Why do Afrocentrists obsess over Egyp...
Jeff

Natick, MA

#8461 May 28, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you...Someone with common sense unlike others...-__-
Thank you...right back at you, Mike....;-)
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're missing my point a bit...What I am saying is that the settlers who migrated into Europe were tropically adapted. But once they entered Europe they became Cold Adapted. Again I am saying before they entered Europe they were tropically adapted similar but NOT related to Africans.
But that is the point, they were not tropical adapted. They already were a mix between tropical adapted and cold adapted long before they even entered Europe because they were living in Cold Adapted Northern Hemispheric Low UV Radiation Eurasian regions just as the Neanderthals were. The further one is from the tropics the less tropical he is.
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeff...I am not saying that the first people of Europe were not Eurasian, but tropically adapted.
http://tinypic.com/eg3539.jpg
^^^^Even pre-historic Mediterraneans group away from modern Europeans.
'Earliest European Farmers Left Little Genetic Mark On Modern Europe'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/...
^^^Again the Ancient Europeans were different from modern Europeans.
Pre-historic Mediterraneans cluster close to modern Southern Europeans, that is what the article you posted is saying, that they don't cluster close to Central and Northern Europeans but that Earliest European Farmers do cluster close to Southern Europeans. Central and Northern Europeans cluster closer to Cro-Magnon types.

"The team confirmed that, of modern people, Sardinians are Ötzi's closest relatives. But among the prehistoric quartet,Ötzi most closely resembled the farmers found in Bulgaria and Sweden, while the Swedish and Iberian hunter-gatherers [Cro-Magnon] looked more like present-day Northern Europeans." ~ LiveScience
Jeff

Natick, MA

#8462 May 28, 2013
big mike M wrote:
Also...
QUOTE:
"As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince
lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan
Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno
Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of
other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high
bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation..
.. as a whole, in body shape the Gravettian sa
limb and body proportions of the Dolni Vestonice and (to a lesser degree)
Pavlov fossils conform well to this overall pattern."
--Trinkaus and Svoboda. 2005. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central
Europe]
^^^^ Again not saying they WERE African, but compared to Modern Europeans they are morphologically closer to modern Africans.
Gravettian samples were morphologically a mix between archaic humans and Neanderthals, they are not morphologically closer to modern Africans unless you are saying modern Africans are a mix of archaic humans and Neanderthals, which they clearly are not.

"To assess the metacarpal 3 robusticity, its length was estimated at 73.8 mm for this purpose from the metacarpal 2 using a sample of associated recent Europeans (Musgrave, 1970). The resultant robusticity indices (Table 2) are consistent in being close to the MUP means and below the majority of the EUP and Middle Paleolithic metacarpals in this aspect.´ &#728; There is nothing unusual in the diaphyseal hypertrophy of the Pavlov 31 metacarpals, or those of the other Pavlovian individuals. This con&#64257;guration is present but rare among the MPMH, and it occurs in two-thirds of the Neandertals and is known for earlier archaic Homo. In addition, the ´ &#728; Doln&#305; Vestonice 54 calcaneus has a medially prominent sustentaculum tali, which places it among the Neandertals. Consequently, as with other MUP humans (Hillson, 2006;), these additional Pavlovian human remains conform to a basic ‘modern human’ morphological pattern, with a suite of derived (or apparently derived) modern human features. Yet, as with a number of other MUP humans, they also exhibit a minority of archaic and/or Neandertal aspects rare or unknown among MPMH and other early modern humans. Given the correlations between these hand bone lengths and stature, Pavlov 31 joins these EUP and MUP individuals in being among the tallest Pleistocene humans. &#728; The Doln&#305; Vestonice 58 and 59 metacarpals are exceptionally gracile compared to earlier humans and even with respect to MUP humans, especially given their inferred large body size and hence probable male sex. &#728; They exhibit a suite of characteristics, including dental crown dimensions and occlusal morphology, ulnar coronoid size, capitate-metacarpal facet morphology, opponens muscle insertions, metacarpal diaphyseal robusticity, pollical phalangeal length proportions and manual middle phalanx epiphyseal breadth that align them with MUP humans and/or with early modern humans generally. At the same time, there are several features that are reminiscent of Neandertals and/or archaic humans more broadly." ~ Human Remains from the Moravian Gravettian: Morphology and Taphonomy of Additional Elements from Doln&#305;´ V&#283;stonice II and Pavlov Imore; Miriam Nývltová Fišáková

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#8463 May 28, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Well he may have a point. Those 'white' South Africans are probably more 'African' than an African American or any group of people of the African diaspora, when speaking culturally since they were born and raised in Africa.
But genetically they are not African or indigenous to Africa. I think he may have meant that. An European, Indian or Arab can be African if born and raised in Africa, but genetically they are not.
A 'white' South African probably knows more about Africa than the average African American.
That doesn't make any sense. If you are European, then you cannot at the same time be African, for there is no such thing as a 'European African', just as there is no such thing as an Asian African or North American African.

Being African has nothing to do with being 'culturally African', and in any case, what is being 'more African culturally' even mean?

How does merely being born and raised in Africa make you 'culturally African'? I think you also take for granted that there are many peoples of African descent living in places such as Brazil, other regions of South America, the Caribbean, and even India who possess what one would call 'African culture', even after having been out of Africa for generations.

If they are not indigenous to Africa, then how can they be African, meaning if their genes do not possess affinity with known African population clusters, as is the case with AA's, then, again, what makes them African?
trollslayer

Chicago, IL

#8464 May 29, 2013
big mike M wrote:
@Id*t Me
Replying to this post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T8J7FKICHDA2B...
I'm back and time for me to MURDER SOME CLOWNS ONCE AGAIN!
No mor*n...When I mean 'African', I am only speaking GENETICALLY, because it is incorrect to use to terms such as 'black' or 'white' when speaking about genetics. C*CKs*cker 'Negroïd' is only a m*therfcking phenotype. WHy don't you try to educate yourself on what that means 'Id*t Me'. Are these people Negroïd???
http://i39.tinypic.com/34qv8rq.jpg
^^^Yet that women belongs to a group which s the most 'African' in Africa and the oldest. Go fck yourself and your outdated 'Negroïd' terms.
Here is what up to date science says about your outdated terms.
http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s417/King...
GTFO clown!
'E-V13' is not AFrican???? What? E-V13 comes from E-M78 which arose in AFRICA!!!! Repeat...AFRICA!!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGT...
It was spread by Africans.
"Even today there are very dark Caucasoids indigenous to North Africa, but they're NOT 'Black' and anyway "Black" to most of you Afro-Ignorant-Fools means Negroïd."
^^^ROFLMFAO!!!!!!! Oh man I can't take you serious no more. LMAO!!!!:D
Man where is Barros, I actually take that guy more serious than you. Man you're getting more and more desperate...Is this Tutsi a 'Dark Caucasoid' too??? >:D
http://i44.tinypic.com/8vsr2f.jpg
Come on fam you're making this way too easy. ANd you say my blogs don't debunk anything. Yeah okay...
And um...That map of L3 entering the Maghreb around 40-30k years is from the Pedro Soares et al. study.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/3/91...
So kill yourself.:)
No...why can't you and Barros comprehend that I never denied U6 entering Africa 30k years ago and it possibly being of Eurasian origin. But you id*ts need to know....
1. The Maghreb was NOT predominately Eurasians since their were other Africans already their.
2. Those Eurasians did not look like any walking Caucasoids with proof with this.
'The position of the Nazlet Khaterspecimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.'
http://bigmikemanthropologyshow.webs.com/apps...
^^^So again give up on the idea of some walking Caucasoids. And again I keep asking you and Barros for this. Where is my Fossil records and Archaeological sites of these 'Caucasoid' Eurasians???? I'm still waiting...:)
And North Africans being admixed with Neanderthals has already been refuted by the Gokcumen etal study.:)
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...
And I'm not claiming Cromagnon people as African, but that they looked more similar to Africans. And no duh Africans are the most diverse. Duh...I've been saying that for the longest.
And dude. I already touched base on that Henn study multiple times. She didn't even mention fossil records or archaeological sites of these Eurasians.
Why don't YOU go fck yourself with these....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlP...
http://i49.tinypic.com/14kl9uu.png
And this.:)
http://picturestack.com/70/932/zzSSchermafbej...
You need to comprehend that Mikey is a force...A force that can not be stopped.
....sir, PLEASE put ur AK47 down and step away from the troll. Everybody...please move along, there's nothing else to see here.
motts

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#8465 May 29, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
....sir, PLEASE put ur AK47 down and step away from the troll. Everybody...please move along, there's nothing else to see here.
LOL! Couldn't have put it better myself. He's died in 3 threads now!!

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8466 May 29, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really this stup*d? Didn't I already confirm to your goofy @$$ that the Maghreb means ALL of Northwest Africa???
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlubell/Ency_Maghreb....
YOU'RE the one here lying like the Mediterranean Maghreb is the ONLY the Maghreb when I pointed out that the Maghreb has two regions. Now you're trying to twist things. Get real! You're barely even addressing my points anymore.
<quoted text>
Nope its you who twists things as always.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! I swear you know nothing about Africa or its people. Jesus Christ...
1. There were no "Berbers" 10,000 years ago. I tried telling your D*mb@$$ that a million times.
2. During the Holocene when the Sahara was wet, it was heavily populated and almost all were African.
http://bigmikemanthropologyshow.webs.com/apps... -
3. AGAIN!!! Berber languages originated in East Africa, where Afroasiatic languages were born. Therefore, the primary populations speaking proto-Berber would have been those between East Africa and the Sahara. Trying to exclusively tie the age of Berber languages to the extreme coasts of North Africa is nonsense. The languages were not "born" in the coasts of North Africa. Therefore, whatever the people of the extreme coasts of North Africa look like today, has no bearing on the origin of Berber languages and does not make populations in ancient North Africa 10,000 years ago Berber speakers.
4. Berbers are NOT ONE monolithic group like you and others are keep trying to make out to be.
Again where are my excavation site and fossil records of these Eurasians???
<quoted text>
Me diverting??? Your barely even addressing my points and not only that but going off topic. Me being run off? Old man...I have A LIFE! I now have a wife and a kid that I have to SUPPORT. And so I don't have enough time to be on the Topix and even the internet. I believe I already stated this.
And again where are my excavation site and fossil records of these Eurasians??? I'm waiting...
LOL... theMaghreb means all of NW Africa? But that would also have to be defined... what is NW Africa?

You are a lying Afronazi playing word games. The N African coast is where we're discussing, not deep in the Sahara as you pretend, you stinking liar, in order that you can find older evidence of black Africans there and pretend that is the Maghreb.

No, liar, the Maghreb has been predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years and you know it, liar.

LOL!!! Then you preceed with more unsubstantiated myths. It is not known where Berber languages originated, fool. Given that the immigration and admixture of Africans was 20,000 years ago, that is too early to have brought in the Berber language. The migration which is possibly the source of Tamazigh came from the Mideast.

Things are “absurd” when they contradict your lying Afronazi fantasies.

And of course, you lying turd, the data on archaeological finds in the MAGHREB (N African Mediterranean-climate region) has been repeatedly posted, confirming that 30,000 years ago Eurasians arrived, and showing no Africans between then and 20k yrs ago. Liar.

Yes, you have a life, so go live it because you are failing in your pseudo-intellectual and lying non-academic attempts to steal other people's history and culture.

And if you want to insult, have the cojones to do it in person so I can beat those lies out of you, boy.

You lying piece of crap, you've seen the data, you lost a long time ago along with your lying Afronazi cohorts.

MAGHREB: predominantly Eurasian for 30,000 years.

Get your GRUBBY greasy AFRONAZI racist paws off Berber history and culture, racist lying pig!

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8467 May 29, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I said Northeast Africa which includes Egypt. And did you see this link I posted? I forgot to post in the original post.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGT...
^^^That may correlate with the expansion of Berbers out of the North/East African region.
<quoted text>
The thing is Nile Saharan speakers didn't inhabit Libya.
Also...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGT...
E-M81 is a 'Berber' haplogroup found mostly in Berbers of the Maghreb. In the map I posted you see it arising in Libya.
You're right they did split from East Africans. But the proto Berber speakers were still indigenous Africans and the people of Ancient Libya were Berbers. I'll try to find some information on the ancient Berbers of Libya if I can.
Like all Afronazi pseudo-scholars, you post your dogma as fact.“since Berber languages originated in northeast Africa”... yet there is no proof of that whatsoever.

And since the Berber population originated with the Eurasian migration of 30,000 years ago, and was supplemented by Eurasian migrations of 10,000 years ago and of the Neolithic about 7000 years ago, and since language relationships are not discernible from over 6000 years ago... well, where does that leave you, Afronazi liar boy?

It leaves you with Clyde Winters on Egyptsearch babbling nonsense.

And with this “Libyan” nonsense AGAIN you play the trick of pretending the Sahara is the Maghreb.

You lying lowlife. You're exposed as simply another typical Afronazi fraud. Go commiserate with fat Clyde on Egyptsearch. You're washed up here.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8468 May 29, 2013
Anonymous wrote:
Funny that the eurocentrist imbeciles have all ran except bi-curious me who is an inept dolt and a sucker for severe intellectual threshing.
You're full of invective but no facts, fool.

The word “Berber” is of European origin, asswad. Its root is the same as the word “Barbarian”.

You cannot stand before any real scholar, anyone with a real education, or anyone not motivated by racist supremacist bs such as the garbage you've swallowed.

Get a real education, fool.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8469 May 29, 2013
big mike M wrote:
@Id*t Me
Replying to this post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T8J7FKICHDA2B...
I'm back and time for me to MURDER SOME CLOWNS ONCE AGAIN!
No mor*n...When I mean 'African', I am only speaking GENETICALLY, because it is incorrect to use to terms such as 'black' or 'white' when speaking about genetics. C*CKs*cker 'Negroïd' is only a m*therfcking phenotype. WHy don't you try to educate yourself on what that means 'Id*t Me'. Are these people Negroïd???
http://i39.tinypic.com/34qv8rq.jpg
^^^Yet that women belongs to a group which s the most 'African' in Africa and the oldest. Go fck yourself and your outdated 'Negroïd' terms.
Here is what up to date science says about your outdated terms.
http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s417/King...
GTFO clown!
'E-V13' is not AFrican???? What? E-V13 comes from E-M78 which arose in AFRICA!!!! Repeat...AFRICA!!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RFDBC3MrhRc/TwSONGT...
It was spread by Africans.
"Even today there are very dark Caucasoids indigenous to North Africa, but they're NOT 'Black' and anyway "Black" to most of you Afro-Ignorant-Fools means Negroïd."
^^^ROFLMFAO!!!!!!! Oh man I can't take you serious no more. LMAO!!!!:D
Man where is Barros, I actually take that guy more serious than you. Man you're getting more and more desperate...Is this Tutsi a 'Dark Caucasoid' too??? >:D
http://i44.tinypic.com/8vsr2f.jpg
Come on fam you're making this way too easy. ANd you say my blogs don't debunk anything. Yeah okay...
And um...That map of L3 entering the Maghreb around 40-30k years is from the Pedro Soares et al. study.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/3/91...
So kill yourself.:)
No...why can't you and Barros comprehend that I never denied U6 entering Africa 30k years ago and it possibly being of Eurasian origin. But you id*ts need to know....
1. The Maghreb was NOT predominately Eurasians since their were other Africans already their.
2. Those Eurasians did not look like any walking Caucasoids with proof with this.
'The position of the Nazlet Khaterspecimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.'
http://bigmikemanthropologyshow.webs.com/apps...
^^^So again give up on the idea of some walking Caucasoids. And again I keep asking you and Barros for this. Where is my Fossil records and Archaeological sites of these 'Caucasoid' Eurasians???? I'm still waiting...:)
And North Africans being admixed with Neanderthals has already been refuted by the Gokcumen etal study.:)
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado...
And I'm not claiming Cromagnon people as African, but that they looked more similar to Africans. And no duh Africans are the most diverse. Duh...I've been saying that for the longest.
And dude. I already touched base on that Henn study multiple times. She didn't even mention fossil records or archaeological sites of these Eurasians.
Why don't YOU go fck yourself with these....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tNSFOhb_cGM/TxiojlP...
http://i49.tinypic.com/14kl9uu.png
And this.:)
http://picturestack.com/70/932/zzSSchermafbej...
You need to comprehend that Mikey is a force...A force that can not be stopped.
Wrong. There is no evidence of any African presence in the Maghreb 30,000 years ago. You can't comprehend, or no, I mean, you LIE about the presence of L3 which was brought in 20,000 years ago. It is an older haplotype, but it was not present in the Maghreb until 20,000 years ago.

Stop lying, liar.

You're not a force; you're a FARCE.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8470 May 29, 2013
Yes there's no doubt whatsoever which can reasonably remain regarding the Eurasian nature of the Maghreb for 30,000 years. Europeans in fact should start migrating there, take over, eliminate Islam... after all they are owed reparations due to the depredations of the Moors. The Arabs will pitch a fit, but the Berbers for the most part would be glad to renew their pre-Islamic culture and have strong economic and social links with Europeans and Jews as they did before the arrival of the thieving Arab imperialists.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#8471 May 31, 2013
Jeff wrote:
Thank you...right back at you, Mike....;-)
You welcome.

Even though we always have our disagreements, we are always on the same page.
Jeff wrote:
But that is the point, they were not tropical adapted. They already were a mix between tropical adapted and cold adapted long before they even entered Europe because they were living in Cold Adapted Northern Hemispheric Low UV Radiation Eurasian regions just as the Neanderthals were. The further one is from the tropics the less tropical he is.
I understand your point.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
^^^The above highlighted area is the tropical latitudinal zone with the very central latitude at 0 degrees being the equator. The northern border of the tropics is called the Tropic of Cancer while the southern border is the Tropic of Capricorn.

Also take note the map is a map for skin color in INDIGENOUS populations....Here is a another map.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GhV7vZ-zk_g/TtWrU1r...

^^^Note again indigenous population. While North Africa may not be directly in the tropical latitudinal xone, they still are in what you may call the sub-tropics. As you can see on the map, people of the near east are STILL the same color as people of Africa. As you go more and more into Europe, you see the skin tones getting lighter. That what I am saying, the early humans who migrated into Europe became less tropical adapted and more cold adapted. Again I am NOT really disagreeing with you, what I am really saying is that as those humans migrated into Europe they became less and less tropically adapted. The people who migrated into Europe most likely came from the Near East and those people still had heavily pigmented skin. In order for that, you need to live in a TROPICAL area..
Jeff wrote:
Pre-historic Mediterraneans cluster close to modern Southern Europeans, that is what the article you posted is saying, that they don't cluster close to Central and Northern Europeans but that Earliest European Farmers do cluster close to Southern Europeans. Central and Northern Europeans cluster closer to Cro-Magnon types.
"The team confirmed that, of modern people, Sardinians are Ötzi's closest relatives. But among the prehistoric quartet,Ötzi most closely resembled the farmers found in Bulgaria and Sweden, while the Swedish and Iberian hunter-gatherers [Cro-Magnon] looked more like present-day Northern Europeans." ~ LiveScience
I know they said that, but the principal of the article was that they said the earlier European population left LITTLE genetic history on the modern/current European population. Just like those earlier OOA migrates left little Ancient L3 on the modern/current population of East Africans(correct me if I'm wrong).

Also of course those earlier farmers would probably cluster close to southern Europe, because southern Europe(most importantly Iberia) took refuge from the ice age in the warmer Spain region (Iberia).

Also this recent article also states this...
QUOTE:
" For reasons still unclear, Italians and Spaniards appear to be less closely related than most Europeans to people elsewhere on the continent."
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/07/dna-s...

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#8472 May 31, 2013
@Jeff

What do you mean archaic humans? There were many archaic type humans in Africa. No I am not saying Africans are a mix between Neanderthals nor am I even stating the Gravettian were genetically African, but morphologically similar to some modern day Africans compared to modern Europeans. Not saying they were EXACTLY similar.

Also note these...
"A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than &#8776;33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans. However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans. These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions. The ubiquitous and variable presence of these morphological features in the European earlier modern human samples can only be parsimoniously explained as a product of modest levels of assimilation of Neandertals into early modern human populations as the latter dispersed across Europe. This interpretation is in agreement with current analyses of recent and past human molecular data.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7367

Body proportions of early European H. sapiens fossils suggest a tropical
adaptation and support an African origin (Holliday & Trinkaus, 1991;
Ruff, 1994; Pearson, 1997, 2000; Holliday, 1997, 1998, 2000).”
-–McBrearty and Brooks 2000. The Revolution that Wasn’t. Jrn Hu Evo
39, 453-563

"Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early
modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between
those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the
tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA,
this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily
apparent in the paleontological record.“
--E. Trinkhaus (2004) European early modern humans and the fate of the
Neandertals. PNAS 2007 vol. 104 no. 18 7367-7372

^^^^Tropical types have interbred with local Neanderthals, but in time would have
adapted to the colder conditions of Europe over time. Which is basically what I've been saying all along. And tropical types interbreeding with Neanderthals and not modern Africans being mixed with Neanderthal.
Jeff

Natick, MA

#8473 May 31, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
I know they said that, but the principal of the article was that they said the earlier European population left LITTLE genetic history on the modern/current European population. Just like those earlier OOA migrates left little Ancient L3 on the modern/current population of East Africans(correct me if I'm wrong).
Also of course those earlier farmers would probably cluster close to southern Europe, because southern Europe(most importantly Iberia) took refuge from the ice age in the warmer Spain region (Iberia).
Also this recent article also states this...
QUOTE:
" For reasons still unclear, Italians and Spaniards appear to be less closely related than most Europeans to people elsewhere on the continent."
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/07/dna-s...
The principal points of the article were that Southern Europeans cluster closer to Earliest European Farmers while Northern Europeans cluster closer to Paleolithic Cro-Magnon Haplogroup I carriers. You can find genetic history of earlier European populations in modern the modern/current European populations today. In fact Haplogroup I which is a Paleolithic genetic marker exists anywhere from 20% to over 60% in modern Europeans today. What that article is talking about with Italians and Spaniards is the Haplogroup I which is more common among Northern Euros:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_...

Earliest European Farmers cluster closer to modern Southern Europeans and look like they do today:
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/015/218...
http://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2012/...

While Central and Northern Europeans cluster closer to Paleolithic Cro-Magnon Haplogroup I carriers. That is the point the articles you posted are making:

"The team confirmed that, of modern people, Sardinians are Ötzi's closest relatives. But among the prehistoric quartet,Ötzi most closely resembled the farmers found in Bulgaria and Sweden, while the Swedish and Iberian hunter-gatherers [Cro-Magnon] looked more like present-day Northern Europeans." ~ LiveScience

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#8474 May 31, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't make any sense. If you are European, then you cannot at the same time be African, for there is no such thing as a 'European African', just as there is no such thing as an Asian African or North American African.
Ehhh...Those South AFrican Boers ditched their European identity for a new one. Just like 'white' Americans did. And just like White Americans, those South African Boers have no connection to Europe. Again I did not say they were genetically African, but African being ethnicity or nationality. Boers do not call themselves European or a European nationality but Boer,'white African or just South African. They even have their own language which is Afrikaans though derived from Dutch but is NOT FOUND in Europe. Not only that but the language is also mixed with Malay, Portuguese, the Bantu languages, and the Khoisan languages. Yes they are genetically European and more related to Europeans. but other than that they are more South African than European. Just like Australians are more culturally Australian than European
Bakari Neferu wrote:
Being African has nothing to do with being 'culturally African', and in any case, what is being 'more African culturally' even mean?
I never said being African ONLY meant being culturally. I believe I made it clear that those white South Africans are not indigenous Africans. And I think I made it very clear on 'more culturally African'. A white person born and raised in South Africa around other Africans probably know more about the South African culture than a African American. Most of African American culture is westernized(minus the Gullah people) and the average African American probably knows little of South African than a white South African would who was BORN and RAISED there. That is what I mean.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
How does merely being born and raised in Africa make you 'culturally African'?
I don't know...Probably being BORN AND RAISED around the culture, thus getting ABSORBED INTO the culture?
Bakari Neferu wrote:
I think you also take for granted that there are many peoples of African descent living in places such as Brazil, other regions of South America, the Caribbean, and even India who possess what one would call 'African culture', even after having been out of Africa for generations.
That still does not defeat my point of white South Africans dropping their European culture for another. And no longer having a connection to Europe.
Bakari Neferu wrote:
If they are not indigenous to Africa, then how can they be African, meaning if their genes do not possess affinity with known African population clusters, as is the case with AA's, then, again, what makes them African?
Again I only mentioned culturally. I ALREADY pointed out that Boers are NOT indigenous to Africa. Another example....Indians taken as slaves/workers to Trinidad ditched their Indian culture for a new identify. They do identify as 'Indian' Trinidadian, but they have no connection to India. The term 'Indian' is the only connection with Indian. This is also the case for the Boers and also White Americans. The only connection they have with Europe is being white.

Now with my family on my mothers side that is not the case. My grandfather moved to Trinidad from India, not as a slave but for business reasons. He and some of my family on my mothers side did not ditch their Indian culture for a more Caribbean one. My grandfather still has a connection to India, he still knows which part of India he came from and still has family in India which he tries to keep in contact with. If that was the case than I would understand the South African Boers NOT being African, but European immigrants(though they are immigrants, but not recent).

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#8475 May 31, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
....sir, PLEASE put ur AK47 down and step away from the troll. Everybody...please move along, there's nothing else to see here.
LMAO!!!! You won't be seeing him anytime soon.

“Try harder :)”

Level 8

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#8476 May 31, 2013
@Sinajuavi/Barros

Put a sock in it buddy. You lost already and you have nothing to debunk what I have stated, but repeating the same things. I'm tired of going around in circles with you. No one cares what you have say(they never did). Now be gone like your buddy Curious Me and let the big boys talk.

Thank you.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8477 May 31, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's the case than U6 and M1 are no longer 'Eurasian', since they been in Africa longer than 20,000 and would have mutated into Africa. Not only that but no southwest Asian clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. Now I am NOT saying haplogroup M or U are African(We already been over M).
<quoted text>
This reconstruction by Kennis & Kennis that most did...
http://24.media.tumblr.com/90f1c47b4f9131f5c0...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/arch...
^^^And those were of the Qafzeh skulls which is found in Israel...
<quoted text>
I already know Neanderthals were the first in Europe. I'm not talking about them, but Homo Sapians who migrated into Europe 40-30k years.
<quoted text>
How do you know? Most studies I seen say the first migrates into Europe were tropically adapted and then became cold adapted later.
"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into&#65279; tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...
--Cro-Magnon:How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, By Brian Fagan,pg 89 (2010).
http://picturestack.com/87/826/UtrSchermafbeE...
--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. p 297
And how could Cro-Magnon resemble Northern Europeans when the second European population was replaced by the modern one?
You prevaricating fork-tongued bastard.

You know you cannot outright state that Europeans were originally “black”, so you beat around the bush and try to sneak it in the back door.

No, lying lowlife, those Cro-Magnon who were the first sapiens in Europe were from the Mideast. Their sister clade is J, that of the Mideast.

“Tropically adapted”, LOL!!! another phrase you use pretending it means “African” or “black”.

Take your lying ass back to Egyptsearch and hang among other racist cult liars like yourself. Clyde's a'waiting!

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8478 May 31, 2013
big mike M wrote:
@Sinajuavi/Barros
Put a sock in it buddy. You lost already and you have nothing to debunk what I have stated, but repeating the same things. I'm tired of going around in circles with you. No one cares what you have say(they never did). Now be gone like your buddy Curious Me and let the big boys talk.
Thank you.
You're a lying dropout, boy, nothing more.

You've won nothing. You have nothing to counter the proof of Eurasians in the Mghreb 30k years ago. You have no blacks/Africans in Europe 35,000 years ago. You have nothing! You have Afronazi bullshit and smartass.

In person I'd slap that smartass out of you, boy.

Now get back to Egyptsearch and help out your buddy fat Clyde.

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#8479 May 31, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehhh...Those South AFrican Boers ditched their European identity for a new one. Just like 'white' Americans did. And just like White Americans, those South African Boers have no connection to Europe. Again I did not say they were genetically African, but African being ethnicity or nationality. Boers do not call themselves European or a European nationality but Boer,'white African or just South African. They even have their own language which is Afrikaans though derived from Dutch but is NOT FOUND in Europe. Not only that but the language is also mixed with Malay, Portuguese, the Bantu languages, and the Khoisan languages. Yes they are genetically European and more related to Europeans. but other than that they are more South African than European. Just like Australians are more culturally Australian than European
<quoted text>
I never said being African ONLY meant being culturally. I believe I made it clear that those white South Africans are not indigenous Africans. And I think I made it very clear on 'more culturally African'. A white person born and raised in South Africa around other Africans probably know more about the South African culture than a African American. Most of African American culture is westernized(minus the Gullah people) and the average African American probably knows little of South African than a white South African would who was BORN and RAISED there. That is what I mean.
<quoted text>
I don't know...Probably being BORN AND RAISED around the culture, thus getting ABSORBED INTO the culture?
<quoted text>
That still does not defeat my point of white South Africans dropping their European culture for another. And no longer having a connection to Europe.
<quoted text>
Again I only mentioned culturally. I ALREADY pointed out that Boers are NOT indigenous to Africa. Another example....Indians taken as slaves/workers to Trinidad ditched their Indian culture for a new identify. They do identify as 'Indian' Trinidadian, but they have no connection to India. The term 'Indian' is the only connection with Indian. This is also the case for the Boers and also White Americans. The only connection they have with Europe is being white.
Now with my family on my mothers side that is not the case. My grandfather moved to Trinidad from India, not as a slave but for business reasons. He and some of my family on my mothers side did not ditch their Indian culture for a more Caribbean one. My grandfather still has a connection to India, he still knows which part of India he came from and still has family in India which he tries to keep in contact with. If that was the case than I would understand the South African Boers NOT being African, but European immigrants(though they are immigrants, but not recent).
You're spinning in circles with that doubletalk, fool.

U6 is a Eurasian type. It might be resident in Africa, but that doesn't make it African geneologically.

The Maghreb has been a Eurasian cultural region for 30,000 years. That is well proven.

And the original sapiens in Europe are still there, fool, they were not “replaced”. Their DNA is still in Europe, and is very common.

You're a lying and worthless pseudo-intellectual piece of crap.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#8480 May 31, 2013
big mike M wrote:
<quoted text>
Ehhh...Those South AFrican Boers ditched their European identity for a new one. Just like 'white' Americans did. And just like White Americans, those South African Boers have no connection to Europe.
No connection to Europe?

You mean to tell me that Boers and White Americans have no biological, religious, literal, linguistic derivatives *connecting* them to Europe?

Please tell me this is a joke.
big mike M wrote:
Again I did not say they were genetically African, but African being ethnicity or nationality. Boers do not call themselves European or a European nationality but Boer,'white African or just South African. They even have their own language which is Afrikaans though derived from Dutch but is NOT FOUND in Europe.
Ummm...If it is derived from Europe then that makes it a **connection to Europe**, Mike.
big mike M wrote:
Not only that but the language is also mixed with Malay
Their language has African influences, but practically all their culture still derives from/relates to Europe, including their literature, religion and arts.

...meaning they are still enough alike to know that they are related. You're not going to find this *connection* in any indigenous African language.
big mike M wrote:

I never said being African ONLY meant being culturally.
Knowing more about something has nothing to do with being "culturally" anything. Do I have to be Muslim to know more about Islamic culture than some other Muslim?

No I don't.

Just like there are a lot of Black people who were born and raised here in America who don't know sh8t or very little about various aspects of Black American history and culture, but someone who has never even been to the country might have excellent knowledge of it.
big mike M wrote:
Most of African American culture is westernized(minus the Gullah people) and the average African American probably knows little of South African than a white South African would who was BORN and RAISED there. That is what I mean.
<quoted text>
South Africa itself is 'westernized'. So....
big mike M wrote:
I don't know...Probably being BORN AND RAISED around the culture, thus getting ABSORBED INTO the culture?
You mean like the Lebanese who are born and raised in places like Liberia and the Ivory Coast who still are culturally Lebanese?

Being born and raised in a place doesn't render you culturally anything. It just makes you someone who was born and raised in that particular region.
big mike M wrote:

That still does not defeat my point of white South Africans dropping their European culture for another. And no longer having a connection to Europe.
They didn't drop anything, their culture still possesses many European elements, including their language. This especially goes for White Americans and Australians, or pretty much any European diasporic group. Just because they have their own culture doesn't mean that have no connection to Europe. That is just plain silly.
big mike M wrote:
They do identify as 'Indian' Trinidadian, but they have no connection to India. The term 'Indian' is the only connection with Indian.
And yet Indo-Trinidadians still celebrate Indian culture. They even have Hindu Villages.

http://indiandiaspora.nic.in/diasporapdf/chap...

So I don't see your point in mentioning them.
big mike M wrote:
This is also the case for the Boers and also White Americans. The only connection they have with Europe is being white.
You mean other than the fact that their language, religion, and music is of European relation?
big mike M wrote:
Now with my family on my mothers side that is not the case. My grandfather moved to Trinidad from India, not as a slave but for business reasons.
Like I said, being African has nothing to do with culture. It is to do with biology.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Incognito4Ever 1,251,775
What was it like the first time u had ir sex? 3 min whites r sick 14
LMAO! Swimming Darkie! 7 min Sir Jethro 1
Black women entrepreneurs/ white women welfare ... 9 min Sickle Cell 44
White Crime: Few Comments (Sep '09) 14 min truth 2,408
Does sbt smoke crack? 27 min Mouliyan 8
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 27 min www 122,297
At the bar last night and seeing tons of fat ww... 32 min I see triplets 38
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 1 hr PolakPotrafi 2,199
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 2 hr trollslayer 30,861
Black girls!!!we're not taking your men! we've ... 3 hr Shelia 184
More from around the web