Berber/Arab speaking Northwest African populations, most if not all of the non-African admixture found among the Mozabite and other Berber/Arab groups are of largly Iberian or Southwestern European origin.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^Doc what's the mDNA breakdown in Egypt? or do you have any studies that show such breakdown?
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^Doc what's the mDNA breakdown in Egypt? or do you have any studies that show such breakdown?
From what I can understand, L-haplogroups and M1 are the dominant mt-dna lineages found among the current Egyptian population. In contrast to the Maghreb, with it's avg 60% European affiliated mt-dna pattern.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Although far from the Mzab breakdowns temporally and spatially, Kefi's investigation into Taforalt remains of the epipaleolithic already show that Eurasian mtDNA HGs CRS and other H or UxU6, JT, and V were predominant in littoral North Africa.
Obviously the source females could not have been imported Islamic era European slave girls/women.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Although far from the Mzab breakdowns temporally and spatially, Kefi's investigation into Taforalt remains of the epipaleolithic already show that Eurasian mtDNA HGs CRS and other H or UxU6, JT, and V were predominant in littoral North Africa.
Obviously the source females could not have been imported Islamic era European slave girls/women.
The Taforalt remains in no way should be recognized as a representation of the general North African population, current or historic. Obviously in regard to it's location, and the fact that the historic-current North African population descends in large part from East African-Sudanese Afrasan speaking populations. Also not to mention, that the "Eurasian" category is often misused in regard to African lineages and haplogroups.
What are the grounds for severing Taforalt from North Africa populations?
Why can other discrete locations serve as measures of "general North African populations" but Taforalt cannot?
Unless Kefi can be shown scientifically invalid then the fact remains that Eurasian mtDNA (CRS and other H or UxU6, JT, and V) existed in littoral North Africa 12,000 years ago.
Some of these exist In NA today. Without temporal samples spanning from then to now the question of their continuity is open and remains one possibility.
See; Irish(2000) The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end? Ennafaa(2009) Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Should not? "Should" is a very subjective word.
What are the grounds for severing Taforalt from North Africa populations?
Why can other discrete locations serve as measures of "general North African populations" but Taforalt cannot?
Unless Kefi can be shown scientifically invalid then the fact remains that Eurasian mtDNA (CRS and other H or UxU6, JT, and V) existed in littoral North Africa 12,000 years ago.
Some of these exist In NA today. Without temporal samples spanning from then to now the question of their continuity is open and remains one possibility.
See; Irish(2000) The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end? Ennafaa(2009) Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa
Taforalt alone cannot and could not represent the entire Northwest African population, recently or historically. In that the controversial results should be also taken into account among other findings. Also, according to statements made by Kefi, the Taforalt population was and remained isolated from other populations, including what he terms as "Sub-Sudanese", therefore casting doubt of any continuity among any relatively modern population.
Did you read the study? If you didn't you should, Kefi specifically constantly mentioned the uncertainty of the results. Do yourself a favour and read over the link I posted, it does a better job in pointing out the critique of the above study. Not only is he uncertain in regards to his results, the problem of contamination was also put into question by both Kefi and other independent researchers.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^Agreed. It appears the authors of the Taforalt study make some broad, sweeping claims and imply that no "sub-Saharan" types lived in North africa until very late circa 5000 yrs ago. Their claim is undermined on a number of fronts if Explorer's critique holds. Contamination is one problem. Kefi's qual control procedures also like you say were not that rigorous. He also goes out of his way to claim the absence of these "sub-Saharan" types, conveniently skipping over other data that contradicts his position. And he never really explains what he means by "sub Sudanese" even though he sues the term several times in the study. Is that people below the Sudan, conveniently excluding that area from analysis?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
People, isn't it funny how all of these defenders of "black Ancient Egypt" only recognize lies and misinformation when the eurocentrics threaten Ancient Egypt in some form.
Anything African other than Ancient Egypt or those ethnic groups and countries needed to say that "Egypt be black" the defenders of "black Ancient Egypt" don't give a damn what lies are being volleyed at them. Hell, they'll even go along with the eurocentric propaganda about those people/nations.
Isn't that right alTakruri and zarahan.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^Agreed. It appears the authors of the Taforalt study make some broad, sweeping claims and imply that no "sub-Saharan" types lived in North africa until very late circa 5000 yrs ago. Their claim is undermined on a number of fronts if Explorer's critique holds. Contamination is one problem. Kefi's qual control procedures also like you say were not that rigorous. He also goes out of his way to claim the absence of these "sub-Saharan" types, conveniently skipping over other data that contradicts his position. And he never really explains what he means by "sub Sudanese" even though he sues the term several times in the study. Is that people below the Sudan, conveniently excluding that area from analysis?
100% co-sign
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
@ Doc
I read the study and critiqued it for Kefi's obvious anti-inner African bias.
Doesn't change any of the points I make or the questions arising from them.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche wrote:
quote: We know thru dna.
Are you in the labs?
Isn't it funny how you all are always moaning and groaning about how ("white", "eurocentric", "racist", fill in the term) scientists are lying, misinforming, etc and can't be trusted with regards to African history, but your always begging for the next "study" or other scientific propaganda to be crammed down your throat.
Again I say are you talking to me? I am not Mikey and i rarely mention "Eurocentrics" since science has in fact proven the North African Berbers especially are biologically the result of "mixture" thru dna studies (by refereed scientists - Spencer Wells, etc). These studies have been posted on this forum more than once, so there is little for anyone in fact to complain about.
Obviously if you have people like the Sanhaja, Ketama, Masmuda, Zenata Berbers who are described as black in color, "black Africans" by Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians up until the 14th century (Abu Shama Syrian, Ibn Butlan Greek of Iraq, Nasr Khusroes - Iranian, etc) and now some of the same people are obviously no where near "black", it is because North African Berbers have been "AMALGAMATING" with peoples of cultures coming from North of the Mediterranean. That is why the Berber has such drastic cultural differences - with northern Berbers being among other things Eurasiatic or "Euro Mediterranean" in culture. That is partly why, for example, you have such a difference in cultural norms such as matrifocality and patrifocality among Berber groups.
Now are you trying to say the North African culture and population hasn't been influenced by the Ottomans, Syrians, Iranians and thousands of concubines from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. That is the non-African origin of much of the modern Berber culture, whether you like it or not, argyle!
We know that even African manuscripts say that certain Tuareg especially of the Ahaggar and Fezzan or eastern parts of the Maghreb were "mixed with Turks and Tartars" before settling further south. So what is your point, and how is this "moaning and groaning". Maybe you had better explain to me what the word "Mixed" signifies in your culture, because I am at a loss to understand what you find so unbelievable or unappealing about the fact that admixture "DID" take place among peoples of DIFFERENT ORIGiNS - like everyone else in this world. And yes even the Japanese although they are a heck of a lot more homogeneous than the people of North Africa.
Tuareg, for example, are asociated with certain tomb types called Adebuni or Argem that appear after the pastoralist period in the Sahara and Maghreb which are similar to types that appear in Nubia, the Horn and the Yemen. On the other hand some early tomb types in the Kabyle area show strong affiliation with iron age Greece.
My point is that more than one population has come to make up modern Berber-speakers, including people who were called Greeks and Scythians as late as Byzantine times and Syrians, Turks and Iranians who have since blended into or been absorbed by the Berber or African Asiatic speaking populations. It is also obvious the Greeks and Scythians, like the later Iranians, Syrians, Turks etc. had little to do with the "black Africans" of 600 years ago known by the lighter toned Near Easterners and Greeks as the "Sanhaja", "Masmuda", "Ketama", "Zenata", i.e. the Berbers.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: People, isn't it funny how all of these defenders of "black Ancient Egypt" only recognize lies and misinformation when the eurocentrics threaten Ancient Egypt in some form.
Anything African other than Ancient Egypt or those ethnic groups and countries needed to say that "Egypt be black" the defenders of "black Ancient Egypt" don't give a damn what lies are being volleyed at them. Hell, they'll even go along with the eurocentric propaganda about those people/nations.
Isn't that right alTakruri and zarahan.
I think most people on this forum are of the opinion that scientists are right in their assessment that the predominant type in ancient Egypt belonged to groups now south of Egypt, showing black African skeletal and cultural traits, dying of sickle cell, (i.e. Tut) etc. The fact that the descendants of such people experience racism for being "black" in the Near East and America or the West is also not a fact that escapes most of them.
Tell you one thing, no Spaniard or Italian soccer fan is going to care that a Beja and Somali is related to the ancient Egyptians or have a few recent straight haired ancestors. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche,
You're an African American aren't you?
I can tell by the content of your postings. They are repleat with your white owners crackpot racial and mixture propaganda.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche,
Why do you believe that Beja and Somalis are mixed?
Are you engaging in eyeball anthropology?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Mauritanian neither "black" nor "white" due to "mixture"
All peoples are a result of populations intermixing, Argyle, some happen to be the result of mixing going on between populations that were originally of different complexions, like the North Africans above.
That is the beauty of being HUMAN.
Below are a good example of an Arab (Hassaniyyah) tribe whose ancestors having taking many concubines are no longer like their near black Delim Dawasir-related ancestors in Arabia.
Oulad Delim Of Hassaniyyah stock in Western Sahara - Neither black nor white due to admixture. Not anthropology - just common sense.
Neither of these groups have the exact complexion of their "Moorish" ancestors due to mixture with their non-African concubines.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche,
You're an African American aren't you?
I can tell by the content of your postings. They are repleat with your white owners crackpot racial and mixture propaganda.
Personally I prefer black and yes come from slaves (black and white, Native and south Asian), owners (black and white) and free men of all sorts. And yes some of them were definitely crackpot. I stopped calling myself because when I used to wear braids in my hair East Africans would say I look native american and Mande would whisper things like what's that white woman doing here.
And lastly remembering the Morroccan guy that would come up to me at student foyer I stayed at in France making fun of the blackness of his sub-Saharan friend. Sound familiar, argyle.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
dana marniche wrote: ------------------------------- -------------------------------
Are there any African groups who are not mixed?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: dana marniche wrote: ------------------------------- -------------------------------
Are there any African groups who are not mixed?
Whether they are mixed or not the point is North Africans ARE culturally, biologically and between near BLACK Africans and Arabs and people who were not.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Don't dodge the question.
Again, are there any African groups who are not mixed?
We're waiting........................
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Actually i think you are the only waiting Argyle. I have already answered this question twice all groups in Africa and the world are the result of intermixing of populations. Again some have been the result of people of different complexions intermixing for at least 2,500 years as in North Africa adn the Near East or several thousands of years as in southern Asia.
Even Native Americans are now a people showing varied complexions due to their very mixed heritage over the last 400 years. I found this attached to some Cherokee site. All of the above are supposed to belong to the "Cherokee" tribe
But which are closer to the original Cherokee. You might say it doesn't matter, but in fact the Cherokee like other tribes in the United States were nearly exterminated because of their "Mahogany" or dark "copper brown" color.
I fail to see why blond and half -Washisu people should take the credit for why these people were nearly exterminated. Yet some of these mixed so called Indian people are trying to deny there were ever even Mahogany skinned Indians.
Sound familiar, Argyle?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
What are you trying to say?
Everyone and their brother knows the fake mythology "my great grandpappy was a 'chair row key' ".
Therefore, your post is dismissed.
Now stop dithering and answer the question below:
Again, are there any African groups who are not mixed?
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: What are you trying to say?
Everyone and their brother knows the fake mythology "my great grandpappy was a 'chair row key' ".
Therefore, your post is dismissed.
Now stop dithering and answer the question below:
Again, are there any African groups who are not mixed?
argyle104, is Barack Obama black?
Don't dodge the question
We're waiting.......................
......................
.......
..................
. . . . . .
..
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
the lion wrote: ------------------------ ------------------------
The temporary pause on my moratorium on responding to no life race loon losers has been lifted.
No time for you. : )
HEE HEE HEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: the lion wrote:
^^^^^^ arglyesweater type dots
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: What are you trying to say?
Everyone and their brother knows the fake mythology "my great grandpappy was a 'chair row key' ".
Therefore, your post is dismissed.
Now stop dithering and answer the question below:
Again, are there any African groups who are not mixed?
How many times do I have to say - yes. Songhai have mixed with Malinke and Mende, Darod have mixed with Hawiye and Zulu have mixed with Xhosa, and Tuareg have mixed with Turks and Tartars, etc.. But in this case the latter two derive from outside of Africa. Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: What are you trying to say?
Everyone and their brother knows the fake mythology "my great grandpappy was a 'chair row key' ".
Therefore, your post is dismissed.
Now stop dithering and answer the question below:
Again, are there any African groups who are not mixed?
How many times do I have to say - yes. Songhai have mixed with Malinke and Mende, Darod have mixed with Hawiye and Zulu have mixed with Xhosa, and Tuareg have mixed with Turks and Tartars, etc.. But in this case the latter two derive from outside of Africa.
when people say "mixed" they are usually not talking about tribes mixing such as Songhai mixed with Malinke they are talking about only your other example so called different "races" mixing such as Tuareg mixed with Turks However doc claims that such Berbers, even light skinned Mozabites are only 20% non African-
(photo of Mozabite Berber provided by Doctoris Scientia
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
I don't think Doc is claiming that Lion and this is what happens when people take things out of context as many do when they are just interested in making conversation rather than contributing to it. It is quite possible that some of the lighter skinned Mozabites are 80-85% AFrican in their gene pool. Although that is a number hard to find even among African American blacks which is what makes people like me, Zarahan and I guess a few others here question the study and ask whats been found with respect to the matrilineages.
It is theoretically possible - nevertheless, not all Mozabites are fair in color, and it makes me wonder if the fair skinned ones were even included in the study. There are many people of the Mzab Berber-speakers closer in complexion to how Berbers of the Mzab were described not long ago and before the Iranian settlement, so it would not be surprising if the majority of them showed up 80% African genetically (if it is indeed possible to conclude such a thing from this study).
Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't think Doc is claiming that Lion and this is what happens when people take things out of context as many do when they are just interested in making conversation rather than contributing to it. It is quite possible that some of the lighter skinned Mozabites are 80-85% AFrican in their gene pool. Although that is a number hard to find even among African American blacks which is what makes people like me, Zarahan and I guess a few others here question the study and ask whats been found with respect to the matrilineages.
It is theoretically possible - nevertheless, not all Mozabites are fair in color, and it makes me wonder if the fair skinned ones were even included in the study. There are many people of the Mzab Berber-speakers closer in complexion to how Berbers of the Mzab were described not long ago and before the Iranian settlement, so it would not be surprising if the majority of them showed up 80% African genetically (if it is indeed possible to conclude such a thing from this study).
nothing has been taken out of context. I gave full paragraph quotes of doc and the pictures are links he provided. _______________________________
Doctoris Scientia:
"It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas."
________________________________
regardless of Mozabite Berbers, dana marniche, please take into account when responding to the argyle, that when people say "mixed" they are not talking about mixing of different same race tribes, they are talking about mixtures of so called different "races".
_______________________
example of a racially mixed sock:
men's argyle
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I don't think Doc is claiming that Lion and this is what happens when people take things out of context as many do when they are just interested in making conversation rather than contributing to it. It is quite possible that some of the lighter skinned Mozabites are 80-85% AFrican in their gene pool. Although that is a number hard to find even among African American blacks which is what makes people like me, Zarahan and I guess a few others here question the study and ask whats been found with respect to the matrilineages.
It is theoretically possible - nevertheless, not all Mozabites are fair in color, and it makes me wonder if the fair skinned ones were even included in the study. There are many people of the Mzab Berber-speakers closer in complexion to how Berbers of the Mzab were described not long ago and before the Iranian settlement, so it would not be surprising if the majority of them showed up 80% African genetically (if it is indeed possible to conclude such a thing from this study).
nothing has been taken out of context. I gave full paragraph quotes of doc and the pictures are links he provided. _______________________________
Doctoris Scientia:
"It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen. If such features are perferred, such features would dominate. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. Features associated with the new elite, i.e. non-Africans, being perferred due to obvious reasons... therefore growing in dominance, especially in more urban and northern areas."
________________________________
regardless of Mozabite Berbers, dana marniche, please take into account when responding to the argyle, that when people say "mixed" they are not talking about mixing of different same race tribes, they are talking about mixtures of so called different "races".
_______________________
example of a racially mixed sock:
men's argyle
Only a black person would make that joke, lion, so I guess people can stop thinking you are white man or woman trying to pretend your black. So you are not in any shape or form to be saying what argyle and people like him think. That is your opinion of being mixed not necessarily those of "people".
Of course it might be though. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Dana, apparently you didn't notice before but just to let you know 'argyle' is a deeply mentally disturbed individual. He NEVER contributes to this forum but only whines and falsely accuses others of being racist when they bring up the fact of admixture among African Americans or that many African Americans descend from slaves primarily from West and Central Africa. For the record I don't believe Argyle is of African descent himself but a crazed white lunatic from the United Kingdom perhaps from the Argyll area of Scotland. I think it's more than coincidence that he appeared in this forum around the same time that a bunch of faggoty trolls from the UK showed up who happened to be coworkers of Heru. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the topic, I'll have to agree with Doc. It doesn't take much genetic input tho change the phenotype of a population. We've all seen how the how children born to one parent from the Horn of Africa and one Eurasian parent most often looks like the Eurasian parent. Just imagine Eurasian genes diffused throughout the entire population albeit 20*.
Although I have to agree with Dana that it depends on which population in particular the genetic samples come from. Dana just showed us recently that even the Rif and Kabyle were once known to be 'black' not too long ago but under some mysterious circumstances are known today as the epitome of black Berbers despite black types among those people still being present.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Dana, apparently you didn't notice before but just to let you know 'argyle' is a deeply mentally disturbed individual. He NEVER contributes to this forum but only whines and falsely accuses others of being racist when they bring up the fact of admixture among African Americans or that many African Americans descend from slaves primarily from West and Central Africa. For the record I don't believe Argyle is of African descent himself but a crazed white lunatic from the United Kingdom perhaps from the Argyll area of Scotland. I think it's more than coincidence that he appeared in this forum around the same time that a bunch of faggoty trolls from the UK showed up who happened to be coworkers of Heru.
Well -I don't know what he is but I think many people on these type forums have the same misconceptions that he does and they are only relying on what European scholarship has told them for the last 200 or 300 years so if they sound crazy its because they can't believe they have been brainwashed and lied to for so long - just like I can't. So I think its best to respect the crazy ignorance out there and answer it the best we can. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I'm telling you Dana, Argay is just a psycho white Euro degenerate fool posing as a 'black man' or African American. He really cares not for African history but rather is angered by the fact that his European people have black African ancestry which they received millennia ago.
Again to the topic, I believe the Mozabite are in the same situation as the Kabyle and Rif where not too long ago Westerners acknowledged black type Kabyle and Rif but now only acknowledge white types. The phenotypical displacement of groups in North Africa seems to be a common occurrence. We can see this in Egypt as well though ironically not as extensive.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: kenndo, lamin, Doctoris Scientia, and anyone else:
What is the genesis for this obsession that you have that AAs must be mixed?
I've said nothing in that regard, African-Americans are biologically a predominant African population, 87%, with some limited non-African admixture, 13%.
yes on average,of course the info i got from lain mentions that most african americans are not mixed. only up to 35-40 have some form of non african dna. this is what he says.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I could not edited for the info above,but i got the info from lamin.HE Has RESEARCH this stuff has well.
oh and to argyle104, i never said all african american are mixed like obama said on the view today.obama said all whites in america are mongrels too but they don't know it yet like most afrian american do. what lies and non-sense obama just told on tv.
oh and the term mongrel is a outdated term mr. obama.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
kenndo
Obama is playing to the crowd. I will not respect a man like him who has done absolutly NOTHING for the poor in America.
He is so much a stooge for the elites that it's not funny. He really has let the average american down. Sad.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I told him his choice of words may not have been that great. He had said "we're all kind of mixed up" He was speaking causally. He didn't necessarily mean that that some of us weren't 100% pure prime beef style black.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
________________________________-
When Barbara Walters hit Obama with a question as to why he does not consider himself to be multiracial, he didn't seem taken aback. Instead, Obama said that he was less interested in whether people perceived him as black or multiracial and more interested in seeing people treat each other with respect.
The President went on to state that after going through an "identity crisis" as a teenager, he realized:
"If the world saw me as African American, then that was something I needn't run away from, that's something that I could go ahead and embrace. I'm less interested in how we label ourselves, I'm more interested in how we treat each other. And if we're treating each other right, then I can be African American, I can be multiracial, I can be, you name it. What matters is, am I showing people respect, am I caring for other people."
Obama also went on to say how Blacks as a race are "mixed up":
"We are sort of a mongrel people. I mean, we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."
The subject of race was again broached when our beloved president was asked about the controversy surrounding the ousting of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod.
His response to the Sherrod brouhaha was that the media "generated a phony controversy." "A lot of people overreacted, including people in my administration," he stated.
By: Lila on 7/29/2010 2:08PM
The only "The View" co-hosts I really like are Barbara Walters and Joy Behar. Joy is a riot and Barbara Walters is so much smarter than all the other ladies. The President has a great smile:). I wish he had not used the term mongrel to describe African Americans. I did not like that. I have never thought of myself as a mongrel and never will.
__________________
By: Asar on 7/29/2010 2:37PM Aaaah!President Obama labeled African-Americans and Africans in general MONGRELS. In Obama's quest for racial relativism, he disregards science; which states, All other so called "races" are but diluted varations of the Black African race family. Thus, being Black African means you are a fully complete human.
I thought this guy was smart? Why is he so hell bent on do nothing for African people in America? The more I hear and witness him the more I am sure that the Great Dr.Chancellor Williams was correct by saying:
"To prove how truly Asain / Euro they were, the mixed Egyptians made hatred of Africans a ritual, and tried to surpass the whites in raiding for the slaves in all-African areas. Various Afro-Europeans who became Egyptian Kings declared 'eternal warfare" against the Blacks and vowed to enslave the entire race."
Page 75 in "The Destruction of Black Civilization" The Black Bible
Sounds like Obama is following the many others like himself who have betrayed the African race family
By: Tony Brown on 7/29/2010 3:05PM
How dare you try to spin this great response by President Obama into a complete mispresentation of his entire response. I would not be surprised if you are part of the out of touch, Michael Steele clan of black people in America. On second hand are you even black? The term means any cross between different things or mixed breed. The whole world is mongrels! Educate yourself Ruth Manual-Logan.
President Barack Hussein Obama appeared on the view and discussed a wide variety of subjects from the frivolous to the serious. When asked
about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: 'We are sort of a mongrel people.' "'I mean we're all kinds of mixed up,' Obama said. 'That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.'
"The president did not appear to be making an inflammatory remark with his statement. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as 'of mixed breed, nature, or origin,' according to dictionary.com." By a strict dictionary definition, The Hill may be correct that the President's use of the term was meant to be benign. But, as with a lot of words in the English language, the term "mongrel" also has cultural and historical meanings.
Racists have often used the term "mongrel" to denounce what they consider a mixing of races, which somehow dilutes their "purity." It is meant as a derogatory term, especially when used to refer to non-whites.
Of course, once again, because Barack Obama is African American, he will likely get a pass for using such a loaded term on national TV. But imagine what would have happened if a white politician had used the term "mongrel" to refer to African Americans, or anyone at all. One cannot doubt that said politician could measure the rest of his or her career in days.
In 2006, while running for reelection, Senator George Allen, a Republican from Virginia, used the term "macaca" to refer to an Indian American who was filming an Allen campaign stop for his opponent, James Webb. The term was so obscure that reporters had to resort to the dictionary to understand its meaning. "Macaca," it seems, is a pejorative used by French colonialists in Africa to refer to the native population. Allen apologized, claiming that he did not know the meaning of the term, a credible excuse because, until he used it, no one else did.
AAhhh the old double standard at play. Clearly the president is a "mongrel", but don't try and lay that trip on ALL Black people and ALL White people, puhleeze barry! (associatedcontent.com)
2 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:33:47 AM by Sherman Logan True enough of Americans as a whole. Doesn’t offend me in the least, but if a white person or Republican had said it all hell would break loose.
To: Sub-Driver Well, he’s speaking the truth, for once. It’s tough to find a black American with pure African blood. My ancestry traces back to America, Europe, and Africa, but it says “negro” on my birth certificate. It’s just a fact. Nothing to get worked up about, in my opinion.
7 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:36:28 AM by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
_________________________________ To: Sub-Driver "I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."
Huh? Exactly what do "we" know about it? Tell us more about the "typical white person", Barry? And what exactly makes you "African American" and not "white" since we're all "mixed up"? This guy's a dope.
11 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:40:27 AM by rhombus
_____________________________ To: Windflier Let Rush or Beck call him a mongrel and watch how worked up people get.
13 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:40:35 AM by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up)) ___________________________________________
To: Sub-Driver Obama calls African-Americans a ‘mongrel people’
Thats partially correct. Not all African Americans have mixed racial blood or relations.
'Among humans, mongrel and mongrelize are derogatory terms for the mixing of "races", known as miscegenation'...Wikipedia
'Miscegenation (Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, and procreation.[1] The term "miscegenation" has been used since the nineteenth century to refer to interracial marriage and interracial sex,[1] and more generally to the process of racial admixture......Wiki
23 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:45:18 AM by tflabo (Restore the Republic)
__________________________ To: hoe_cake
A study by the Population Research Center, in Portland, Oregon, projects that the black intermarriage rate will climb dramatically in this century, to a point at which 37 percent of African-Americans will claim mixed ancestry by 2100.
26 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:51:18 AM by tflabo (Restore the Republic)
_________________________________________
To: Sub-Driver; All If Rush Limbaugh had called African Americans "MONGREL PEOPLE", the "Hill", and EVERY DAMN "NEWS" OUTLET IN AMERICA WOULD BE SKINNING HIM ALIVE!
Hussein does it, and he gets an effing PASS. I hate the press. They are so damned biased. 29 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:57:45 AM by Recovering_Democrat _________________________ To: hoe_cake ” Or would you be a bit more dignified?” To me he’s the most undignified President we have had..... He appears to want to be: Jay Leno’s replacement and the hippest thing to come along in our lifetime........... 30 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:58:01 AM by patriotspride __________________________________
To: Sherman Logan True enough of Americans as a whole. Doesn’t offend me in the least, but if a white person or Republican had said it all hell would break loose.
Understandably, since there are some very negative connotations to the word "mongrel" - and people speaking about groups they belong to have far more latitude to say negative things than when they're talking about a group they don't belong to.
But agree completely about it being true enough of all Americans. One of my room-mates in my freshman year of college - he was from Nigeria - pointed this out to me: most American blacks don't look like Africans born in sub-Saharan Africa. They tend to be lighter skinned and their facial features aren't the same as Africans. And I'd guess many people of European or any other descent whose ancestors came here sufficiently long ago have some combination of racial heritages in them.
Given enough time and modern transportation, the human race will probably become a uniform shade of light brown at some point and we can fight over other stuff. 36 posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:59:59 AM by AnotherUnixGeek
here is another reply to reply to that last comment above- i think your friend from nigeria not aware of the different looks in africa itself.he is wrong to say most african amercians do not look like africans born in africa. many of the african american i seen look basically like the africans i seen.
i seen quite a number of folks from nigeria that look like the average african american and other areas of africa. it depends on the ethnic groups and individuals in certian groups.
when a family from mali died in new york a few years in a fire,they look no different then the average african american i seen,but has a whole african americans still do look clearly african if someone was to take a really good look go around the country.
keep in mind that the most african americans that do have admixture is about 12.5 european admixture ,so that is not enough to have a group features change, that is why african americans that have 12.5 or even 20% european admixture still look like they are clearly african it takes more admixture or over 20% to have a impact on changing the features of a group or individual,and this may not be the case always.
the higher the admixture the more of a chance the features will slighty be different,but keep in mind too that there are few african groups that have features that look more european looking like straight noses and they are unmixed by recent dna findings.
Another point is that most african americans are a mixture of different african ethnic groups,so on average they will look different then the average african has a whole anyway,and most do not need to be mixed to have a slighty different look then the average african.
Africans are so diverse so it's not fair to compare africans americans to africans has awhole.
the best way to compare looks is by breaking it down to the individual ethnic groups in africa and compare what ethnic groups that look closer to african americans has a whole if someone want to play that game ,AND MOST folks tend not to do this in america or in africa.
i take the latter back,in africa most still tend to see africa american has african and looking basically like them,but depends on the groups.out of all the racial groups african american tend to still basically look african if you had to put the african american in a racial box.
i realized it's mostly only mostly african americans that will try to say they look different then africans,while most of the world tends to disagree.
i had to laugh when this woman said she was an african american and the white lady said oh,what country you are from in africa,and the black lady got upset,for what?this clearly means that the lady seen her,and to her she look no different then an african. this was one of those house remake shows.
anyway For example sahel african ten to look more closer to african americans then most central africans,because of the slender built the average sahel african has.
central africans tend to have a broad head built.african americans tend to have more slender built,have more longer heads,well this is not the average african look,but there are africans that do have this look so when someone says that the average african american does not look like the average african,they are saying that they do not have the average head shape.
alot of sengealese for an example look like african americans if you take a very close look at them,but they tend to be darker skin,now there are africans that tend to be almost or basically have the same skin tone has the average african american,like south africans,but they tend to have a broader head on average,not all however.
combine these africans,but them on a island for a few gen. and believe me they will come out looking more like a african americans has awhole too or certain other ethnic africans.
here is a dna study for the average african american.
quote- Kittles noted that about 30% percent of African-Americans' Y-chromosomes originated in Europe. Kittles, for example, has a Y-chromosome common in Germany, not Africa. "My father had told me for a long time that I had a white ancestor on our paternal line. So, the test confirmed it goes back to Germany."
In contrast, only about 5 percent of African-Americans' mitochondrial DNA comes from Europe, making the maternal line test a surer bet for those primarily interested in their black ancestors. (If African Ancestry finds the customer's DNA doesn't go back to Africa, it can search its databases of European gene markers.)
________________- this means that up to 35% to maybe 40% of african americans have some form of admixture by recent dna findings,and most are not mixed all.
even if most were,the admixture in african americans is not high enough to change the facial features for most african americans.
most africans american in other words still look clearly african,they do not look mulatto and any slight differences on average is the result from the combine ethnic backgrounds from africa itself and who married who once they came to new country and not a result from admixture.
like i said you could find groups in africa or individual,mixed or not mixed that look basiacally more like african americans,or i should say it this way african american would look more like them,since they that look was in africa first before there was such a thing has african american.
oh,and most african are most likely umixed if i am reading the dna breakdown right.
sorry for long explaination,but it had to be said. there is a new term called africod,please if any one has time look it up.thanks.. that's all i have to really say about this and just wanted to clear up some misinfo.
quote- Kittles noted that about 30 percent of African-Americans' Y-chromosomes originated in Europe. Kittles, for example, has a Y-chromosome common in Germany, not Africa. "My father had told me for a long time that I had a white ancestor on our paternal line. So, the test confirmed it goes back to Germany." In contrast, only about 5 percent of African-Americans' mitochondrial DNA comes from Europe, making the maternal line test a surer bet for those primarily interested in their black ancestors. (If African Ancestry finds the customer's DNA doesn't go back to Africa, it can search its databases of European gene markers.) ___________ if i am reading this right,30% of african americans have some form of admixture andif you add 5% from maternal line,then it seem up to only 35% or less have any form of european dna,so if i guess you other admixture,then maybe up to 40% have some form of non-african dna. if this is true,then most african are not mixed like lamin and some others have said on here.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
henry louis gates gets carried away and distors the info.
that's distort the info. here is another point of view from this website
by lisa-richards
The race-carding president has created an entire new category for black-skinned people to check off when filling out paperwork: Obama claims “most” black Americans are not minorities, they are dogs. The left, who feels Obama, has not infused enough racial politics into his policies, should be thrilled he has found a new breed of race to place black-skinned Americans into: “mongrels.”
Obama, who appeared on a taped version of the left-wing daytime talk show ABC’s “The View,” must have sent tingles up the legs of the animal kingdom; it can now claim black people as part of the animal breeds.
Obama stated: If the world saw me as African American, then that was something I needn’t run away from, that’s something that I could go ahead and embrace. I’m less interested in how we label ourselves; I’m more interested in how we treat each other. And if we’re treating each other right, then I can be African American, I can be multiracial, I can be, you name it. What matters is, am I showing people respect, am I caring for other people.
But he did label himself, as well as all blacks, and it completely lacked respect. Imagine if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said this: Barry Obama told “The View” that black people who are racially mixed are:
We are sort of a mongrel people … I mean we’re all kinds of mixed up. That’s actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it.
If Bush had made such comments, he would have been crucified; Sarah Palin would be burned at the stake.
“The View” ladies should have questioned this, but they didn’t react negatively toward the president’s insulting description of black-skinned Americans. “The View” ladies, who take offense to everything, let the comment fly over their heads.
Could the president be more offensive in his description of human beings? Obama may have unintentionally used the description; nonetheless, mongrel doesn’t have a very nice definition.
Webster’s Dictionary defines mongrel as “any plant or animal resulting from the crossing of different breeds; a dog of no specific breed; the product of any incongruous mixture.” Incongruous means “Inharmonious in character; out of place; inappropriate; unbecoming; lacking harmony of parts.”
The president just placed the whole of black-skinned people into the inharmonious dog pound. And to say he understands more about people, cares more about their feelings than other presidents, just flew out the window quite inappropriately.
Welcome to Obama’s mongrelization of blacks.
At least the Left can relax; Obama has grabbed hold of the reins of racial policies, albeit furry, and given blacks an entire new category to check off when applying for college: mongrel.
_____________ another website-
The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans. The definition of mongrel as an adjective is defined as "of mixed breed, nature, or origin," according to dictionary.com. ____________________-
reply- Mongrel; a noun, a plant or animal of mixed or cross breeding. Hmm, so the half-white post racial most "intellectual" President we have all been waiting for thinks we are all mutts. Nice.
BY PEBO on 07/29/2010 at 11:18 ________________-
Take away Obama's teleprompter, and it's clear he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
BY obama dim bulb on 07/29/2010 at 11:19 _____________-
He certainly has the 'mongrel' part as a self-description correct. Wonder what he really considers 'Americans'?
BY K from AZ on 07/29/2010 at 11:22 _________________________-
obama just told one of the biggest lies.every body in america are not mongrels(or mutts) if he really was trying to say that.most white americans are not and most african american are not mutts or mongrels.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
note- i just talk to dr. kittles to clear thing up and he mentions that most african americans are mixed by a doing certain test,but he says some are not.
if anyone want to contact him or dr. mark shriver look them up
for kittles type in google,dr rick kittles and email him. no sense in guessing what these guys are saying ,just write or call them. it will make it more clear.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the topic, I'll have to agree with Doc. It doesn't take much genetic input tho change the phenotype of a population. We've all seen how the how children born to one parent from the Horn of Africa and one Eurasian parent most often looks like the Eurasian parent. Just imagine Eurasian genes diffused throughout the entire population albeit 20*.
Although I have to agree with Dana that it depends on which population in particular the genetic samples come from. Dana just showed us recently that even the Rif and Kabyle were once known to be 'black' not too long ago but under some mysterious circumstances are known today as the epitome of black Berbers despite black types among those people still being present.
100% co-sign, I've seen Kabyle Berbers on a daily basis during my time with my father in Algeria, and they're hella diverse. Blonde blue eyed Kabyle are not the majority but a noticable minority, but the sames true in regard to obviously "African" looking Kabyle. But in regard to the Kabyle the majority of them appear "swarthy", basically streotypical Northern Saharan/Coastal North Africans.
In regard to physical appearance, some of them look like this.
Not hating on the Kabyle or anything, but something about them is really... off.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: note- i just talk to dr. kittles to clear thing up and he mentions that most african americans are mixed by a doing certain test,but he says some are not.
if anyone want to contact him or dr. mark shriver look them up
for kittles type in google,dr rick kittles and email him. no sense in guessing what these guys are saying ,just write or call them. it will make it more clear.
QUOTE]Originally posted by kenndo: note- i just talk to dr. kittles to clear thing up and he mentions that most african americans are mixed by a doing certain test,but he says some are not.
if anyone want to contact him or dr. mark shriver look them up
for kittles type in google,dr rick kittles and email him. no sense in guessing what these guys are saying ,just write or call them. it will make it more clear. [/QUOTE]
Most Africans in America that came in the 1600s and 1700s have long been mixed somewhat with both European and to a lesser extent Native Indian and Asian blood. That is why they look the way they do. Recently on Professor Gates series about race and genes a southern woman geneticist commented on how the the very dark skinned football player she had studied for the sake of the series had a much lower than average percentage of European blood than is common among blacks she had studied. It was either 13% or 18% and whatever it was it was considered very low. So what you have said does not ring true for geneticists studying black populations here in the U.S.
What she said makes sense since early on many of the non-black slaves and indentured European in America mixed with Africans who in turn mixed with Native Americans aand then with other colored people in general. Those who were very fair skinned during the late 1700s and 1800s have since intermarried with whites and that is how we get people like Obama's mother.
He may very well have found out that his own white mother was a descendant of early African Americans as has recently been discovered of her family and that of Bill Clinton's, Steve Martin and other prominent "white" Americans. (See historian/genealogist Tim Hashaw on the recent discovery of Obamas mother.) This is what he meant by both blacks and whites being mongrels. It is certainly true that most "African Americans" are a mixture of various populations like the rest of America, like Afro-Brazilians, Afro Hondurans and Afro-Cubans. Of course many black people in the U.S. come from other Caribbean countries and cultures and have their degrees of intermixture or lack of it.
His use of the term "mongrel" is common when speaking of intermixture in the United States of America. White's have long jokingly called themselves "mongrels" when speaking of their varied ethnic ancestries and when blacks speak of their mixture they are really not supposed to be to doing so - but the fact is whites like eugenicist Dr. Plecker have always tried to remove any trace of other in order to prevent "the Negro" from classifying himself as other than "the Negro" which is not even a race except among racists. Now we obviously have both racist and fearful whites and blacks not very accepting of the intermixture which makes up so called "African Americans".
His thoughts about the "mulatto causing all the problem" are typical of certain individuals ideas on this site. http://thestudyofracialism.org/about4410.html Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the topic, I'll have to agree with Doc. It doesn't take much genetic input tho change the phenotype of a population. We've all seen how the how children born to one parent from the Horn of Africa and one Eurasian parent most often looks like the Eurasian parent. Just imagine Eurasian genes diffused throughout the entire population albeit 20*.
Although I have to agree with Dana that it depends on which population in particular the genetic samples come from. Dana just showed us recently that even the Rif and Kabyle were once known to be 'black' not too long ago but under some mysterious circumstances are known today as the epitome of black Berbers despite black types among those people still being present.
100% co-sign, I've seen Kabyle Berbers on a daily basis during my time with my father in Algeria, and they're hella diverse. Blonde blue eyed Kabyle are not the majority but a noticable minority, but the sames true in regard to obviously "African" looking Kabyle. But in regard to the Kabyle the majority of them appear "swarthy", basically streotypical Northern Saharan/Coastal North Africans.
In regard to physical appearance, some of them look like this.
Not hating on the Kabyle or anything, but something about them is really... off.
Let's not forget these early colonialist photos and portayals.
And early colonialist descriptions of the Kabyles - especially those living in the "Numidian" type homes
1890 - “The Kabyles or Kabaily of Algerian and Tunisian territories…besides tillage, work the mines contained in their mountains…They live in huts made of branches of trees and covered with clay which resemble the Magalia of the old Numidians…They are of middle stature, their complexion brown and sometimes nearly black.” from The Encyclopedia Britannica: Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and General Literature Henry G. Allen Company p. 261 Volume I 1890.
1834 - The Scotsman Thomas Campbell wrote, “The Kabyles…dress like the Arabs and a part from a few tribes, are brown complexioned and black haired” p. 109 cited in Barbary and Enlightenment: European Attitudes Toward the Maghreb in the 18th Century, Ann Thomson. Published 1987 by E. J. Bull
1895 - “As to whether these Berbers, one branch of whom conquered Spain, came from the Aborigines, who were of mixed races, or were lineal descendants of the Numidians, authorities differ. To those who have studied the variety of types in the Kabylie, where blue eyes and red hair, black eyes and swarthy skin, brown eyes and bronze red faces with almost Ethiopian features are seen, the former supposition seems most plausible?” Chapter XV Algerian Memories: A Bicycle Tour over the Atlas to the Sahara. By Fanny B. Workman London, 1895.
Femme Kabyle
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
oh stop it dana
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
the average european median admixture for african americans is about 13% -Sarah Tishkoff Ph.D.
mongrel is a wrong term to use period and he use to in a incorrect way.
the lowest admixture on average for blacks in america is 3.5% in the south and south carolina. the gullahs,on average have 3.5 % european admixture on average,some lower and some no admixture had all.
there are blacks in the south wit no admixture at all has well.
in the book who is black by .explains this clearly
a admixture map was given to me by dr. rick kittles and dr. mark shriver.
they are one of the best experts on this and i spoke to both on the phone an email them.admixture in certain areas of the south is lower then most other areas in the u.s.. in certain areas it's lower then 13% or even 10%
first of all don't forget that the slave trade went on up to the 1800's.the africans that came in america were unmixed blacks.
this was the time when blacks came in america in even larger numbers and the population of blacks grew even faster,so blacks at this time were not mixed with white dna,but that was coming down the road.
rape during this period played a role,but not all black women were rape and blacks that married blacks that were half white,and later more blacks moving in to the north in the late 1800's or early 1900's.
in the early 1800's there were 4.5 million blacks,only about 600,000 were mixed.so by the 1800's most black were not mixed,this change again however has the decades went by.it was a see saw effect. so later by the 1900's most had some form of admixture.yes you right to say that most blacks in america do not have any native admixture.
most blacks in america look they way they do because they come from certain african ethnic groups,and let's not forget most african americans are a mixture of african groups has well.
if the average admixture is 13% in african americans 12.5%,that is not enough to change the look of a racial group in a certain country,it will take at least 21% or more,but this is not always the case,but the higher the % the higher chances it will happen.
13% or 12,5% is not enough,so african americans as awhole look they way they do because of the ethnic groups they come from in africa,and the ethnic groups intermarry in the u.s. no other place on earth you could find that to such a large degree.
let there be no mistake,most african americans still look clearly african.
yes most white american maybe a mix with different white groups just like most blacks americans are a mix of different african groups,but for whites it is a lesser degree,but that is why white americans look they way they do but they still look european and basially still look like other whites just like african american still basically look like other black,simple has that,but obama is using the term for racial admixture most likely.
for whites, most are not mixed in america.most whites that came here was in the late 1800's to 1900's.
some still coming here,just like there are still some blacks coming here too. let's not forget that.
not all blacks in america have admixture either,most do but some do not.let's not forget that blacks are still coming here,and most of these are not mixed,and in the u.s. census are put in the african american group .
that's all i have to say about this.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
We need to purify the race and breed into 100% pure blacks again. We need laws to stop all this mixing. my two cents
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
there is not enough unmixed blacks in america to do that,and most are not leaving,and only few new ones come in every year.
If there was a major disaster resulting in population decreasing wiping out most black americans and most unmixed were not wipe out then the result WILL be most will not have any admixture.
Any thing could happen in future,who knows.LOOK WHAT HAPPEN TO EGYPT,they did not see that coming.
POPULATIONs DECREASE in ancient times,YOU had invaders etc etc...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: there is not enough unmixed blacks in america to do that,and most are not leaving,and only few new ones come in every year.
only certain pure black women will be designated as breeders. Other black women who are impure will be allowed to have sex but not babies. We have to take strict enforced measures to preserve the full melanization of our people. This process won't happen overnight but if we stick to it we will get more black. Also in Northern climates need to take vitamin D because there is danger of dark skin people lightening up in lower sunlight climates over time. Black Power
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I hope you know there are unmixed blacks with varied skin tones.I am saying.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: I hope you know there are unmixed blacks with varied skin tones.I am saying.
I'm not sure about that. Then what does "black" really mean?
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
you do know what it means.
this will explain more clearly when the term is used.
The term black people usually refers to a racial group of humans with skin colors that range from light brown to nearly black. According to a recent scientific study, human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. It is also used to categorize
a number of diverse populations together based on historical and prehistorical ancestral relationships. Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora). Among the members of this group, brown skin is most often accompanied by the expression of natural afro-hair texture. Other definitions of the term "black people" extend to other populations characterized by dark skin, including some indigenous to Oceania and Southeast Asia. __________________________________________ Human skin color Human skin color can range from almost black (in skin with very high concentrations of the dark brown pigment melanin) to nearly colorless (appearing pinkish white due to the blood vessels under the skin[1]). Skin color is determined primarily by the amount and type of melanin. Variations in skin color are mainly genetic in origin.
According to scientific studies natural human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
In general, people with ancestors from tropical regions and higher altitudes (who were hence exposed to greater ultraviolet radiation) have darker skin than people with ancestors from middle latitudes. This is far from a hard and fast rule, however, because many light-skinned groups have managed to survive at the equator through social adaptation. The same can be said of dark-skinned groups living at subtropical and temperate latitudes.
Melanin and genes Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (very dark brown). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dominance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from each parent. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in the great variety of human skin tones. By absorbing ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, melanin controls the amount that penetrates the skin. UV radiation is needed to manufacture vitamin D, but too much can damage the skin and degrade folate.
The evolution of the different skin tones is thought to have occurred in response to climatic conditions.[citation needed] The haired primate ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin. When hominids evolved relatively hairless skin (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration)[citation needed] while living in sun-rich Africa, they co-evolved dark skin, which was needed to control the adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on folate levels. When their descendants migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged. Sexual selection and diet may have played a part in the evolution of skin tone diversity as well.
The Inuit and Yupik are special cases: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin, most likely because their traditional fish-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D[5] . This is an example of the risks and benefits of sun exposure.
Dark skin, the likely ancestral (or original) skin color among modern humans,[6] continues to be a strongly selected trait in equatorial regions such as Africa, India and New Guinea.
Geneticists estimate that a relatively small group of humans left Africa about 140,000 years ago, and that the descendants of this group went on to populate the entire non-African world. Those migrants that settled in non-African equatorial regions (such as India, New Guinea and Australia) retained most of the ancestral sequence at the MC1R locus, a gene strongly associated with determining skin color. Specifically, Harding et al. found that the haplotype sequences for Indians and New Guineans are virtually identical to those of continental sub-Saharan Africans, except for a small number of variants at silent sites.
A Tanzanian albino child with his family.
The retention of the ancestral trait at the equator is believed due to natural selection for melanin pigment production which serves to protect the body from harmful UV rays.[8] Notably, given that hair is a part of the skin, the retention is also analogous to that which occurred for Afro-textured hair prior to pre-Holocene admixture events among people who settled in India and Australia. However, certain evidence suggests that, unlike skin color, tightly curled hair ceased to be under strong selection once dark skin arose about one million years ago;[6] rather, it remained as a vestigial trait among Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians and changed to straight in the north for adaptive reasons—-see hair texture). In fact, dark skin is so selectively advantageous at the equator that initially light-skinned native Americans who migrated to Mexico and/or South America experienced renewed selective pressure towards the evolution of dark skin.
NOW,DON'T ASK me any more questions about this. thank you.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: you do know what it means.
kenndo you just gave two different definitions, make up you mind.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: this will explain more clearly when the term is used.
(definition 1) The term black people usually refers to a racial group of humans with skin colors that range from light brown to nearly black. According to a recent scientific study, human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. It is also used to categorize a number of diverse populations together based on historical and prehistorical ancestral relationships... extend to other populations characterized by dark skin, including some indigenous to Oceania and Southeast Asia.
(definition 2) Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora). Among the members of this group, brown skin is most often accompanied by the expression of natural afro-hair texture.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
don't let it confused you,i am not going in to all that.let someone explain to you.
I POST this here again to make it more clear,and this is it.
The term black people usually refers to a racial group of humans with skin colors that range from light brown to nearly black. According to a recent scientific study, human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Lyin-ass and Kenndo you should take a Trip to South Texas...See how much Black and Hispanics are Mixing. LOL..
Black and Hispanic will be the New Black
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
the new black you mean in some areas texas or the new hispanic in texas,but anyway i don't think so .
Most groups tend to marry within thier group if they have it their way.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: the new black you mean in some areas texas or the new hispanic in texas,but anyway i don't think so .
Most groups tend to marry within thier group if they have it their way.
what about Brazil?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Black and Hispanic
What is it that you mean here by Hispanic?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Of course as noted already, the Mozabite Berber speakers are not 80% indigenous African, especially the ones shown in the introduction to this thread. Their parental markers do not agree with this percentage. Besides, "the lioness" believes in that ol outdated "true negro" i.e., an African has to look a certain way for him/her to be considered black, so I'm not surprised. Jeez how this forum has intellectually dwindled. No wonder why the older posters do not post here anymore, although its funny how those who are active here everyday try to act as if they had something to do with ES old greatness. This forum is officially intellectually bankrupt.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Of course as noted already, the Mozabite Berber speakers are not 80% indigenous African, especially the ones shown in the introduction to this thread. Their parental markers do not agree with this percentage.
Mind-over, you're just saying that with no proof. "do not agree with" let's see some stats big man
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: so I'm not surprised. Jeez how this forum has intellectually dwindled. No wonder why the older posters do not post here anymore, although its funny how those who are active here everyday try to act as if they had something to do with ES old greatness. This forum is officially intellectually bankrupt.
If you are not a member of ESR then you're full of it. also the usage of the word jeez is a European trait
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Of course as noted already, the Mozabite Berber speakers are not 80% indigenous African, especially the ones shown in the introduction to this thread. Their parental markers do not agree with this percentage.
Mind-over, you're just saying that with no proof. "do not agree with" let's see some stats big man
In another thread I posted the following when you asked this same question on Berber speakers, of course only to be ignored by you...
quote:The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations
C. Coudray1 , A. Olivieri2, A. Achilli2,3, M. Pala2, M. Melhaoui4, M. Cherkaoui5, F. El-Chennawi6, M. Kossmann7, A. Torroni2 and J. M. Dugoujon1
Summary
The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
^^Now take your foot out of your mouth, yet again!!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^^^^^^^^ LOL..I gave the Lyin-ass the same study on a thread dealing with the Siwan Berbers...
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Black and Hispanic
What is it that you mean here by Hispanic?
Hispanic where Im from equals Mexicans though P.R would qualify but the majority are Mexicans...Im sure up north its more P.R and less Mexicans. We might get some Puerto Ricans here and not(My cousin is half P.R) but they stick out. Mexicans and Blacks are mixing like crazy down here...
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Black and Hispanic
What is it that you mean here by Hispanic?
Hispanic where Im from equals Mexicans. We might get some Puerto Ricans here and not(My cousin is half P.R) but they stick out. Mexicans and Blacks are mixing like crazy down here...
I ask because there are also black Hispanics, so I feel it should be better to say Hispanics are mixing with African Americans in America. Or in this case Mexicans mixing with A.A's. Hispanic is a fallacious blanket term for people who can be black, white, Native American or a mixture of all three etc...encompassing many countries that are only tied by a language, Spanish.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: the new black you mean in some areas texas or the new hispanic in texas,but anyway i don't think so .
Most groups tend to marry within thier group if they have it their way.
I don't get you black preservists...First off Look at Europe and see how Blacks and whites are Mixing..look at Latin America..etc. Where I work I can get a good demographic of the people in certain neighborhoods. The Black/Mexican or Hispanic Mixed kids out number the black kids.
The thing is most Black/Mexican mixes look black...Some are light skined some are Dark. Mixed race is the new black..esp. Black/Hispanic mix.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Black and Hispanic
What is it that you mean here by Hispanic?
Hispanic where Im from equals Mexicans. We might get some Puerto Ricans here and not(My cousin is half P.R) but they stick out. Mexicans and Blacks are mixing like crazy down here...
I ask because there are also black Hispanics, so I feel it should be better to say Hispanics are mixing with African Americans in America. Or in this case Mexicans mixing with A.A's. Hispanic is a fallacious blanket term for people who can be black, white, Native American or a mixture of all three etc...encompassing many countries that are only tied by a language, Spanish.
Yeah you are so right. Down here most Mexicans don't use Hispanic but simply Mexicans. So yeah Hispanics are mixing with A.A, and the biggest hispanic group are Mexicans here so majority are Mexicans.
Sadly most people don't consider black hispanics..Black. Like My cousin he is Puerto Rican and "Black" when his father had black already in him but not A.A black.
anyway...In my opinion Hispanic Blacks will be the new "Black"...in the future.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
i don't agree how you say however.blacks hispanic already exist.some are not mixed all,just happen to be put in countries were the spanish had enslaved africans.there is no proof that black hispanics in texas out number african americans.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Jari and Mind-over, fail, we are not talking Berbers in general or the Siwa of Egypt. We are talking about the subject of this thread the Mozabites of Northern Algeria specifically.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
by the way black hispanics in the u.s. are african americans too under in census.any black group in america is called african american in the u.s. census.that's all i have to say.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: oh stop it dana
Ummm... stop what Lyin'.
This?
Or did you like this better? Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: by the way black hispanics in the u.s. are african americans too under in census.any black group in america is called african american in the u.s. census.that's all i have to say.
Although Black Hispanics good representatives of Africans in America those who put down Hispanic in the census are in fact left as "Hispanics". Just as if an Arab or Hispanic speakers chooses to put white down - that is left "white".
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: i don't agree how you say however.blacks hispanic already exist.some are not mixed all,just happen to be put in countries were the spanish had enslaved africans.there is no proof that black hispanics in texas out number african americans.
Where did I say Black Hispanics in texas outnumber A.A. Are you this slow?? My point is that the Hispanic population which has black Hispanics as mind points out...ALREADY OUTUMBERS A.A..With the influx of Black Hispanics such as Dominicans and others plus the mixing of AA and Hispanics Black Hispanic will be the new black.
What are you going to cry or something..Got a problem with it go back to Africa. Hispanics are the Future of America..PERIOD...
Do the research bub...
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
NO need to get uptight.i did not say i had a problem with it or not.please let's talk in a decent manner,no need to throw around things are you slow or other stuff. I am replying to you in a non- fighting way.
I already know hispanics outnumber african amerians already,and i never did say i was a african american.
Nobody is crying about anything.i could care less if hispanics ,asianS, or whoever takes over america.hispanic IS NOT RACE,there are some that are white.
in fact most say they are white in america,agree with or not.
more on that below and in another post or link i will post below.
I FEEL like I HAD THIS CONVERSION BEFORE,ANYWAY if you are saying that black hispanics will outnumber african americans in the future,who knows,and if you are saying that african americans will disappear because a few are mixing with hispanics and become the new black in america,i don't agree.
I AM only replying to what i think you mean by the new black.
Most hispanics marry hispanics and most african americans marry african americans,MOST white marry whites,that's all i am saying.
their are more blacks from the caribbean and recent african groups in the u.s. that out number black hispanics.
I think thier number will go faster in america before black hispanics.i don't think Hispanics as whole are no more the future then most other groups,but nobody could really tell the future.a large chunk of hispanics in america are white or call themselves white anyway,even if some that call themselves white are really white.
It's the mind set you have to really be concern about,not numbers and population growth OF HISPANICS or black hispanics.if many still have a euro-centric mind set,it will not matter if hispanics take over america or not,the mindset that white is right or the euro- centric standards will still be in place.
whites in america are still growing in numbers so hispanics will not surpass them anytime soon that i know of.
Anyway I THINK this is off topic and i will end it here.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
here is a link of what hispancis in america think of themselves,right or wrong. I JUST POSTED IT.
anyway i am ending it here. thanks for reading my replies. peace.
edited - most hispanics in america are white in the census, agree with or not.
anyway WE ARE off topic, THE BERBERS IS THE TOPIC. that's all from me here,I have things to do.
PEACE.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
Here is some of the Tishkoff et al. 2009 Global cluster results from tables S8 and S6 -
African-Americans are 71% Niger-Kordofanian, 19% Eurasian, 2% Cushitic, 2% Sandawe and 1% or less each of Fulani, NiloSaharan, Chadic, Pygmy and SA Khoesan.
The 'blue' section in the African pie chart is the 'Saharan/Dogon' African cluster which is based on bad samples. So take the Dogon slice with a grain of salt because later studies(Xing et al. 2010) show they are much closer genetically to the Mande, Bambaran, YRI and Yoruba West Africans than to Mozabites.
Dogon samples were NOT used in the global population comparison and they were NOT ruled out as relatives which would make their analysis probably invalid. Dogon are 1 of 15 different African genetic clusters or groups discovered!
"It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data)."
"Detection of relative pairs: Relative pairs and duplicated samples in the dataset were inferred from the pattern of shared genotypes and population allele frequencies with RELPAIR 2.0.1 (S6-8) . Because the inclusion of closely related individuals can impact population genetic inferences (e.g. (S9)), we took the conservative approach of excluding individuals inferred to be third degree or more closely related, including inferred relative pairs between regional ethnic populations (e.g. all Tanzanian populations). An exception was made in the case of the Dogon as it is difficult to reliably infer relative pairs in a small sample and the Dogon are highly distinctive and could not be readily merged with other populations to improve allele frequency estimates. Merging the Dogon with other non-Pygmy West African populations inferred four unrelated individuals in the sample, but this may be overly conservative given the distinctiveness of the Dogon sample from other West Africans. Also, the Dogon are the only representatives from Mali in our study and since the sample size is already small we did not want to further reduce the sample size in the analyses, especially if the relative pair estimates were questionable. Therefore, RELPAIR inferred relative pairs among the Dogon were not excluded. In total 737 individuals were removed. Networks of relatives, which in some cases were quite complex, were plotted with neato from the GraphViz software package (S10), which was used to select the minimum number of individuals to exclude to break up networks of relative pairs."
Tishkoff et al. 2009 images for my previous post. Enjoy
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Doc,
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: The 'European' AAC in the GLOBAL Structure run is represented in Blue. The 'Saharan/Dogon' AAC is represented in Blue for the African ONLY Structure(African Pie chart image). See the Mozabite thread for more detail and the observation on the Dogon samples. So he [Doctoris Scientia] is confusing the two data sets. [/QB]
Doc, if you made an error as NonProphet has said then the Mozabite Berbers, according to the way he sees the Tishkoff study are 64% Eurasian, 36% African (not 80%). I think my nemesis Mindovermatter might even agree
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Sarah Tishkoff -
Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties.
Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.
___________________________ this is what the average african american dna is,not all but average.yes some have some Fulani dna some do not,some do not have any euro dna at all.the rest of the dna is african for most to fill in the blanks.
this is what the average african american dna is,not all but average.
Posted by Doctoris Scientia (Member # 17454) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Doc,
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: The 'European' AAC in the GLOBAL Structure run is represented in Blue. The 'Saharan/Dogon' AAC is represented in Blue for the African ONLY Structure(African Pie chart image). See the Mozabite thread for more detail and the observation on the Dogon samples. So he [Doctoris Scientia] is confusing the two data sets.
Doc, if you made an error as NonProphet has said then the Mozabite Berbers, according to the way he sees the Tishkoff study are 64% Eurasian, 36% African (not 80%). I think my nemesis Mindovermatter might even agree [/QB]
No lion, I already addressed this on the Beja thread.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Hadandawa Beja are 49% Cushitic, 37% Eurasian, 6% Chadic, 4% Niger-Kordofanian, 2% NiloSaharan + others.
African-Americans are 71% Niger-Kordofanian, 19% Eurasian, 2% Cushitic, 2% Sandawe and 1% or less each of Fulani, NiloSaharan, Chadic, Pygmy and SA Khoesan.
You know that such studies are B.S. when they group lineage according to language group when we know language is NOT and should NOT be associated with genetic lineage. And then we have 'Eurasian' which is not a description of language but of geographic origin which is at least more accurate. Yet what kind of DNA are these studies based on NRY or mitochondrial. What defines 'Eurasian' in these studies? We all know that there are recent experts who are now trying to class West and Central Africas as 'Eursians' based on Y chromosomes of the R clade.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Actually - that Tishkoff sounds somewhat on track modern Mozabites 64 % Eurasian and African Americans 22% European. Of course it probably matters which Mozabites one is talking about.
Actually Tishkoffs conclusions of Beja 37% are in line and Mozabites 64% Eurasian are in line with what has happened in recent history. Unfortunately some people have not understood on this forum that is what happens when Nordics or other European people mix with Negroes.
Mzab - of course was a colony of Iranians. While Nubians have been mixed with Bosnian Turks and before that with other Eurasiatics. All this of course has nothing to do with ancient Afro-Asiatics previous to being mixed with whites!
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Between Doctor Schitzo and Ms Cowardly Lyin' I don't know which one is more stupid. Doc seems obsessed with notions of white desirability and will go to any moronic extreme to uphold that, mostly by lying his ass off.
First he says:
quote: For example if you isolated African-Americans as they are now... leave them on [an] island... for a thousand years... due to sexual trends in the AA community... the general physical appearance would be more in line with modern day Coastal North Africans or at least Creoles or Puerto Ricans."
LOL what a jackass! First of all blacks are mostly isolated now and most AA's are dark-skinned, curly haired. So only in the doctor's fevered racial imagination will blacks "sexual trends" skew lighter. You get a few confused fools in Atlanta, but go to ANY black enclave and you find everyone is black as dark chocolate. Stop dreaming doc. Nobody's in love with whiteness except you. If after 500 years lighter-skinned blacks are still the vast minority, especially in predominantly black areas, then you have no case for the "sexual trends" line. You're trying to say "sexual preferences," and you're simply wrong. Now, an intelligent adult would admit his error, but you're a jackass and hence error is what you do naturally. Ah, but the asshole doubles down on stupid by continuing.
quote:The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"... therefore why todays more modern Madagascar population resemble Africans much more than they do Southeast Asians... most of them being physically identical to Southern and Eastern African populations, even if they're almost genetically equally African and Southwest Asian. People who resemble Asians are an extreme minority.
Now that's called wanting to have it both ways. Black "trends" will take them toward lighter-skinned blacks in the US, but in the former colony of Madagascar --where blacks were the vast minority-- today the place looks like Kenya. Gee, whatever happened to the "sexual trends" crock? You'll claim it when it's convenient and deny it when it's not. You fail and should have known this before you brought your racialist nonsense because African genes are dominant genes --look it up, I don't have time or patience to educate a fool. Some people1 They ensconce themselves on Stormfront long enough and talk themselves into all kinds of stupidity. At least they're good for a laugh!
This teachable moment was brought to you by common sense. Now **** off.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
what happened was that some of the ancient negroes of yester year went up exploring up the North out of Africa in darkest Europe and Asia. The records who that the darkest ones was always complaining about "sheit's cold up in here" So gradually it was the lighter ones went further up North on some further further type thing. Eventaully they got lighter and light until they devoloved into hairy devil cave beasts that we know and love today.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The psychological things I've noticed with regards to the need to have Africans/African Americans be mixed:
There are several reasons that apply to different types of people as to why they not only want but need to believe in this mythology.
1. You have the white race loons who want to claim that everything in Africa is a result of them, which in turn boosts their self-esteem.
2. You have those who believe in a racial hierarchy based on race typology. Thus they create a fictional history for each typology no matter how delusional.
3. You have those that need to have certain individuals or groups of people to be "mixed", their psychological well being depends on it. These types of people are usually entertainment flunkies.
4. You have those who engage in eyeball morality and social status. If they think a person looks good or has certain so called "features" they like, then that person is supposed to be treated well and have a higher social status. The people with this mentality could not possibly accept that someone whom they thought looked good could be a slave. The people with this mindset also tend to be entertainment flunkies.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
It's highly likely that the Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Berbers "bred" themselves due to sexual preferences, therefore explaining their unique physical appearance. Extensive or continous non-African admixture is not necessary for this to happen.
A possibility, but not necessarily the most likely. The predominance of a particular phenotype might be due to other factors, such as speakers of one localized dialect gaining a dominant position numerically due to some event like a war or random enviro event. Speakers of this dialect might tend to cluster or prefer others of the same or similar dialect hence over many centuries, causing a preponderance of than phenotype as original founders multiplied. In other words, sexual selection based on "Caucasian looks" may not at all be the primary or even secondary factor.
The opposite happened in places like Madagascar, where the "African" appearance was more in "vogue"..
^^Again possible but not necessarily likely. If dark skin was numerically more to begin with, over time this numerical preponderance could have simply continued and increased without any significant "selection" for "whiter looks."
"Selection" for this and that has become virtually an article of religious faith in some quarters, but it can be a shaky faith. "Selection" may play no part at all.
Blonde hair for example represents a small minority of hair color worldwide and a more numerous but still minority prevalence even in EUrope. In the distant Solomon Islands, on the Pacific, where most people have dark skin, blond hair prevalence is very high relatively speaking, as a percentage of the population. The islanders have this without any "selection" for "white looks". Claims of "selection" may be self-flattering in certain quarters but outside those, they are distinctly unimpressive.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Science talk is nice and all but ... I tup a frail 'cos I like her looks. That's one type of founder effect. No tuppin', no population.
If Solomon Islanders stopped tuppin' their home grown blonds they'd genetic drift away in one generation. You betcha!!
Check all them Orientalist paintings Brothers and cousins choosing hella Morenas and Circassians over sistahs.
Or how bout Luso-Hispanic America? Blanca to make a heir Mulata to make whoopee Negra to make the bed
So this lighter the better thing is a selective pressure it seems more so among admixed populations.
What started in LUP and early holocene Atlas Maghreb NW Africa due to climate making Iberian females more accessible turned into a preference after long familiarity with no deselective racism against Africanas originally involved.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I tup a frail 'cos I like her looks. That's one type of founder effect.
lol....
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
What a sick prejudice mentality of Latin American.Blanca to make a heir, mulata to make a whoopee, negra to make the bed.
Some Noth African, West Asian and Latin American skin color and phenotype are due to the selective breeding of black people with white or pale women.Metiso/mulato are not realy a race but mixed black people.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The fact that the descendants of such people experience racism for being "black" in the Near East and America or the West is also not a fact that escapes most of them. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
