the moors were black africans not ara...

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13221 Feb 15, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what that last sentence was about, but Ethiopians are mostly E paternally and L maternally.
Most of their E emerges in East Africa.
Tiskoff noted that Ethiopians belong predominantly to the "Cushitic Cluster", which of course, would be Sub Saharan in origin.
Oh, pardon me, I neglected to address that statement of yours concerning the 'E' Y-Hg and what I'm assuming is your insinuation that all 'E' Y-Hg Peoples are Negroïd or, for that matter, that the 'L3' Y-Hg is necessarily Negroïd which many do feel is not.

Quite simply, I do NOT agree with that assessment concerning the entire and highly diverse Y-haplogroup of 'E'.

That is to say that only a portion of the 'E' Y-Hg Peoples are actually Negroïd.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#13222 Feb 15, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't look now but the "Cushitic cluster" is in reference to a language.
Yea, and the Ethiopian ancestral population clusters most closely with those groups who speak Cushitic languages, virtually all of whom originate south of the Sahara, which means that they are overwhelmingly related to south of the Sahara Africans.
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, pardon me, I neglected to address that statement of yours concerning the 'E' Y-Hg and what I'm assuming is your insinuation that all 'E' Y-Hg Peoples are Negroïd or, for that matter, that the 'L3' Y-Hg is necessarily Negroïd which many do feel is not.
Quite simply, I do NOT agree with that assessment concerning the entire and highly diverse Y-haplogroup of 'E'.
That is to say that only a portion of the 'E' Y-Hg Peoples are actually Negroïd.
No, I don't use those goofy, ambiguous terms. My insinuation is that E and L are from Africa, and that the E and L groups that Ethiopians are associated with are from Africa, and in the case of E, their ascribed lineages are mostly Interior African in origin.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13224 Feb 15, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go again with this eurocentric terminology garbage.
Ethiopians are not "predominantly caucasoid", they are predominantly SUB SAHARAN African; Black.
I think that to say Ethiopians are "Caucasoid" is backwards.

The so-called "Caucasoid" Eurasians evolved from OOA migrants who constitute a subset of northeast Africans (including Ethiopians). So whatever name we give those northeast Africans, and there really isn't one (!!!), Causasoids are a type of THEM, not the other way around. This is the most cladistically accurate way to look at it.

Of course not only Caucasoids, but ALL Eurasians are cladistically a subset of northeast Africans.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13225 Feb 15, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, and the Ethiopian ancestral population clusters most closely with those groups who speak Cushitic languages, virtually all of whom originate south of the Sahara, which means that they are overwhelmingly related to south of the Sahara Africans.
<quoted text>
No, I don't use those goofy, ambiguous terms. My insinuation is that E and L are from Africa, and that the E and L groups that Ethiopians are associated with are from Africa, and in the case of E, their ascribed lineages are mostly Interior African in origin.
See now, that's where you are actually wrong.

Yes I do know that "Oromo" which is Cushitic is faster growing than what used to be the OFFICIAL ETHIOPIAN LANGUAGE which is "AMHARIC" and that "Oromo" has edged out "AMHARIC" as the one most used.

••••••••••
"Amharic"--> 29.3%,

›compared to‹

"Oromo"--> 33.8%
••••••••••

That, however, is merely proof that the core of the REAL Aethiopid Peoples cluster with Semitic Peoples.

Whether time has allowed influences from the south to drastically encroach upon what was once solely Semitic is merely an indication that those Peoples whom you believed to be true Aethiopids are not really quite so "Ethiopian" as those that have ties to the most ancient of the Ethiopian linguistic culture.

**Ethiopian SEMITIC!!! languages**

•••North•••

•Tigrinya language (also in Eritrea)
•Ge'ez language (extinct, liturgical)
•Tigre language (also in Eritrea)

•••South•••

•Amharic language
•Argobba language
•Harari language
•East Gurage languages
•Silt'e language (Ulbareg, Inneqor)
•Wolane language
•Zay language

•••Outersouth•••

•Gafat language (extinct)
•Soddo language
•Muher language
•Goggot language
•West Gurage languages
•Inor language
•Mesmes language (extinct)
•Mesqan language
•Chaha (Sebat Bet Gurage)
•Ezha language
•Gumer language
•Gura language
•Gyeto language
•Indegen language
•Iner language

•••••••••

I really don't care that the Cushitic is gaining.

That's not actually indicative of the origin and true nature of the real Aethiopids who coalesced amongst the already settled Eurasian Caucasians of North Africa.

There's really nothing that YOU can do about that.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13226 Feb 16, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, and the Ethiopian ancestral population clusters most closely with those groups who speak Cushitic languages, virtually all of whom originate south of the Sahara, which means that they are overwhelmingly related to south of the Sahara Africans.
<quoted text>
No, I don't use those goofy, ambiguous terms. My insinuation is that E and L are from Africa, and that the E and L groups that Ethiopians are associated with are from Africa, and in the case of E, their ascribed lineages are mostly Interior African in origin.
Well, you'd better start using some sort of classification system because not all 'E' Y-Hg's or 'L' mtDNA-Hg's are the same, to say the least.

Why in blazes do you think that Africa is considered to be such a hugely DIVERSE continent!!???

Even just 'E' Y-Hg is too big to be contained in just one classification.

Oh, and don't even think that I'll let you off gently just because you want to claim you didn't understand what I meant about the vast diversity of the 'R1b1' Y-Hg with 'R1b1c4' as a prime example of classification overflow, so to speak.
trollslayer

Munster, IN

#13227 Feb 16, 2013
KiloEcho wrote:
Barros Serrano
The eurasian component is from the original Eurasians who migrated in 30k, 10k and 7k years ago, fool.
Notice that the most remote Berbers, up in the mts, are the “whitest”...
How stupid you wankers are.
Here you are posting in the presence of several well-educated persons, including myself, and yet you persist in babbling this nonsense.
Truly your self-hatred runs very deep
KiloEcho replies
The most remote Berbers, up in the mountains, are the whitest. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
This is ridiculous statement.
They live far away in the mountains and so what?
They cannot have dark brown skinned ancestors?!!! Many octoroons can have the whitest skin and yet they have Black ancestors
They cannot be former European slaves who took refuge in the Atlas mountains in order to escape from White slavery at the hands of dark brown skinned Moors?!!!
They cannot be the descendents of European INVADERS who just happened to like living in the Mountains?!!!
DNA studies have proven that even the whitest looking Berber up in the Atlas Mountains has a distant East African male ancestor through their paternal e1b somalid haplogroup.
There were no indigenous "Eurasians"in Africa, including North Africa
Africa is also known as the Dark Continent, El Continente Negro, le Continent Noir because of the dark brown skin color of its indigenous inhabitants.
Dark brown North Africa became lighter and lighter over time because of thousands of years of White slavery, White settlements and White invasions and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Indigenous North Africans look no different than mulattoes, quadroons, octoroons because they are the mixed offspring of the indigenous dark brown skinned Africans and Eurasian or Western Asian slaves, invaders and settlers.
You are babbling nonsense with your imaginary Eurasian North Africa 30k years ago
the white slavery factor is always conveniently overlooked, when we think of N.Africa.
__________

Note to all...I'm opposed to slavery of any kind.
Who Dat

Sugar Land, TX

#13228 Feb 16, 2013
Guys, we can debate these arguments for a lifetime. But one thing for sure is black people were the first known humans. Through migration and evolution of black people across and out of Africa has lead to many cultures and races. Of course the first Persians were black, as well as the first Arabs across the middle east were. Nature, evolution and mutation has taken humans to unknown limits in many aspects.

In Africa mutation of the three toe people takes place from time to time. Albinism and evolution creates total white skin from total black Africans.

A Chinese professor from University Of Shanghai research the Chinese DNA and posted in a video that china and their ancestors are black Africans.

Therefore, if all races started from one race of people, why white people/men work so hard to disprove black people’s worth, achievements and history marks???
I’ve visited many threads and I keep seeing the same results, there is a white man on every one of them constantly fighting to deny black history. Damn, do white men fear black men that much! But I’ll say yes. Due to such betrayal, lying, denying, hiding the truth about our rich history and talents but, spread negative rumors and propaganda for centuries on end.

After slavery ended here in America, black people has bared witness throughout and after slavery as to why the Caucasian race worked so hard to keep black people ignorant, uneducated, systematically disenfranchised with few right, power, even proven animals were more important with more love and or rights!

This reason are driven by fear black people/men one day may come into power as we were in ancient times. The fear of black men would take the trophy white women of white men came true which were a nightmare for white men. The fear of black men would rise to a higher level of education and consume “white entitlement position or possessions” has come true as well. White men are marrying many asian women and creating white washed asian women/people as they spread their poisonous racism!

For you none black guys who may read this post, I’m not a racist but sometimes I post racy comments for the greater good. Nor do I hate any race of people for all are my brother and sisters. Plus my wife is asian. But I wish you guys step up and face what was real and the inevitable, which is what you know you speak is a lie and just tell the truth for once.

My point would be in this manner, if I’m around black people who never had anything good to say about white people, I would intervene at some point and say you’re wrong. But since the threads I visit to my viewing with Caucasian men/people who claim to be so intelligent, are slamming the black culture on so many levels. Therefore my post are racy at times to level things out, hoping we’ll all come to accept we exist because one another. I’m not asking for agreements to my methods, I’m just stating as an individual of rights.

We can criticize one another, but who is all right on a political incorrect thread? I know not I.

Level 2

Since: May 11

United States

#13229 Feb 16, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that to say Ethiopians are "Caucasoid" is backwards.
The so-called "Caucasoid" Eurasians evolved from OOA migrants who constitute a subset of northeast Africans (including Ethiopians). So whatever name we give those northeast Africans, and there really isn't one (!!!), Causasoids are a type of THEM, not the other way around. This is the most cladistically accurate way to look at it.
Of course not only Caucasoids, but ALL Eurasians are cladistically a subset of northeast Africans.
Ive been saying thst for years.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#13230 Feb 16, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
See now, that's where you are actually wrong.
Yes I do know that "Oromo" which is Cushitic is faster growing than what used to be the OFFICIAL ETHIOPIAN LANGUAGE which is "AMHARIC" and that "Oromo" has edged out "AMHARIC" as the one most used.
••••••••••
"Amharic"--> 29.3%,
›compared to‹
"Oromo"--> 33.8%
••••••••••
That, however, is merely proof that the core of the REAL Aethiopid Peoples cluster with Semitic Peoples.
Whether time has allowed influences from the south to drastically encroach upon what was once solely Semitic is merely an indication that those Peoples whom you believed to be true Aethiopids are not really quite so "Ethiopian" as those that have ties to the most ancient of the Ethiopian linguistic culture.
**Ethiopian SEMITIC!!! languages**
•••North•••
•Tigrinya language (also in Eritrea)
•Ge'ez language (extinct, liturgical)
•Tigre language (also in Eritrea)
•••South•••
•Amharic language
•Argobba language
•Harari language
•East Gurage languages
•Silt'e language (Ulbareg, Inneqor)
•Wolane language
•Zay language
•••Outersouth•••
•Gafat language (extinct)
•Soddo language
•Muher language
•Goggot language
•West Gurage languages
•Inor language
•Mesmes language (extinct)
•Mesqan language
•Chaha (Sebat Bet Gurage)
•Ezha language
•Gumer language
•Gura language
•Gyeto language
•Indegen language
•Iner language
•••••••••
I really don't care that the Cushitic is gaining.
That's not actually indicative of the origin and true nature of the real Aethiopids who coalesced amongst the already settled Eurasian Caucasians of North Africa.
There's really nothing that YOU can do about that.
You and these goofy, made up terms.

So now you're attempting to assert that Semites are representatives of "real" Ethiopians while Cushites are what exactly? False Ethiopians? Intruders?

Cushites were in Ethiopia well before any Semites, so if either of them represent "real" Ethiopians then it is the former.

Let's also not forget that Ethiopians share the deepest African-specific clades with Khoi people, which further solidifies their position well within the confines of the Sub Saharan realm of Africa.

And what do you mean "soley Semitic"?; as though Cushites were the ones who invaded Semitic lands in their (cushites) own country (Ethiopia).
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you'd better start using some sort of classification system because not all 'E' Y-Hg's or 'L' mtDNA-Hg's are the same, to say the least.
Why in blazes do you think that Africa is considered to be such a hugely DIVERSE continent!!???
Even just 'E' Y-Hg is too big to be contained in just one classification.
Oh, and don't even think that I'll let you off gently just because you want to claim you didn't understand what I meant about the vast diversity of the 'R1b1' Y-Hg with 'R1b1c4' as a prime example of classification overflow, so to speak.
You are the one who is stuck on silly terms and nicknames that mean nothing.

I said that E and L were African, specifically Interior African. That is all that needs to be said about them. All that other stuff you keep trying to infuse into the discussion is superfluous.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13231 Feb 16, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
You and these goofy, made up terms.
So now you're attempting to assert that Semites are representatives of "real" Ethiopians while Cushites are what exactly? False Ethiopians? Intruders?
Cushites were in Ethiopia well before any Semites, so if either of them represent "real" Ethiopians then it is the former.
Let's also not forget that Ethiopians share the deepest African-specific clades with Khoi people, which further solidifies their position well within the confines of the Sub Saharan realm of Africa.
And what do you mean "soley Semitic"?; as though Cushites were the ones who invaded Semitic lands in their (cushites) own country (Ethiopia).
<quoted text>
You are the one who is stuck on silly terms and nicknames that mean nothing.
I said that E and L were African, specifically Interior African. That is all that needs to be said about them. All that other stuff you keep trying to infuse into the discussion is superfluous.
Unfortunately for YOU all that YOU'VE said is not sustainable by scientific data.

The 'E-M78'Y-Hg did NOT originate in sub-Saharan Africa and some very legitimate anthropologists argue that it is very likely that not just the 'E-M78'Y-Hg but all of the 'E' Y-Hg originated in Asia, because of it being clustered so closely to the 'D'Y-Hg which is NOT to be found in Africa.

While I would not dare to speculate on such a possibility beyond that which is stated in ISOGG, I fail to see where you find even reasonable credibility that the coalescence of 'E-M78'Y-Hg was NOT immersed in a sea of Semitic Speakers and this being for at least a period of 10,000 years.

It doesn't matter one tiny bit how those 'E-M78'Y-Hg Peoples of only relatively recent times have been slowly mixing with Cushites and Nilotics.

They certainly did not start out that way.

BTW, just for grins, Barros is wrong when he says that Caucasians are the progeny of the current East Africans(Aethiopids).

the 'E' Y-Hg Peoples did not yet exist when the main bulk of the progenitor stock for modern Eurasians had left Africa.

I say none of this out of some bizarre twist of corrupted ego.

None of this has anything to do with me.

I'm just CURIOUS.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#13232 Feb 16, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for YOU all that YOU'VE said is not sustainable by scientific data.
The 'E-M78'Y-Hg did NOT originate in sub-Saharan Africa
I didn't say EM78. I said E.
Curious Me wrote:
and some very legitimate anthropologists argue that it is very likely that not just the 'E-M78'Y-Hg but all of the 'E' Y-Hg originated in Asia, because of it being clustered so closely to the 'D'Y-Hg which is NOT to be found in Africa.
"Some", huh?

In other words, MOST think it emerged in Africa.

"Very likely".

Their words or your purposefully infused words?

Consensus says Africa is most likely; Asia, less likely.
Curious Me wrote:
While I would not dare to speculate on such a possibility beyond that which is stated in ISOGG, I fail to see where you find even reasonable credibility that the coalescence of 'E-M78'Y-Hg was NOT immersed in a sea of Semitic Speakers and this being for at least a period of 10,000 years.
And what evidence do you have that Semitic languages have even been in existence for 10,000 years, and in Africa no less?
Curious Me wrote:
It doesn't matter one tiny bit how those 'E-M78'Y-Hg Peoples of only relatively recent times have been slowly mixing with Cushites and Nilotics.
They certainly did not start out that way.
It started out with Cushites being in Ethiopia well before Semites.
Curious Me wrote:
BTW, just for grins, Barros is wrong when he says that Caucasians are the progeny of the current East Africans(Aethiopids).
the 'E' Y-Hg Peoples did not yet exist when the main bulk of the progenitor stock for modern Eurasians had left Africa.
I say none of this out of some bizarre twist of corrupted ego.
None of this has anything to do with me.
I'm just CURIOUS.
I couldn't care less about the so called origins of "Caucasians". However, the first Asiatics would have come from East Africans. That's just anthropology 101.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13233 Feb 16, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
<quoted text>
the white slavery factor is always conveniently overlooked, when we think of N.Africa.
__________
Note to all...I'm opposed to slavery of any kind.
Why are you ignoring the black slavery factor, fool?

Afronazi scumbag.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13234 Feb 16, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say EM78. I said E.
<quoted text>
"Some", huh?
In other words, MOST think it emerged in Africa.
"Very likely".
Their words or your purposefully infused words?
Consensus says Africa is most likely; Asia, less likely.
<quoted text>
And what evidence do you have that Semitic languages have even been in existence for 10,000 years, and in Africa no less?
<quoted text>
It started out with Cushites being in Ethiopia well before Semites.
<quoted text>
I couldn't care less about the so called origins of "Caucasians". However, the first Asiatics would have come from East Africans. That's just anthropology 101.
I can't even see trying to draw conclusions on these topics given the current evidence.

It is unclear whether Afroasiatic languages arose in Africa or the Mideast, for one thing.

Also, now knowing there were H. sapiens in Arabia by 125k bp, it is indeed quite possible that not only E but also mtDNA L3 arose in Arabia rather than Africa.

I don't assert any of that as my position... I am stating that it is not possible to state any of it with certainty at this point.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#13235 Feb 16, 2013
Barros Serrano wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't even see trying to draw conclusions on these topics given the current evidence.
It is unclear whether Afroasiatic languages arose in Africa or the Mideast, for one thing.
Also, now knowing there were H. sapiens in Arabia by 125k bp, it is indeed quite possible that not only E but also mtDNA L3 arose in Arabia rather than Africa.
I don't assert any of that as my position... I am stating that it is not possible to state any of it with certainty at this point.
That L3 is African is a virtual certainty. Any group outside of Africa beyond 75kya is a biological dead end with no direct lineages with any modern-day peoples.

And of course, the evidence for E being African is mounting:

___

__

_

"Underhill (2001) proposed that haplogroup E may have arisen in East Africa. Some authors as Chandrasekar (2007), continue to accept the earlier position of Hammer (1997) that Haplogroup E may have originated in Asia, given that:

E is a clade of Haplogroup DE, with the other major clade, haplogroup D, being East Asian.

DE is a clade within M168 with the other two major clades, C and F, considered to have a Eurasian origin.

However, several discoveries made since the Hammer articles are thought to make an Asian origin less likely:

Underhill and Kivisild (2007) demonstrated that C and F have a common ancestor meaning that DE has only one sibling which is non-African.

DE* is found in both Asia and Africa, meaning that not only one, but several siblings of D are found in Asia and Africa.

Karafet (2008), in which Hammer is a co-author, significantly rearranged time estimates leading to "new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades". Amongst other things this article proposed a much older age for haplogroup E-M96 than had been considered previously, giving it a similar age to Haplogroup D, and DE itself, meaning that there is no longer any strong reason to see it as an offshoot of DE which must have happened long after DE came into existence and had entered Asia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M96... (Y-DNA)

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13236 Feb 16, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say EM78. I said E.
•••

actually, even all of 'E' is suspected to have emerged in the Near East.

<quoted text>
"Some", huh?
In other words, MOST think it emerged in Africa.
"Very likely".
Their words or your purposefully infused words?
Consensus says Africa is most likely; Asia, less likely.
•••

Actually, most are not sure.

<quoted text>
And what evidence do you have that Semitic languages have even been in existence for 10,000 years, and in Africa no less?
•••

Actually NONE, but so what!?
Whatever language the Eurasians in North Africa were speaking 30,000yrs ago or say 20,000yrs ago is what would have probably been in 'vogue' when the first 'E-M78' came into being.

<quoted text>
It started out with Cushites being in Ethiopia well before Semites.
•••

PARDON ME, but you really don't know what dialect was being spoken when the first Aethiopids came down into what is called Ethiopia from Egypt.
More than likely, it was a derivation of some form of Egyptian and Egyptian is Semitic, always has been.

<quoted text>
I couldn't care less about the so called origins of "Caucasians". However, the first Asiatics would have come from East Africans. That's just anthropology 101.
Your so-called "anthropology" is just a little screwed up, in that you are implying that the progenitors of the "first Asiatics" were anything like the Cushitic East Africans of today or any time.
The so-called "Afro-Asiatic" languages were formed out of a confluence of several different languages that came together in various fashions and to varying degrees.
You would be in denial if you did not acknowledge that, for the most part, Afro-Asiatic languages sounded like they had been heavily influenced by other Near Eastern tongues, and that, Strangely, Arabic, Hebrew sound so much more like they belong in the Middle East.
More likely, Afro-Asiatic languages are merely a mixture of Eurasian Caucasian tongues and also perhaps even sub-Saharan African tongues.
Who are YOU to say where one begins and where the other takes over!?
Actually, there are very studied Language experts that are trying to do just that but even they are still at an unsettled quandary.

“Africa”

Level 7

Since: Jan 12

Oakland

#13237 Feb 16, 2013
Curious Me wrote:
<quoted text>
Your so-called "anthropology" is just a little screwed up, in that you are implying that the progenitors of the "first Asiatics" were anything like the Cushitic East Africans of today or any time.
There's nothing wrong with my anthropology, and I'm not implying anything.

I'm telling you very plainly that the first people to step foot on Asian soil, and bequeath all modern non-Africans, were East Africans.

Don't know how to make it any simpler.
Curious Me wrote:
The so-called "Afro-Asiatic" languages were formed out of a confluence of several different languages that came together in various fashions and to varying degrees.
You would be in denial if you did not acknowledge that, for the most part, Afro-Asiatic languages sounded like they had been heavily influenced by other Near Eastern tongues, and that, Strangely, Arabic, Hebrew sound so much more like they belong in the Middle East.
More likely, Afro-Asiatic languages are merely a mixture of Eurasian Caucasian tongues and also perhaps even sub-Saharan African tongues.
Who are YOU to say where one begins and where the other takes over!?
Actually, there are very studied Language experts that are trying to do just that but even they are still at an unsettled quandary.
^^^You seem to just be babbling now.

Bottom line:

Cushites were in Ethiopia before Semites, and are thus, "real" Ethiopians.

Asiatics came from East Africans.

L is African, including L3, and more likely than not, based on current evidence, so is E.

“DANGER!!”

Level 8

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#13238 Feb 16, 2013
Bakari Neferu wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing wrong with my anthropology, and I'm not implying anything.
I'm telling you very plainly that the first people to step foot on Asian soil, and bequeath all modern non-Africans, were East Africans.
Don't know how to make it any simpler.
<quoted text>
^^^You seem to just be babbling now.
Bottom line:
Cushites were in Ethiopia before Semites, and are thus, "real" Ethiopians.
Asiatics came from East Africans.
L is African, including L3, and more likely than not, based on current evidence, so is E.
HAH!

WRONG!

'L3'mtDNA, I, of course, will agree, was certainly around before there were Semites('E-M78' was not) but you have no logical reason to assume that they spoke Cushitic at that time and you have no proof as to how any of the Afro-Asiatic languages were formed. Not even the experts know which Afro-Asiatic language came first or how and when that group got started,

but the intelligent rational logic dictates that, just like other major linguistic groups,

that entire grouping is the result of the combining of very different languages that became so homogeneous that they all became related enough to belong to the same major group,

yet different enough to have VERY definite sub-groups.
Barros Serrano

United States

#13239 Feb 16, 2013
Afroasiatic languages:

The argument for a Mideastern origin:
1. it is possible to trace migration paths for Chadic, Semitic, Kemetic and Cushitic which lead back to the Mideast, and there are migrations known from the times they could have come into Africa.
2. Cushitic, Kemetic and Chadic have the pattern of intrusive languages. Kemetic, for example, is surrounded by Nilotic, which is indigenous African, as if Kemetic was brought up the Nile from the Mideast, likely with the Neolithic.
3. there is type R Y DNA in Africa corresponding to the distribution of Chadic languages
4. There is vocabulary in African Afroasiatic languages, as in proto-Semitic, which resembles the Neolithic vocabulary of proto- Indoeuropean.
5. Omotic has been removed from the phylum, and so there is no obviously deep-rooted Afroasiatic language in Ethiopia as previously thought.
The argument for African origin:
1. there is today more diversity by far of Afroasiatic languages in Africa
2. not much DNA came up the Nile with the Neolithic (unlike the situation in Europe), and so it is less likely a language would have come with the wheat seeds
3. as well as migrations into Africa, there have been migrations out, such as into Arabia through Yemen, and the Natufians into the Levant, which could have carried proto-Semitic into the Mideast, though no specific migration is known for the time that would have to have happened.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#13241 Feb 17, 2013
Neelix and Kes wrote:
All one must do to bust this silly myth is to look at history, and you will realise that it is IMPOSSIBLE not unlikely but IMPOSSIBLE that the Moorish people were black. The Moors are the result of the Berber Arab people of North Africa converting to Islam after Middle Eastern Arabic missionaries spread Islam to the Berbers, these two peoples Berbers and Middle Eastern muslims became the Moors. Throughout history black people NEVER had steel weapons or armour, no boats that could carry soildiers, no maps, no use of the wheel, no cavalry (meaning soldiers on beasts) no siege weapons and no undrstanding of the world outside of their continent (even saying outside of their continent would be VERY generous to say) How could they have been black if they originated in the North of Africa?
Lets just say they were black, how could they reach Sicilly, Spain, Portugal and Southern France with no sailing ships (let alone anything sea worthy) to carry 1000's or more likely 10 000's of soldiers and their equipment (weapons and provisions)? How could they CONQUER areas of these lands with their stone and wood weapons going up against, steel weapons and armour, cavalry with lances, steel tipped arrows, swords, pikes and the military skills and tactics of ALL THESE ARMIES? How?...how?
While I agree the Moors were not black, the rest of your post is filled with lies. Many kingdoms in Black African had all those things you just listed, kingdoms like Nubia, Ghana, Axum, Ethiopia, and Mali
Neelix and Kes wrote:
Let's look at Africa for a moment, why is it that the only great structures, monuments and cities are in the North of Africa, the non black Arabian part of Africa? North Africa is cheifly dry, arid, desert. Howcome NO EMPIRES thrived in the fertile, resource rich, plentiful black part of the continent.
Great architectural cities exist in Black Africa like the ruins of medieval Dongola http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images...
Neelix and Kes wrote:
The race for Africa was the scramble for plentiful natural resources by European powers into the BLACK part of Africa, not the dry Northern Arabian part, where the Moors originated.The Moors were NOT black PERIOD!
The European invasions of Africa involved both north and black Africa. That is why the French invaded Algeria and the Brits invaded Egypt
trollslayer

Midlothian, IL

#13242 Feb 17, 2013
trollslayer wrote:
trollslayer wrote:
Black Native North Africans (See ethnic name below photos)
http://www.google.com/url ...
__________
Only 1 man can educate us on said topic "the moors were black africans not arabs!!! "
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
bump

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
Blacks now control mainstream culture 2 min Snr 52
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min JCPete 1,659,664
News School Segregation: The Evil of a Racist Nation 3 min KIP 48
My god isn't the same god you caveboons worship 5 min Cigar Face 27 1
News Whites, not blacks, were the key to Doug Jones'... 6 min KIP 23
Antifa... !PRESENTE! 6 min el rey de los cam... 14
Colin Powell called trump a National disgrace a... 6 min Paul 18
Somebody explain the Volvo car commercial to me 1 hr stampit3d 102
Is this KIP? 1 hr KIP 73
Pervert Alabama Republican Roy Moore 4 hr Kato 157
More from around the web