U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2013, 11:13 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,421,685 times
Reputation: 6348

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiggs1 View Post
To Jturr88 and EdwardA, what is your opinion on Arabs being descended from Black Africans? And when I say descended from Black Africans I mean recently descended from Black Africans (last 4000 years); cause if you go back far enough, everybody on earth is descended from Black Africans.
The "Black African" component of Arabs comes primarily from the Mohammedan invasions into North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula where they intermarried with existing populations. The "Black" part is from the fact that as jtur88 alluded to there has been sustained interaction between East Africa (Ethiopia & Somalia) with the Arabian peninsula for centuries. Basically the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula were primarily mixed with African. If you've ever met a Yemeni this would be pretty evident as well as there are quite a few darker Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

If the indigenous North African population before the Muslim invasions were primarily African we would see a higher rate of Black African admixture in your average Arab today. However the average Arab is around has around 10% Black African mtDNA.

The main relative conclusion here is that your average Arab has absolutely no genetic or cultural connection to West Africans or sub-Saharan Africans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2013, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,421,685 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by wild style View Post
i don't have the time right now. However, the first people in south america seem to have been "negro" of some sort, not the current day "mongloid" people that we see today. Secondly clyde winters is not the first people to bring up that the olmecs may have been african, it was a german researcher. You can watch this video, you will see him speak in his own words, about what he felt about the olmecs. From there you will have to do your own research into this german researchers findings.


'olmecs' they came before columbus - dr ivan van sertima, part 2 - youtube

also, this is a short clip but listen to what they say about the oldest skull found in south america


1st ancient americans were black! - white archaeologists discover - youtube


i am not saying the olmecs were african, i don't know and i don't care. But my point in showing this is, you don't know enough about history, researchers or their findings to have a intelligent opinion or conversation and i assure you, it will take more than a half day of google searches, for you to intelligently discuss the topic, because it is very very intricate. You need to know archeological evidence, linguistic evidence, cultural evidence etc etc. That takes years my friend. Thats why there are people with ph ds in the subject.

As for taking a statue and pointing to someone today as having the same features, thats not very scientific in approach and doesn't prove much. There are african's with many of these same features, so it is going to take more than that. Unless you have been to africa, seen all its people and understand physiology, you comparing features like that doesn't mean anything.
I guess if one repeats falsehoods enough they end up believing their own lies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
I guess if one repeats falsehoods enough they end up believing their own lies.
The whole thing about the Olmecs being of African descent seems to be a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying that it's not possible but it seems rather unlikely when applying archeological study to the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 01:25 PM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,242 times
Reputation: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
The "Black African" component of Arabs comes primarily from the Mohammedan invasions into North Africa from the Arabian Peninsula where they intermarried with existing populations. The "Black" part is from the fact that as jtur88 alluded to there has been sustained interaction between East Africa (Ethiopia & Somalia) with the Arabian peninsula for centuries. Basically the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula were primarily mixed with African. If you've ever met a Yemeni this would be pretty evident as well as there are quite a few darker Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

If the indigenous North African population before the Muslim invasions were primarily African we would see a higher rate of Black African admixture in your average Arab today. However the average Arab is around has around 10% Black African mtDNA.

The main relative conclusion here is that your average Arab has absolutely no genetic or cultural connection to West Africans or sub-Saharan Africans.
Hmm, no genetic or cutural connection to West Africans or Sub-Saharan Africans. So we are still not clear if Ethiopia and Somalia are below the Sahara.

Mind you that Arabs, Ethiopians, and Somalians are all speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages. Need I remind you that there are these people in West Africa called the Hausa, who live in the present day countries of Niger and Nigeria predominantly. The Hausa's language is also Afro-Asiatic; so we cant jump to conclusions and say that West Africans have no genetic or cultural connection to Arabs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,221,895 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Then you should agree that racial terms like "Black African and other racial colors" don't hold much weight in this when it comes to ancient African civilizations and culture. In reality do we even have to ask if Ethiopians are Black or not? It just seems completely ridiculous to me.
Look. Get out a map of Africa . Draw a line across it along the southern edge of the Sahara, to the Mile, then down to the Indian Ocean at about Zanzibar, follow the coast to southern Mozambique, then angle back across Africa northwest through Angola. Think of a name for the area defined by that line. Call it whatever you like. Let's say Xyz.

Throughout all known history, Xyz has been almost entirely populated by people who are linguistically related to each other and physically resemble each other, and probably have either common ancestry or have significantly influenced each other for many thousands of years. Call them Xyzzians. There are other people in Africa, who are loosely related to Xyzzians, or not related to them at all. Disregard those, they live outside Zyx and are not Xyzzians.

When most of the people in the world look at Xyzzians, they can't help but notice that they are, wall, sort of black, compared to most other people who have studied geography and anthropology and world history, and the entirety of Xyz happens to lie on a continent that has been, for a very long time, been called Africa. So some people, before we taught them to call this place Xyz, started calling Xyz "Black Africa".

So the most productive thing we can do, rather than to discuss the history and current issues of Xyz, is to screech as loudly as possible that it is ignorant and insulting and degrading and insensitive to call it Black Africa. And furthermore, because XYZ come at the end of the alphabet, calling the region Xyz is also insulting and degrading and implies that the people there are "behind" the rest of the world, like saying they are "beneath" the Sahara in some kind of an implied inferior underworld. OK, go ahead and screech.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-08-2013 at 10:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Caribbean
7,558 posts, read 2,427,412 times
Reputation: 2738
Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Then you should agree that racial terms like "Black African and other racial colors" don't hold much weight in this when it comes to ancient African civilizations and culture. In reality do we even have to ask if Ethiopians are Black or not? It just seems completely ridiculous to me.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 04:59 AM
 
574 posts, read 1,670,242 times
Reputation: 516
Jturr88, what is your opinion on the relationship of the Dogon people of West Africa, and the Ancient Egyptians. Scholars have theorized that these people may be related, and modern Dogon culture was influenced by people who came from Egypt back in Ancient times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Look. Get out a map of Africa . Draw a line across it along the southern edge of the Sahara, to the Mile, then down to the Indian Ocean at about Zanzibar, follow the coast to southern Mozambique, then angle back across Africa northwest through Angola. Think of a name for the area defined by that line. Call it whatever you like. Let's say Xyz.

Throughout all known history, Xyz has been almost entirely populated by people who are linguistically related to each other and physically resemble each other, and probably have either common ancestry or have significantly influenced each other for many thousands of years. Call them Xyzzians. There are other people in Africa, who are loosely related to Xyzzians, or not related to them at all. Disregard those, they live outside Zyx and are not Xyzzians.

When most of the people in the world look at Xyzzians, they can't help but notice that they are, wall, sort of black, compared to most other people who have studied geography and anthropology and world history, and the entirety of Xyz happens to lie on a continent that has been, for a very long time, been called Africa. So some people, before we taught them to call this place Xyz, started calling Xyz "Black Africa".

So the most productive thing we can do, rather than to discuss the history and current issues of Xyz, is to screech as loudly as possible that it is ignorant and insulting and degrading and insensitive to call it Black Africa. And furthermore, because XYZ come at the end of the alphabet, calling the region Xyz is also insulting and degrading and implies that the people there are "behind" the rest of the world, like saying they are "beneath" the Sahara in some kind of an implied inferior underworld. OK, go ahead and screech.
Here the problem with your analogies. You are still looking at it from an extreme Eurocentric/Non-African viewpoint. All you simply did was change the name but the ignorance remained the same. This whole premise of "lets draw a line" is extremely shallow and narrow-minded. As a result of that it makes the rest of your argument fall apart quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,221,895 times
Reputation: 36087
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiggs1 View Post
Jturr88, what is your opinion on the relationship of the Dogon people of West Africa, and the Ancient Egyptians. Scholars have theorized that these people may be related, and modern Dogon culture was influenced by people who came from Egypt back in Ancient times.
I don't know enough about it. Things that "scholars theorize that may be" are often interesting, but not always based on objective facts or empirical analysis. Scholars also theorize that both were influenced by the same extraterrestrial alien visitation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Here the problem with your analogies. You are still looking at it from an extreme Eurocentric/Non-African viewpoint. All you simply did was change the name but the ignorance remained the same. This whole premise of "lets draw a line" is extremely shallow and narrow-minded. As a result of that it makes the rest of your argument fall apart quickly.
Yes, but at least I was not guilty of what you accused me of:
"Then you should agree that racial terms like "Black African and other racial colors" don't hold much weight."

Are you asking me to believe that your extreme Afrocentric/Non-European viewpoint is likely to be more unbiased? When somebody starts their argument with "Egyptians were black",and that Africans had great intellectual and philosophical civilizations before they could write, I am inclined to immediately call BS on their entire thesis, because I know there is no weighty evidence to support those claims.

No legitimate anthropologist can function without first defining the culture he is addressing, and you want to know how they do that? They start by drawing a line around the culture, to distinguish it from irrelevant areas that are not included in their study. You want to draw a line around the coast of Africa and define everyone inside that line as the same culture, and that is why you are ALWAYS wrong in every conclusion that you arrive at. When you start with a wrong premise, your result will always be wrong. Scientific method always begins by drawing a line around that which is being analyzed, to separate it from that which is not.

You drew the line around "everyone who is black", so it is you that is using the racial and color terms to define your argument. I drew my line around the Bantu Linguistic Group, and everyone who knows anything at all about anthropology knows the importance and validity of linguistics in tracing human relationship. Your so called "extreme Eurocentric" viewpoints don't have any trouble distinguishing between Vikings and Lapps in the same "everyone is white" country, when there are facts on the ground, which are mainly linguistic facts by the way.

Last edited by jtur88; 09-09-2013 at 08:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2013, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No legitimate anthropologist can function without first defining the culture he is addressing, and you want to know how they do that? They start by drawing a line around the culture, to distinguish it from irrelevant areas that are not included in their study. You want to draw a line around the coast of Africa and define everyone inside that line as the same culture, and that is why you are ALWAYS wrong in every conclusion that you arrive at. When you start with a wrong premise, your result will always be wrong. Scientific method always begins by drawing a line around that which is being analyzed, to separate it from that which is not.

You drew the line around "everyone who is black", so it is you that is using the racial and color terms to define your argument. I drew my line around the Bantu Linguistic Group, and everyone who knows anything at all about anthropology knows the importance and validity of linguistics in tracing human relationship.
Linguistics is an important aspect but it's not the end all of everything. Languages change and can spread far beyond the area it originated in. Civilizations that conquer other civilizations usually influence their culture and language on the people they conquered. The Bantu languages originated out of Central and Southern Regions of Africa and would later spread the other parts of Africa which is sort of similar to the spread of Indo-European languages throughout most of Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top