Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i bet most of the people making negative comments
about who, what and where about black african history
are not even black, so they need to just shut up.
what you're saying is irrelevant.
nobody's listening to you, because
you don't know. you're just part
of the brainwash campaign.
"it is not generally accepted that Sudanese Copts are ethnically related to those of Egypt,"
Scroll up from that link, and you will see that 14% of modern Egyptians have sub-saharan DNA matches, about average for North African countries. Which suggests (to me, anyway) that ancient Egyptians did not carry enough sub-Saharan DNA to influence the admixture of today's population any more than Libya or Algeria, whose people are not descended from ancient Egyptian or Nilotic civilizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11KAP
i bet most of the people making negative comments
about who, what and where about black african history
are not even black, so they need to just shut up.
what you're saying is irrelevant.
nobody's listening to you, because
you don't know. you're just part
of the brainwash campaign.
People who are not black are far more likely than people who are, to take a fair, impartial, objective look at the available data about black history and culture. Same goes for people who are not Coptic, or not from Kalamazoo, or without blue eyes, who are offering opinions about Copts or Kalamazoo or blue eyed people. It's the people with an interest in furthering the image of their own kind who are most often guilty of brainwashing campaigns, and who ought to shut up. You wouldn't ask people on death row to find and report objective data on capital punishment.
By the way, I am Haplogroup G, which matches about 10% of modern Egyptians, which by your standards, makes me eminently qualified to comment on this topic.
"it is not generally accepted that Sudanese Copts are ethnically related to those of Egypt,"
Scroll up from that link, and you will see that 14% of modern Egyptians have sub-saharan DNA matches, about average for North African countries. Which suggests (to me, anyway) that ancient Egyptians did not carry enough sub-Saharan DNA to influence the admixture of today's population any more than Libya or Algeria, whose people are not descended from ancient Egyptian or Nilotic civilizations.
People who are not black are far more likely than people who are, to take a fair, impartial, objective look at the available data about black history and culture. Same goes for people who are not Coptic, or not from Kalamazoo, or without blue eyes, who are offering opinions about Copts or Kalamazoo or blue eyed people. It's the people with an interest in furthering the image of their own kind who are most often guilty of brainwashing campaigns, and who ought to shut up. You wouldn't ask people on death row to find and report objective data on capital punishment.
By the way, I am Haplogroup G, which matches about 10% of modern Egyptians, which by your standards, makes me eminently qualified to comment on this topic.
Like I've said before; often the worse place to find out about a group of people is from that group themselves.
Have the coptic people had their DNA compared to that of the ancient Egyptians? If so what were the results?
Not enough is known about the DNA of ancient Egyptians to say what their components are. Only a few mummies have been tested - not enough for statistical samples. However, genetic studies have been done on modern day Egyptians, which show the following components.
1. An "indigenous" North African component which is shared with other North African populations, and most notable in Berbers. This group has its origin among the "out-of-Africa" migration, and is hence closer related genetically to Europeans and Near Easterners than Sub-Saharan Africans. However, the populations diverged before the invention of agriculture (18,000-38,000 years ago), so they've been indigenous Africans for a very, very long time.
2. A "Near Eastern" component. This is heaviest in Egypt, then filters lower in Libya and even lower in Algeria and Morocco. Not all of this may be related to the Arab migrations, given Egypt is near the Fertile Crescent, and there were long interactions between the two regions before the rise of Islam.
3. European DNA. There is a fairly high amount of this in all North African groups near the Mediterranean coastline. Some of this may be due to the recent "white" slave trade in the Islamic world, but the old links of the region to the Greeks and Romans undoubtedly played a role as well.
4. Components related to West and East Africa seem to have been introduced most recently. For Egypt, this is calculated as approximately 700 years ago (they calculated this because the components from Sub-Saharan Africa are least likely to be "chopped" into little bits around the genome, hence showing Egyptians had full-blooded black ancestors more recently than anyone else. It shouldn't be surprising, all things considered. Throughout the modern Middle East, there are similar genetic traces of black ancestry. The interesting thing is they are generally completely missing from non Islamic populations. So, for example, Lebanese Muslims have detectable African ancestry, but Lebanese Christians do not.
I'm sure the Native Americans feel the same way and would rather have Europeans explain what their history and culture is.
You mean like when they deny the genetic studies which prove they're the descendants of migrants from Siberia who came over the Bering land bridge, and insist they have occupied their land since time immemorial?
I'm sure the Native Americans feel the same way and would rather have Europeans explain what their history and culture is.
You're right. Instead of doing archaeological digs and linguistic comparisons and DNA tests, the Europeans should have just asked Native Americans where they came from. Their memory is infallible, and their scientific methods are far in advance of the Europeans and their great universities..
You mean like when they deny the genetic studies which prove they're the descendants of migrants from Siberia who came over the Bering land bridge, and insist they have occupied their land since time immemorial?
What I'm referring to is the history of certain groups spreading lies and deceit about the history of certain cultures just to justify some sort of racial superiority. Usually these groups come from certain people who have conquered or colonized another group. Therefore they feel that they have the highest authority when it comes to explaining what that culture is about and the history of the people they have conquered or colonized. Of course things have gotten a lot better in modern times but it's still far from perfect.
You're right. Instead of doing archaeological digs and linguistic comparisons and DNA tests, the Europeans should have just asked Native Americans where they came from. Their memory is infallible, and their scientific methods are far in advance of the Europeans and their great universities..
If you cared to read what I was responding to, then you would have seen that the poster had stated "often the worse place to find out about a group of people is from that group themselves". Which was a ridiculous statement to make. Common sense would tell me if I wanted to know about the history and authentic culture of certain ethnic groups in China for example, I would go to the people who are part of that culture and history and not someone who is foreign from that culture or is looking at it from a third person perspective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
