I find these lectures very informative. It's a shame that Eurocentrism cloaks itself behind "mainstream" so that we could approach it with just as much criticism.
There is so much shame put to Afrocentrists' views. Yet at the same time, Eurocentric view points are not attacked in such rigorous ways as the former group. Neither ethnocentric view point is right in my honest opinion
A civilization that lasted some 3,000 years could not have remained homogeneous for that length of time. The Ancient Egyptians were most definitely African and due to an influx of foreigners from Asia & Europe, it resulted in Egypt being a multi-ethnic civilization.
You’re basically saying what “Afrocentrists” have been preaching for a long time:Egypt was a black civilization which became multi-ethnic over time due to countless invasions, mixing,etc...
And they are still there in the South. Shame on who?
gulps ...africanteacher has his research tight, as well as the mexican poster ninja...funny to now see white supremist thought gettin' a much deserved , long overdue academic asswhippin'!!!
arab dog the sumarians where are there great works where are there structures they built with mud while we were cutting stones 20-ton blocks your fake made up alien bullshit history what have tha arabs ever done the sumarians came after the egyptians you peckerwood cracka dog
See the Puntites brown-skin people with fine features ;the History : «Again the representations of the early Puntites, or Somali people, on the Egyptian monuments, show striking resemblances to the Egyptians themselves. » : "The Wisdom of the Egyptians" By Brian Brown New York: [1923].
According to the historian Richard Pankhurst :"""The Egyptians sometimes called Punt land Ta-Netjeru, meaning "Land of the Gods," and considered it their place of origin ." (The Ethiopian Borderlands;1997)
@Missy5464 I never heard Dr. Keita say that ancient egyptians loook just like modern egyptians and really how in the hel would he know that what you seem to ignore as i pointed out to Salsassin phenotypes at times derive from local prefference,you could have a population that looks like arabs today but 2000 yrs ago looked quit different,,the thing is why is it such a big deal to you folks to discredit the FACT that countless ancient egyptians would be called black today!!!
"There are standards of excellence that have to be observed", he said. That is the truth. You can't just say anything you want. And, "it takes a lot of work" to be knowledgeable in ancient languages, ancient art, ancient literature.
Say, Dr. Yahya, exactly who gets to define what is "Asia", what is "Europe", and what is "Africa"? Isn't Europe really a subcontinent of Asia Major (the same way they "demote" India as a subcontinent)? On a bad day, I am prone to refer to Europe as "a wart on the ass of Asia". On really bad days: a cancer upon Humanity.
You made a good point at 4:54 about "Asians" and alluded to an even better point about Europeans. I'm Mexican-descent and I met Greeks in the Mediterranean who were darker than me! Same with the French! Likewise with "North AmerIndians", we are an Indigenous people in our core identity, shared geography, shared culture, bloodlines, etc. The European component has really been marginal and held in place only by artificial imposition.
@Missy5464 Missy, I have looked at some of your videos and posts on various Youtube videos. You seem to be a fan of Salsassin and Mathilda. I debated Salsassin way back on a message board and I've seen his views evolve over the years. He seems genuinely interested in stressing the diversity of human populations and is against racial thinking. Mathilda on the other hand is a textbook Eurocentric racialist who only seems to want to portray Egypt as non-Black and White wash African populations.
@Missy5464 Keita told me via email that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the model in most of the country. I take that to mean that the average Ancient Egyptian had medium to dark brown skin. He also insists that the civilization was fundamentally African and Egyptians had biological affinities with their Southern neighbors.. In his literature he does speak of foreigners having a major genetic impact on Egypt especially during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods.
@bibadoe Are you talking about an edition of the magazine? National Geographic published an edition of their magazine titled "The Black Pharaohs" which focused on the rulers of the 25th Dynasty founded by Nubians. Although they don't say it explicitly the magazine's emphasis on the Blackness of the Nubians suggests that the Egyptian Pharaohs were something other than Black. I don't like alot of what they publish about race and Egypt.
@MysticNinjaJay Anybody who looks at those paintings and statues and says that they are anything but black would likely try to convince you that water is not wet. You will also notice animals that are only found in subSahara Africa along with women with water jugs on their heads as seen only in SubSahara. How many Hippos, Hyeena, and Crocodiles do you find in Syria, Mesopotamia, or Turkey?
There seems to be a consorted effort by Europeans to convince blacks that they are w/o acheivements.
@bibadoe I honestly don't see how anyone in their right mind can look at alot of the paintings of Ancient Egyptians with their brown skin, Afros and African style braids and say that they do not see Black people. The thing is that several 18th and 19th century scholars acknowledged that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans but slavery still existed at the time and many Americans had a White Supremacist mentality. They could not accept advanced Black Civilizations. So they lied about Africa.
@MysticNinjaJay I'm Mexican and there are still some "White" people claiming that our civilizations (Olmec, Teotihuacan, Maya, Mexica, etc) came from space aliens. (The most prominent is a national radio show called "Coast to Coast AM"). The White Supremacist Mentality is like a mental disease. It limits human thinking and replaces evidence with racial fantasy. It's almost like talking to a drug addict: they are like a skipping record, not willing to deal with rational thought.
So the Sumarians who are the most ancient prolific culture on the planet...were black!? Bull-fucking-shit...they were Arab...everyone know this...all these freaking blacks want is to lay claim to something that matters...if they were so great, so strong...how come there are arabs in Egypt today? Who dropped the fucking ball!? I'm sick of Afros, all they want to do is say they are better, they arn't
I dont think anyone here, and I am SURE that Keita makes no mentions of Sumarians being "black". Also keep in mind the Sumerians may not have been "Arabs". The earliest Sumerian languages were NOT of the African language group "Afro-Asiatic" - these people came LATER. Sumer nor Elamite are AfroAsiatic. These langues and people came LATER from the West bringing the Akkadian language.
"Arab" is a n Ethnic identity that is somewhat recent. And "Arabs" are Nomadic.
@AfricaTeacher I love how you have no written history for 70,000 years and yet you know all this how!? Afro-Asiatic? what the fuck are you smoking. That term doesn't even exist. You want to lay claim to everything in the world and yet take no responsibility for anything in it. That's what I love about black supremacists, we did it all, except for the baddie stuff, that was in fact the Akkadian...the bullshit is so deep they can smell it in Kenya..LMFAO
The POINT of the post that you failed to grasp is that SUMERIANS at their EARLIEST point (Sumer / Elam) where NOT people of the Near East or NE Africa in culture and language. This is why Sumer and Elamite languages are ISOLATES. They both may be related to DRAVIDIAN which has NOTHING to do with "ARABS"
It was Akkadian (Semitic) from the West that converged UPON and REPLACED Sumerian languages in Mesopotamia.
Arabs are related to the LATER group NOT the earliest Sumerians.
@AfricaTeacher And yet Sumerian is the oldest known written cuneiform language in the world. So you are proposing that "others" basically meaning whites or other non-nubian cultures moved into this area and wiped out any trace of the earlier more powerful, smarter, nubian forms of written language.how come there is no trace of written language in the deepest parts of Africa.forget Egypt like you are telling me to do.oral tradition is one thing but cuneiform? And Elam biblical not Archeological
@Helcomlatly LOL What are you talking about? Constructing an argument that I didnt make just to knock it down is a called a "Strawman argument"
Egypt / Nubia / N.E. Africa = AFRICA
EARLY Sumer / Elam / Fertile Crescent = NON AFRICAN.
Early N.E. Africa = Afro Asiatic AFRICAN Language
Early Sumeria = NON AFRICAN Languages
LATER - NEAR EASTERN peoples, probably mixed with N.E. Africans speaking an African Affiliated language family (Semetic) converged UPON Non the African Sumerian.
@Helcomlatly This is COMMON knowledge if you actually study the history of the people your are talking about. When does anyone here say that Sumerian are Nubian? This video is about Sudan and Egypt, which are not a part of "Mesopotamia"
Now your are telling me "Elam is Biblical" only ?
Elam = South Western Iran. Read a book, better yet just "Google it"
King Sargon conquered Sumeria, Sargon was Akkadian, Akkadians came from the WEST and spoke Semitic UNLIKE Sumerians and Elamites.
@Helcomlatly You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You're just another clueless racist. Africateacher made you look foolish. Take a seat and learn something. Africans btw had writing before Europeans. That is why you are so threatened by the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. It destroys your preconceived notions about the capabilities of Africans. Egypt was the gift of the Nile. Geography and availability of resources determined cultural development not race.
@Helcomlatly Sumer is not the oldest civilization. There has been a 160-200K yr old civilization found in S. Africa. And Egypt is even older than Sumer. Egypt has Predynastic & Zep Tepi time period which is circa 30K yrs old. Kush/Ethiopia is older than Egypt as the Ethiopians told Diodorus (a Greek) that the Egyptians were a colony sent out by the Ethiopians. Africans are the oldest people on the Earth and everyone has African mtdna in them.
@Helcomlatly Wow! How come white people love to post all their garbage racist Ideas on pages dedicated to black people. I don't visit pages talking about hitler, stalline, ad Napoleaon!
@Helcomlatly take yo ass back under the rock you crawled from under? there is tons of great empires and civilizations an cultural societies that existed in SHARO-AFRICA, EAST AFRIC, SOUTH AFRICA AND WEST AFRICA. And I boast about all of them!!! EGYPT IS JUST A HOT TPOIC! BUT YOU CLEARLY ARE IGNORANT AND A HATER, YOU ENVEY BLACK PEOPLE AND YOU WILL DIE SAD AND HATEFUL!
Like I said Keita doesn't have to SAY it, I have been to Egypt and have SEEN it for myself. Have you been? [crickets...]
Even when you look at the historical borders of Egypt: ASWAN and BELOW was the territory of NUBIANS and not "Egyptians" proper. But this territory itself comprises 1/4th of EGYPT and HALF of southern Egypt............and NOT Sudan.
You dont know this because you work with Sound bytes. We are not talking about non-Africans we are talking about AFRICANS.
Furthermore, Keita does not have to say HE is "Black". In America, and many parts around the world, Dr. Keita has typical features that are common in people that we label under the social banner : "BLACK"
When you go to Southern Egypt TODAY, you see people that look MORE like Dr. Keita than they look like YOU. They are NOT the Majority NOW, but they WERE the majority THEN. Call Keita's color whatever you want, MOST call it "BLACK"
"berbers and egyptians you would call "white" or "arab" are biologically african as well"
. A person who is biologically African is someone who descended from a population whose traits evolved on the continent of Africa and not from outside of Africa. Yes, Most modern Berbers and Egyptians would be called "white" or "Arab" is based from Eurasian ancestry from foreigners who weren't biologically African.
Which part of Africa would most African-Americans would be called white? Secondly, Berber is a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. There is no singular Berber phenotype. Berber range from very dark like the Tuareg to very light in complexion with light hair and eyes. Thirdly, The modern Western term for dark-skinned people of African descent is "Black". Australian aborigines aren't of African descent like the ancient Egyptians, African-Americans, Jamaicans and so forth.
You didn't have to say "Egyptians weren't biologically african" to know that's what you're trying to apply here. First and foremost, I never claimed that Keita said the ancient Egyptians were "black". I'd said, the social term "black" would be applied to the ancient Egyptians if they were residents of western society based through overwhelming scientific, linguistic, and cultural evidence.
Now, we know indiginous Africans do come in different shades right?
"black" is a social term. There is no authentic African look. If the ancient Egyptians were in Western society, they would be considered "black" also.
However you are arguing that through overwhelming scientific, linguistic, and cultural evidence, you're still trying to deny the ancient Egyptians as biologically African? it's quite clear that the subjective social term "black" can be applied to that ancient population.
@mikedavO9 This girl is playing word games. She knows they are African, she knows they have brown skin like most Africans we call "Black" in the social sense, but when in Egypt............They are not Black. LOL She knows that Dr. Keita is labeled as "Black" but people that look like Dr. Keita who happen to live in Egypt are NOT "Black"
-Intellectual schizophrenia
-Intellectual dishonesty
So now she resorts to semantics and strawmen about a "100% Black Egypt" nobody even talked about.
@Missy5464 YES the SAME type of people have been there but the demographics have SHIFTED. Let me give you a native america example since your are part Native.
I would be FACTUALLY correct to say:
North America has had the same BASIC diversity in 1550 as it did in 1950:
-Europeans
-Africans
-Amerindians
In 1550 Amerindians GREATLY OUTNUMBERED Africans and Europeans, in 1950 Africans and Europeans GREATLY outnumber Amerindians.
The DIVERSITY is the same because all 3 groups are still there.
@Missy5464 Ketia says the diversity was similar. Missy think about it this way:
SOUTHERN Egypt has a modern Black MAJORITY while Egypt as a whole is mostly populated in the north probably at a ration of 10:1 or MORE. Most of the Migration and population growth has been in the North of the country, while the "Black people" live in the south
In ancient times it was REVERSED most people lived in the SOUTH of the Country and were of SOUTHERN ORIGIN.
As for what is being taught, the twin pillars of Afrocentrism are the claims that the West stole its culture from Egypt, and that Egypt was black. Schlesinger debunks both these fallacies, and disproves as well the relationship between ethnocentric education and self-esteem or academic achievement. Self-esteem, he notes, originates not in racial pride but in personal achievement....
@Gulfporter Oh, please......Put up or shut up. As a matter of fact simply give it UP. Go to EGYPT! There are Black people IN EGYPT RIGHT NOW. Why do you people insist that the Black people in Egypt right NOW are somehow "different" from the people painted on the wall of Egypt which look EXACTLY the same?
Same color, same languages, same culture, same genetics, same skeletal features, etc. You guys lost a LONG TIME AGO. The "Black" populations IN Egypt have always been there.
Ancient egyptinans were different. They were multicultural like many places today. Ancient Greek people were way different. Now they're mixed with arabs. Europe itself was way different. Roman latin people and Celtic people ruled but today it's anglo-saxon. Arabs have a big pop in Europe. There was white pop in asia near china that doesn't exist anymore.
I see, so...afrocentrists are now claiming that olmecs, aztecs, maya, and egyptians were all black? Sigh...okay, whatever you want to believe, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Heck...I'm actually related to Harry Potter, which makes me part wizard, AND I'm 3/21 Cherokee too! I think I may have some Peter Pan and Unicorn blood too! I am so special!
And, like you, all of this is fully supported by the historical records in my ass!
@stillcracking Other comments were removed, what do you have to say about the ACTUAL DATA presented by the speaker? you can talk about phantom "Afrocentrists" till you turn blue in the face but this video is not about Aztecs, Maya or Olmecs. It is about North East Africans. If you have any issues with the multidisciplinary evidence put forth by the anthropologist then please speak.
Anyone with Eyes (and Money) can go to Egypt right now and see the people he is talking about.
this guy actually said AE looked like somalis , and thats a prove that infact somalis are nothing but AE who been hiding in the mountains of ethiopia after their defeat in AE by the romans + arabs etc , in mass exodus pattern they moved back to where every thing begun and thats why we dont have egyptians in egypt nomore .
The 10,000 and 9,000 BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): "The first sedimentary sequence of the Holocene can be observed at the Ravin de la Mouche. It's a channel dug into yellow Pleistocene silt and filled with coarse grained sand and pebbles. As a chronological reference for the upper levels of this early Holocene site, we hold ten radiocarbon dates between 9400 and 8400 BC
Yea, I see, you're right about the Canoe. But there is some archaeological complex in Nigeria that is extremely large and related to this culture. It's very old, but I don't know too much detail because I cannot find the pages associated with it.
That clearly is the oldest, I didnt know about it. IN the Sahara Desert there is a calendar found that is about 7000-10,000 years old.
I know this, there was a couple of news reports on it. It's a large circular site which shows evidence of some kind of engineering of some sort. There are entranceways for boats, like primitive locks or something. But they couldn't be sure. They did show the magnitude of it, it was a very large buried wall, covered by time and dirt, but it was semi-uncovered. The thing is about a quarter of a mile?
Tichitt Walata, but I don't know if this is the same one. It talks about stone settlements done with high quality but nothing about the enormous site I am looking for.
"Coping with uncertainty: Neolithic life in the Dhar Tichitt-Walata, Mauritania, (ca. 40002300 BP)"
For the people working from the fact that "Ancient Africans" (primarily) founded this civilization in "Ancient Africa" - Then of course, genetics of the population tells us "little." You could jokingly say: "What did you expect Chinese DNA?"
So for someone like Keita, its just as insignificant as finding "African" DNA in "African Americans"
African DNA is what we should EXPECT, there are MUCH more important things that are of "Cultural Interests"
African DNA also doesn't tell us what they LOOKED like. Nor does "non-African" DNA.
Eurocentricistss make the big mistake of finding DNA segments that are found in high proportions outside of Africa. Through a long analysis they reach the conlcusion:
"People who did not look black came to East Africa, founded the Egyptians civilization and then mixed and overpopulated the region, making the East Africans themselves black no longer. "
Inductive reasoning, the Eurocentrist achilles heel
I agree, I think thats exactly what he was implying here. At the end of the video when the brother was asking if they were black (nergo is what is used) Keita
gave him an answer in a roundabout way that wouldn't really offend the other students in the room but if he (student) was pay attention this was a question that didn't need to be asked.
As I just stated to PKPMom, those claiming the Kemites do not understand nor practice the cultural behaviors, Africans however still do to this day.
Maybe you've convinced yourself of that, but I'm not going for that nonsense. All humans derived from Africa. Arabs and any other Caucasians with enough melanin will become dark with much exposure to the Sun. A light colored so-called black man will fade away to typical Caucasian hue if locked up in solitary confinement for a long time. You presume too much. You weren't there to see what the first humans looked like. So you and everyone else really don't know. Closed minds reject possibilities.
I removed the other posts because they did not pertain to the discussion. A black person will STAY black when locked up for a "Long Time" Dark skinned or light, your example is non-sense.
And "Caucasians" or White People out in the sun for extended exposure will literally BURN. Arabs have been living in the African desert for almost 1500 years - And there and even in their Home of Arabia, they are NOT as dark as the Actual AFRICANS that live in Arabia. [See Black Iraqis, or Black in Arabia]
That's a shame that you would censor opposing view comments. Sorry, but I consider yours as nonsense where it differs from my opinion. But we should both extend each other equal consideration to post.
@AfricaTeacher Arabs shield themself from the sun mostly. They don't stay out in the sun. Plus the original arabs were dark brown. You are looking on a new version of arabs. Most of them are mixed with whites, and other people like turks.
Interesting topic. Ancient Egypt was a mixture of East Africans, Asians and Europeans. When people say 'Egypt was black' many people interpret it as meaning that it was exlusively black, which isn't true.
However, the culture (the language, for example) was undoubtedly African. Only the most delusional racists claim otherwise. With that said, it's NOT "Afrocentric" to use AE or Nubia as examples of African civilization to counter the racist myth that blacks never built a civilization.
What Europeans are you speaking of? Northern Europeans did not exist until 6-12k ago and they did not come into Egypt til AD. Greeks are an admixture and not N European & even then they came after the 25th dynasty.
Too many "Afrocentrists" are knee-jerk reacting to Eurocentrism and continue to see Africa (esp. Sub-Saharan Africans) with disgust and avoidance.
Black Diaspora folks are starved for pride (Europeans killed it off) and some will latch to anything: Black Isrealites, Buffalo Soldiers, Black Olmecs, Black this or that...but NEVER show the same fixation with Great Zimbabwe, the Zulu Empire, or West Africa.
So sad to see this colonized state of Black folks. They murdered Black peoples souls.
WHICH "Afrocentrists"? Dont call them out but leave them nameless. MANY in the African diaspora that study Africana speak about the more southernly Civilizations of Africa. Egypt is just by far the OLDEST and most documented.
We know little to nothing about the Nok cultures or the Eredo Ramparts. There is only pictures of the megaliths in Gambia and Central Ethiopia. Actually, MUCH is written about the Islamic kingdoms of the West Africa.
I think Black folks speak of Egypt so much because:
1 - Eurocentrists think its "Up for debate" and now is the time that the tide is turning from one of Garbage pseudoscience to actual truth about the Origins of the Civilization.
2 - Because it is simply the oldest and most documented Ancient Civilization in the world. Black Americans enjoy the study of Egypt with the same zeal that ALL of humanity does as it is arguably THE best human accomplishment in civilization.
When's the last time you met an African-American who wanted to fight with you by saying that he was related to the Zulu Empire in Southern Africa?
But yet, the Egypt thing is a fixation because white people value it. Black people opeprate through the eyes of white people, even toward their own history.
There's also the issue of his sampling methods artificially adding 'African' affinity too. His DW study decided the remains from a palestinian cemetery were Nubian- which has been shown incorrect by dental studies (more accurate) and is strange claim for somwhere so far from Nubia to start with.
the 'Africaness'- with all Asian crops and an Asian language (AA languages are not african- plenty of disagreement with Keita on that point from linguists as well as geneticists).
Any Notions of Haplogroup E, E3b, Afro-Asiatic, etc having anything other than an African origin are theories that are not in favor due to lack of evidence of simply Eurocentric wishful thinking.
I know you have read the studies, there are remains from the Sahara to Turkey that have affinities at one time or another noted as "Nubian." - Natufian immediately come to mind.
Battaglia and Cruciani also note migration from the Nile valley to the Levant, SE Asian, Europe and Turkey.
BTW, oethr geologists have debunked Shochs older age for teh sphinx good and proper- visit Hall of Maat for the general howls of derision on that one.
There was a bog population movement from the near East across N Africa about 11k ago BTW, all the DNA studies down support that. So a10k age still wouldn;t have black Africans building it.
I agree with most of what Shomarka has to say. Allthough many times what he says is obscured by racialism. Egypt is indeed an African civilization. But that doesn't mean it was a Black nation. Or a White Nation. Africa is very diverse from the Berbers to the Nubians, the San to the Twa. And Egypt was a child of diversity. And Egypt did trade with the Middle East as well.
Dr. Keita goes lengths not to use certain terms. He refuses to say "black" and instead chooses "Dark" - But from the perspective of Africans: Dark = what we socially call "Black"
-Any person that reads genetics can easily recognize the underlying "Black Africaness" of the Ancient and MODERN population.
-Anyone that OBJECTIVELY looks at the artwork and colors of the paintings or even GOES TO EGYPT can easily recognize it as well.
Dr. keita calls the mummies "Somali Like" Somali = Black.
Most the mummies recuperated are from southern Egypt. The mummies are just as much Berber like as they are Somali like. And all mummies are not dark. Dr. Keita is quite clear that they weren't just one color. Hed recognizes the heterogeneity of Egyptians like he recognizes the heterogeneity of Africa.
No, actually he said the Egyptians ranged from tropical African (mixed Eurasian African samples he used for this baseline) to a European value. It's only the Badari crania that came close to an East African value- and they are still as close to moder upper Egyptians.
He's also said there's been very little immigration into Egypt and that they looked the same
He didn't say anything about Eurasians, all you're doing is trying to confuse people buy drowning your non-point in rhetoric, you didn't refute any of his studies, you just cried about it, without proving anything. He didn't say " there's been very little immigration into Egypt" that is you misrepersenting, misqutoing, and out right lying about what he stated.
the modern Egyptians are in the main the descendants of the Pleistocene inhabitants- he says there wasn;' much immigration. He says on a vid here their colouring and cranio facial shape was the same too.
You huys always claim he means tehy were black. He dowesn't He points out many Mahgreb samples have a European value and Egyptians ones are between that and his tropical- half Euirasian- Africans.
Actually in one study i see Keita using the Teita and Gabon as the only Sub Saharan references.
A later study (2004) uses Dogon, Teita, Zulu, and Somali-Oromo. All pretty homogeneous. When he incudes the Badari (Which Brace 93 Removed) many of the samples cluster with All of the Africans.
Futhermore Keita doesnt say "They looked the same" he says "The Same DIVERSITY EXISTED" - Those are 2 very different statements.
Other studies have an "Ethiopic" cluster that Egyptians cluster with.
Could you be more blinded by pride of skin colour. "somalian=Black" If you want to sum yourself up to one phenotype than be my guest. You fully missed Dr. Keita's point over skin colour.
Black is to Africa what white is to Europe. Berber is a language group and culture, it isn't recognizable by a certain look(phenotype), so to suggest that they repersent a indigenous non-black African is wrong. The only mix of the oringal population that established the culture/civilization of "egypt" were Africans, noone else, and those people, along with the culture come from inner Africa, trade with the "middle east" is a useless point. Egypt was as Black as any other African nation.
You are in denial... Africa=black. Egypt is in Africa and was a black nation. Its okay dude. We not talking about what it is now with all the invaders living there. Egypt sprang from earlier nile valley civilizations, i.e. uganda, ethiopia, sudan, etc... That is black africa. Lets keep it simple and stop being devilish.
LMAO. Africa equals Maghreb. It only got used for the rest later. Tehenu and Tamahu. No earlier civilization in Uganda. Pont might have been in Eritrea, but no evidence of an older civilization than Egypt. We do have evidence of migrations from the South, the Est and then West. Try again.
Papyrus of Hunefer... they themselves says they come from the begining of the nile where god Hapi dwells at the foothill of the mountain (mount kilaminjaro). You only study early racist european american scholars who have always lied and usurped african history. The bible also says the garden of eden was Cush=Ethiopia/kenya area. Yes Egypt is the daughter of Cush and Nubia which is the Sudan. Try agin yourself.
Hunefer was written in the 12th Dynasty. LOL Try something closer to the source. Mount Kilimanjaro is no where close to the source of the Nile. And Eden does not give a place. Cush in the bible is clearly not Ethiopia as it describes rivers like the Tigris and the Euphrates. Look up Kassites. Cushan is Kassite.
Me too. You've never seen me post such silly things. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.
My point is that you should "free your mind" to allow more than one possibility, rather than polarized thinking dispositive of your predisposed bias. But, hey, that's your choice, if you want to remain resistant to objective truthseeking.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? : (tncdel) writes: -"But were they BROWN-skinned Caucasians too? .....Caucasians skin." -"Caucasians [originating Northern Africa]" -"Frizzy hair..distinguished from Caucasoid curly" -"unlike Caucasian curly hair type" -"Caucasian type hair...different under microscope" -"Caucasians likewise originated" -"deemed a Caucasian if hair is straight. " -"lighter than many Caucasians" Should i Keep going? 3 - Questions, answer them in your own words.
Are you joking about that? Surely you already know that many Caucasians have dark brown skin too, right? Like in India, Sri Lanka, etc., etc. not to mention also Arabs with dark skin. So what's your point? There is no reason to think that the first humans were "black" or "white" exclusively. Maybe both varieties, maybe dark-skinned with Caucasian features, maybe even with skin tones similar to Arabs.
I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else. Let me know when time travel reveals it. :)
What you call pseudoscience is no more valid than someone who disagrees with you calling your assertions pseudoscience.
Further, you really don't know the answers to the three questions you asked, and neither do I or anyone else, for real. But the difference is that I will admit it, and you won't.
If you want to redefine things to suit yourself, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I know this is something that gives your life meaning. So who am I to begrudge you your fun. :)
No, I am sorry you have added zero value to the discussion of the Video.
You are In a sense saying that 1 + "X" = "Y" but your refuse to say or define EXACTLY what "X" is.
Now you are telling me that you "DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED" !
Well that is exactly why I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD! As you say yourself "Caucasian" has no definition. WHY are you describing populations in Abstract Scientifically bankrupt terms that shouldn't be applied to any Africans in ANY Case?
No, what I'm saying is that NO ONE really knows, you included. It is all pseudo-science. At best your theories are educated guesses.
Sorry, but I've found in life that there is often a huge gap between real-world facts and academic "facts."
You want to toot your own horn and push your biased agenda, trying to counter opposing academic drivel likewise claimed as fact by those who push their agendas.
Both are equally wrong. Till a time machine is invented, we can only guess about it.
It is qseudoscience. Early european (white racist) scholars threw out this darkskinned caucasian bullshit to usurp african history. Caucasians are from the Caucas Mountains of Europe and had absolutely nothing to do with Nile Valley civilizations or accomplishments. They were illiterate and caveman like. They don't even dig up in Europe cause caucasians had nothing of interest. Stop usurping African History with your envious and jealous ways. No such thing has darkskinned Caucasians.
THey do dig up the Middle East and East Europe. Jericho and Catal Huyuk predate anything in Africa. And in Europe they found a civilization in the Austro German region that, at least, predates the Egyptian Pyramids. The Caucasus is in the Armenian region.
Correct Salsassin But you forget that the Sahara region of Africa the largest & hottest desert in the World a region larger than the U.S is covered by vast oceans of deep sand & barren mountianous rocky plateaus it's very possible there could be lost African Civilization or Kingdoms that predate Egypt or the Near East from the Neolithic wet phase or earlier when the Sahara was heavily populated very little archeological work is conducted in the Sahara because of the harsh environment.
Sal you have to remember to that predating Catal Huyuk 9.000k was Gobekli Tepe 11.500 in Turkey. That civilization challenged scientific orthodoxy because the consensus was that only agriculturalist societies could construct advanced civilizations.Gobekli people were late Pliestocene hunter/gatherers.
And archeologist had claimed 11.500 k ago that humans were not capable of constructing monuments on that scale & the Gobekli Tepe had been inaccurately misdated by scientist in the 80's-90's.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, actually a lot of scolars are still using Caucasian and Caucasoid.
The mummies have shown nearly all Eurasian DNA types, AT. Claiming an all black African origin for AE is erroneous, and Keita doesn not support this at all.
The Y chr of Egyptians make it impossible for there to have been any mass Eurasian male immigration historically. Keita has actually said this in writing.
Well they shouldn't be using such term to describe Brown skinned :Africans Modern nor Ancient.
BTW no one here tsays "Ancient Egyptians were "ALL BLACK". We know for a fact that there were external non African and non Black immigrants into the Nile valley.
Llooking at the Y Chromosome though Egypt, the Maghreb, and the Sahara were populated by Sub Saharan East Africans. ALL populations in those areas are M35+.
M35 has an origin in Sub Saharan East Africa - There is no other way around it.
I think people know it but I dont think there will be any NEW information and evidence supporting these facts. Much of that is under lake Nasser. And Sudan is talking about building another 7-30 Dams that will flood Sudanese Nubia including areas of the Kerma kingdom destroying the deffufas and much more. It ridiculous.
Keita in the "Neolithic History" video when speaking of Egyptians origins speaks FIRST of Sudan and THEN moves to Egypt and further down the nile..
You have to be kidding... Everyone knows the 1st human beings were black because black is dominant and white is recessive. Black produces brown and shades lighter. White is recessive and cannot produce brown or black. Every race is a mutation of the original black race. So in a way anyone not black/african is a mutant... Get out of denial and stop being of your ancestors which were devilish. India was 1st inhabited by africans thats why the dark skin. The original Buddahs were african.
Indians are dark skinned but are not "black" as in African ancestry. The last common ancestor between an Indian and African was 70,000 ybp.
And Buddha was an Indian prince. You want Europeans to stop usurping African history but you Afrocentrists have no problem usurping Chinese, Indian, West Asian history.
Are you Egyptian? If so, I feel bad for you since you've totally lost your history. It's hard to win against these Afrocentrics because they have all day to keep spamming these videos.
Trying to steal is what they did, how could someone come from another culture, say they are the people of that culture and know nothing of the culture nor have they practiced the very rituals of that culture. Its just logical, the truth is the truth.
You sit here with your racist views like you are better than the facts but yet we don't see you posting studies nor do you have a PHD in anything close to genetic studies.
You like to scream Afrocentrics but you have no idea what it is.
The Dravidian race consists predominantly of south Indians. They are characterized by their dark complexion, large foreheads and dark hair and eyes. According to experts, this race arrived in India around 3000 B C.
Dravidians are believed to be of African origin. Similarities between their complexion, forehead structure and bone structure support this claim. After their settlement in India, they established a very sophisticated culture.
There is no Dravidian race. People in S. India are referred to as Dravidians because they speak Dravidian languages. Secondly, the entire India is a varying proportion of Aryan & Dravidian people so you can't separate them. Dravidians were Mediterranean people, not African. Look up Cavalli-Sforza, William Howells or Stephen Oppenheimer, all renowned experts in genetics & anthropology.
Their religion was earth centric and was based on the worship of life-giving forces in nature. They made offerings of plants and herbs to these forces. With the arrival of the Aryans in India around 1500 B C, the Dravidians were forced to move towards the south and central parts of the country. The influence of Aryans in their religion saw a shift from nature-worship to the worship of gods and goddesses based in heaven. Their rituals now involved fire and smoke.
The roots of Hinduism were sowed with this radical shift in religion.
With the decline in Indus Valley Civilization, the Dravidians established a rich culture in south and central India. Their contribution to the development of language and literature is immense. All the major languages used in south India are of Dravidian origin, Tamil being the root language.
How do you answer Keita who says that both Dravidians and Dravidian languages, including Tamil, originated in Asia? Secondly, the skulls found in Indus valley conform to the people that live in that region now.
@PKPMom He never said the skull was white as a matterof fact if I remember it right he said that the features you would like to call white are from Africa from the start. (Prove me wrong) show me a link
krepublishers . com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-4-317-368-2008-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt . pdf
Your link doesn't work but if I remember correctly, it's Clyde Winters. He's an Afrocentric that's been debunked on all anthropology forums and has no mainstream credibility. You need to do better than give me propaganda websites. Besides, he pays krepublishers to publish his writings where his references are articles he's written before. You'll need to do better.
I got your link to work and yes I was right - it was Clyde Winters. Clyde Winters, Rashidi and people of his ilk are not scientists. Clyde Winters has been trying for ages to connect Dravidians for years all to no avail.
This isn't proof. Show me accepted, mainstream scholars like Cavalli-Sforza or Spencer Wells. If you don't like white scientists, then find someone like Keita. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with propaganda websites.
@PKPMom That study Winter put together was a compilation of many researchers so what are you saying. Oh I get it because he's black it means nothing but I can listen to some white guy and he's right, right? Dalitvoices , org is by the Dalits themselves no whites or African American help. Delusion is something funny. When I present a Indian Doctor who stated he was Dravidian and apart the African family you shot that down too LOL I don't know what to tell yah.
@PKPMom You shouldn't refuse concrete evidence. Its not good thing to do in a debate when you can't cite anything to refute it. I will not read through hundreds of books to get back to what we have already proven.
But you are not presenting evidence. I've been through that link. Clyde Winters contradicts himself. Like Keita, your citation admit that geneticists believe that Dravidian speakers originated in India. He then goes on to call mtDNA M as L3M. There's no such thing as L3M or L3N. Then here's this in your citation: Rosenberg et. al (2006) supports the absence of African genes in Indians. How does any of this support your case?
1 - I have indeed seen articles that sample M1 IN India. There is also a new mutation "M16" that is found in Madagascar and African Americans.
2 - "L3m" is sort of dumbing it down. The thing is L3 is SO DIVERSE their really IS NO "M" and "N" - Those are just very diverse mutations of L3a. If you Google "Mtdna L3a" you will get a diagram that explains that.
Saying "Mtdna M" is just an easier way of saying Mtdna L3a1Mb2d1r4xxxx...etc"
M1 is absent in India. We're talking population genetics here. And there's no M16 in India either. M & N are descendants of L. N is the predominant mtDNA of Western Europeans while M is the predominant in Asia. So how are people that are subclades of M any more related to L than people that are subclades of N? They are not. Indians are no more related to Africans than are Europeans or other Asians. And geneticists don't use L3M.
@PKPMom Why would you say M1 is absent if I JUST told you I have seen studies where it is present? Did you even LOOK for the results?
watch?v=xeKj-toC3Uc
Someone put the results of several studies into a video. This video is already in my favorites. SO, unless the data from the STUDIES is WRONG........Then M1 IS present in India. That author also post Y-chromosomes shared between Africa and India.
M16 is an African Maternal maker i referenced as proof as a possible origin of M* in Africa.
@AfricaTeacher Clyde Winters is not a source. Secondly, we're talking population genetics not individual. Even if there were an M1 found in India or West Asia, M1 is of Asian origin (see Anna Olivieri study of 2006)/ And M1 is largely absent in India (see Spencer Wells). And the population of Madagascar is African and Austronesian, not Indian. And M16 is not Indian.
@PKPMom I am not sourcing "Clyde Winters" dont be so obtuse!
You said - "M1 is absent in India"
I then linked a video with population genetic studies that show M1 IN INDIA. That makes you wrong.
M16 is Absent in India. I bring that up as an indication that there are still subclades from the ROOT of M* that are being found IN AFRICA. This leaves open a 'possibility' that M* is African in Origin. WHY? Because the PRECURSORS of M* are in Africa as well as African specific SUBLCADES of M*
@AfricaTeacher The video you linked to is by Olmec who is Clyde Winters. M1 is not an Indian subclade. The subclades of M found in India and all of Asia are not found in Africa. The ones found in Africa originated in Asia and are the result of back migration from ME. M is found in China, Japan and E. Europe as well, so how are Indians any more related to you than the Chinese, Japanese or E. Europeans. Indians don't have any closer relationship to Africans than any other non-African.
@AfricaTeacher In this very video, Keita says that Dravidians "emerged in Asia and speak languages that emerged in Asia and practice cultures that emerged in Asia." This is in contradiction to your guy Olmec, aka Clyde Winters who claims that Dravidians emerged in W. Asia and that Dravidian languages are related to W. African languages.
@PKPMom OBTUSE! - "Clyde Winters" is not the individual publishing articles showing M1 in India. Dont use him as a straw man. I am not SAYING Dravidian are from anywhere else other than India. What i SAID and I stand by is "I HAVE indeed seen articles that sample M1 was in India" :
-Gonzales et al.
-Kivisild et al.
And M16 is not Asian in Origin, It is African, found in African Americans and ethnic groups of Madagascar that come from Africa. Argue about Dravidian origins with others.
@AfricaTeacher The two studies that Clyde Winters references both contradict what he claims. The Kivisild study states the following: "the absence of HpaI site at nucleotide position (np) 3592 among Indians seems clearly
to negate any recent substatial gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to the peninsula." The Gonzalez study states that M1 has an Asiatic origin. This only proves my point.
@AfricaTeacher The presence of M1 in India is in much lower frequencies than North Africa, Middle East or Europe. So what if M1 is in India - what does this prove? M1 is also in Europe and W. Asia. This doesn't prove that India has any more closer relationship to Africa than Europe or the rest of Asia.
And M16 is not present in India. If it's present among Africans in Madagascar, that's because Madagascar has a very mixed pop.
@PKPMom What does it prove? It proves that when someone says "M1 is not found in India" - THEY ARE LYING, thats what it proves. I am not arguing about the origin of Indian Ethnic groups, argue that with "Clyde Winters". I am just CONFIRMING the PRESENCE of the M1 marker in India.
M16 is found in African Americans and Madagascar ethnic groups of AFRICAN descent, not Malay. This ADDS evidence to the argument of an African origin of M* and M1 regardless of if the argument is accepted.
@AfricaTeacher Presence of M1 in India doesn't make me a liar as M1 is still not an Asian haplotype and is found in much higher frequencies in Europe & Middle East than in India. Just like R1b, the most common Y in W. Europe, is found in Africa but no sane person considers R1b an African haplotype. It is irrelevant where M originated because the dominant subclades of M in India are autochthonous.
7:38..OH REALLY??..
2020TYBO 4 days ago
@2020TYBO..7:36
2020TYBO 4 days ago
I find these lectures very informative. It's a shame that Eurocentrism cloaks itself behind "mainstream" so that we could approach it with just as much criticism.
SystemEquation 2 months ago
There is so much shame put to Afrocentrists' views. Yet at the same time, Eurocentric view points are not attacked in such rigorous ways as the former group. Neither ethnocentric view point is right in my honest opinion
A civilization that lasted some 3,000 years could not have remained homogeneous for that length of time. The Ancient Egyptians were most definitely African and due to an influx of foreigners from Asia & Europe, it resulted in Egypt being a multi-ethnic civilization.
IEtherianSoul9 5 months ago
@IEtherianSoul9 Shame to Afrocentrists why?
You’re basically saying what “Afrocentrists” have been preaching for a long time:Egypt was a black civilization which became multi-ethnic over time due to countless invasions, mixing,etc...
And they are still there in the South. Shame on who?
There is lunatics on both sides.
SundiataOfMali 1 month ago
gulps ...africanteacher has his research tight, as well as the mexican poster ninja...funny to now see white supremist thought gettin' a much deserved , long overdue academic asswhippin'!!!
shango1963 5 months ago
I'm glad that there are Teachers that wil stand up for the truth and not afriad of losing their job. Great Hotep 100% to you.
kim66660000 5 months ago
arab dog the sumarians where are there great works where are there structures they built with mud while we were cutting stones 20-ton blocks your fake made up alien bullshit history what have tha arabs ever done the sumarians came after the egyptians you peckerwood cracka dog
CeeCee2290 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See the Puntites brown-skin people with fine features ;the History : «Again the representations of the early Puntites, or Somali people, on the Egyptian monuments, show striking resemblances to the Egyptians themselves. » : "The Wisdom of the Egyptians" By Brian Brown New York: [1923].
According to the historian Richard Pankhurst :"""The Egyptians sometimes called Punt land Ta-Netjeru, meaning "Land of the Gods," and considered it their place of origin ." (The Ethiopian Borderlands;1997)
sajokal20 10 months ago
@Missy5464 I never heard Dr. Keita say that ancient egyptians loook just like modern egyptians and really how in the hel would he know that what you seem to ignore as i pointed out to Salsassin phenotypes at times derive from local prefference,you could have a population that looks like arabs today but 2000 yrs ago looked quit different,,the thing is why is it such a big deal to you folks to discredit the FACT that countless ancient egyptians would be called black today!!!
richbullva 1 year ago
@Missy5464 what you seem to miss in Dr. Keita's presentation is that genotypes dont always correlate with phenotype
richbullva 1 year ago
"There are standards of excellence that have to be observed", he said. That is the truth. You can't just say anything you want. And, "it takes a lot of work" to be knowledgeable in ancient languages, ancient art, ancient literature.
fliegeroh 1 year ago
@Missy5464 ANCIENT EGYPTIANS ARE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIANS LOOK AT THE SIMILARITIES,. IN EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM.
1980vince 1 year ago
Say, Dr. Yahya, exactly who gets to define what is "Asia", what is "Europe", and what is "Africa"? Isn't Europe really a subcontinent of Asia Major (the same way they "demote" India as a subcontinent)? On a bad day, I am prone to refer to Europe as "a wart on the ass of Asia". On really bad days: a cancer upon Humanity.
JesusManson323 1 year ago
You made a good point at 4:54 about "Asians" and alluded to an even better point about Europeans. I'm Mexican-descent and I met Greeks in the Mediterranean who were darker than me! Same with the French! Likewise with "North AmerIndians", we are an Indigenous people in our core identity, shared geography, shared culture, bloodlines, etc. The European component has really been marginal and held in place only by artificial imposition.
JesusManson323 1 year ago
@Missy5464 Missy, I have looked at some of your videos and posts on various Youtube videos. You seem to be a fan of Salsassin and Mathilda. I debated Salsassin way back on a message board and I've seen his views evolve over the years. He seems genuinely interested in stressing the diversity of human populations and is against racial thinking. Mathilda on the other hand is a textbook Eurocentric racialist who only seems to want to portray Egypt as non-Black and White wash African populations.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@Missy5464 Keita told me via email that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the model in most of the country. I take that to mean that the average Ancient Egyptian had medium to dark brown skin. He also insists that the civilization was fundamentally African and Egyptians had biological affinities with their Southern neighbors.. In his literature he does speak of foreigners having a major genetic impact on Egypt especially during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay just check out the edition of national geographic called Black Egypt an this arguement is done.
bibadoe 1 year ago
@bibadoe Are you talking about an edition of the magazine? National Geographic published an edition of their magazine titled "The Black Pharaohs" which focused on the rulers of the 25th Dynasty founded by Nubians. Although they don't say it explicitly the magazine's emphasis on the Blackness of the Nubians suggests that the Egyptian Pharaohs were something other than Black. I don't like alot of what they publish about race and Egypt.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay Anybody who looks at those paintings and statues and says that they are anything but black would likely try to convince you that water is not wet. You will also notice animals that are only found in subSahara Africa along with women with water jugs on their heads as seen only in SubSahara. How many Hippos, Hyeena, and Crocodiles do you find in Syria, Mesopotamia, or Turkey?
There seems to be a consorted effort by Europeans to convince blacks that they are w/o acheivements.
bibadoe 1 year ago
@bibadoe I honestly don't see how anyone in their right mind can look at alot of the paintings of Ancient Egyptians with their brown skin, Afros and African style braids and say that they do not see Black people. The thing is that several 18th and 19th century scholars acknowledged that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans but slavery still existed at the time and many Americans had a White Supremacist mentality. They could not accept advanced Black Civilizations. So they lied about Africa.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@MysticNinjaJay I'm Mexican and there are still some "White" people claiming that our civilizations (Olmec, Teotihuacan, Maya, Mexica, etc) came from space aliens. (The most prominent is a national radio show called "Coast to Coast AM"). The White Supremacist Mentality is like a mental disease. It limits human thinking and replaces evidence with racial fantasy. It's almost like talking to a drug addict: they are like a skipping record, not willing to deal with rational thought.
JesusManson323 1 year ago 2
@JesusManson323 You're absolutely right. Debating them is a waste of time. Getting the truth out there is what people need to do.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
So the Sumarians who are the most ancient prolific culture on the planet...were black!? Bull-fucking-shit...they were Arab...everyone know this...all these freaking blacks want is to lay claim to something that matters...if they were so great, so strong...how come there are arabs in Egypt today? Who dropped the fucking ball!? I'm sick of Afros, all they want to do is say they are better, they arn't
Helcomlatly 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly
I dont think anyone here, and I am SURE that Keita makes no mentions of Sumarians being "black". Also keep in mind the Sumerians may not have been "Arabs". The earliest Sumerian languages were NOT of the African language group "Afro-Asiatic" - these people came LATER. Sumer nor Elamite are AfroAsiatic. These langues and people came LATER from the West bringing the Akkadian language.
"Arab" is a n Ethnic identity that is somewhat recent. And "Arabs" are Nomadic.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago 9
@AfricaTeacher I love how you have no written history for 70,000 years and yet you know all this how!? Afro-Asiatic? what the fuck are you smoking. That term doesn't even exist. You want to lay claim to everything in the world and yet take no responsibility for anything in it. That's what I love about black supremacists, we did it all, except for the baddie stuff, that was in fact the Akkadian...the bullshit is so deep they can smell it in Kenya..LMFAO
Helcomlatly 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly
The POINT of the post that you failed to grasp is that SUMERIANS at their EARLIEST point (Sumer / Elam) where NOT people of the Near East or NE Africa in culture and language. This is why Sumer and Elamite languages are ISOLATES. They both may be related to DRAVIDIAN which has NOTHING to do with "ARABS"
It was Akkadian (Semitic) from the West that converged UPON and REPLACED Sumerian languages in Mesopotamia.
Arabs are related to the LATER group NOT the earliest Sumerians.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher And yet Sumerian is the oldest known written cuneiform language in the world. So you are proposing that "others" basically meaning whites or other non-nubian cultures moved into this area and wiped out any trace of the earlier more powerful, smarter, nubian forms of written language.how come there is no trace of written language in the deepest parts of Africa.forget Egypt like you are telling me to do.oral tradition is one thing but cuneiform? And Elam biblical not Archeological
Helcomlatly 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly LOL What are you talking about? Constructing an argument that I didnt make just to knock it down is a called a "Strawman argument"
Egypt / Nubia / N.E. Africa = AFRICA
EARLY Sumer / Elam / Fertile Crescent = NON AFRICAN.
Early N.E. Africa = Afro Asiatic AFRICAN Language
Early Sumeria = NON AFRICAN Languages
LATER - NEAR EASTERN peoples, probably mixed with N.E. Africans speaking an African Affiliated language family (Semetic) converged UPON Non the African Sumerian.
....
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago 2
@Helcomlatly This is COMMON knowledge if you actually study the history of the people your are talking about. When does anyone here say that Sumerian are Nubian? This video is about Sudan and Egypt, which are not a part of "Mesopotamia"
Now your are telling me "Elam is Biblical" only ?
Elam = South Western Iran. Read a book, better yet just "Google it"
King Sargon conquered Sumeria, Sargon was Akkadian, Akkadians came from the WEST and spoke Semitic UNLIKE Sumerians and Elamites.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You're just another clueless racist. Africateacher made you look foolish. Take a seat and learn something. Africans btw had writing before Europeans. That is why you are so threatened by the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. It destroys your preconceived notions about the capabilities of Africans. Egypt was the gift of the Nile. Geography and availability of resources determined cultural development not race.
MysticNinjaJay 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly Sumer is not the oldest civilization. There has been a 160-200K yr old civilization found in S. Africa. And Egypt is even older than Sumer. Egypt has Predynastic & Zep Tepi time period which is circa 30K yrs old. Kush/Ethiopia is older than Egypt as the Ethiopians told Diodorus (a Greek) that the Egyptians were a colony sent out by the Ethiopians. Africans are the oldest people on the Earth and everyone has African mtdna in them.
HeruTutankhamun 1 month ago
@Helcomlatly Wow! How come white people love to post all their garbage racist Ideas on pages dedicated to black people. I don't visit pages talking about hitler, stalline, ad Napoleaon!
Cdikalo 1 year ago 2
@Helcomlatly Eurocentrism and Afr
oramikleepunk 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly sumer and arabia are not in the same place.
Mr1700 1 year ago
@Helcomlatly take yo ass back under the rock you crawled from under? there is tons of great empires and civilizations an cultural societies that existed in SHARO-AFRICA, EAST AFRIC, SOUTH AFRICA AND WEST AFRICA. And I boast about all of them!!! EGYPT IS JUST A HOT TPOIC! BUT YOU CLEARLY ARE IGNORANT AND A HATER, YOU ENVEY BLACK PEOPLE AND YOU WILL DIE SAD AND HATEFUL!
amor60643 1 year ago
@Missy5464
Like I said Keita doesn't have to SAY it, I have been to Egypt and have SEEN it for myself. Have you been? [crickets...]
Even when you look at the historical borders of Egypt: ASWAN and BELOW was the territory of NUBIANS and not "Egyptians" proper. But this territory itself comprises 1/4th of EGYPT and HALF of southern Egypt............and NOT Sudan.
You dont know this because you work with Sound bytes. We are not talking about non-Africans we are talking about AFRICANS.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago 5
@Missy5464
Keita does not have to SAY they were "Black".
Furthermore, Keita does not have to say HE is "Black". In America, and many parts around the world, Dr. Keita has typical features that are common in people that we label under the social banner : "BLACK"
When you go to Southern Egypt TODAY, you see people that look MORE like Dr. Keita than they look like YOU. They are NOT the Majority NOW, but they WERE the majority THEN. Call Keita's color whatever you want, MOST call it "BLACK"
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
Missy5464
"berbers and egyptians you would call "white" or "arab" are biologically african as well"
. A person who is biologically African is someone who descended from a population whose traits evolved on the continent of Africa and not from outside of Africa. Yes, Most modern Berbers and Egyptians would be called "white" or "Arab" is based from Eurasian ancestry from foreigners who weren't biologically African.
mikedavO9 1 year ago
Missy5464
Which part of Africa would most African-Americans would be called white? Secondly, Berber is a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. There is no singular Berber phenotype. Berber range from very dark like the Tuareg to very light in complexion with light hair and eyes. Thirdly, The modern Western term for dark-skinned people of African descent is "Black". Australian aborigines aren't of African descent like the ancient Egyptians, African-Americans, Jamaicans and so forth.
mikedavO9 1 year ago 2
Missy5464
You didn't have to say "Egyptians weren't biologically african" to know that's what you're trying to apply here. First and foremost, I never claimed that Keita said the ancient Egyptians were "black". I'd said, the social term "black" would be applied to the ancient Egyptians if they were residents of western society based through overwhelming scientific, linguistic, and cultural evidence.
Now, we know indiginous Africans do come in different shades right?
mikedavO9 1 year ago
Missy5464
"black" is a social term. There is no authentic African look. If the ancient Egyptians were in Western society, they would be considered "black" also.
However you are arguing that through overwhelming scientific, linguistic, and cultural evidence, you're still trying to deny the ancient Egyptians as biologically African? it's quite clear that the subjective social term "black" can be applied to that ancient population.
mikedavO9 1 year ago
@mikedavO9 This girl is playing word games. She knows they are African, she knows they have brown skin like most Africans we call "Black" in the social sense, but when in Egypt............They are not Black. LOL She knows that Dr. Keita is labeled as "Black" but people that look like Dr. Keita who happen to live in Egypt are NOT "Black"
-Intellectual schizophrenia
-Intellectual dishonesty
So now she resorts to semantics and strawmen about a "100% Black Egypt" nobody even talked about.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago 3
@Missy5464 ,
Strawman - I called the Saharan Type AS WELL as the Maghreb Coastal type "AFRICAN". i didnt say ONE was African and the other was not.
What I am saying is this:
SOY KEITA = a "Black" person in the SOCIAL sense.
In ANCIENT EGYPT most of the population was in the SOUTH of the country and consisted of the people that look like DR. Kieta. Look at the art.
In MODERN times MOST of the populations lives in the NORTH and do not look like keita
BOTH are AFRICAN - Demographics shifted.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@Missy5464 You just dont GET IT because you dont want to.
-BOTH Types exist in Egypt TODAY, the Africans that we call "Black" and the Africans that are not "black", looking more like the Coastal Maghreb type.
- IN MODERN TIMES, MOST of the population is in the NORTH represented by the lighter coastal AFRICAN type.
-IN ANCIENT TIMES, MOST of the population was in the SOUTH represented by the Darker Saharan AFRICAN type called "Black"
Both types are STILL THERE - demographics have shifted.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@Missy5464 YES the SAME type of people have been there but the demographics have SHIFTED. Let me give you a native america example since your are part Native.
I would be FACTUALLY correct to say:
North America has had the same BASIC diversity in 1550 as it did in 1950:
-Europeans
-Africans
-Amerindians
In 1550 Amerindians GREATLY OUTNUMBERED Africans and Europeans, in 1950 Africans and Europeans GREATLY outnumber Amerindians.
The DIVERSITY is the same because all 3 groups are still there.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@Missy5464 Ketia says the diversity was similar. Missy think about it this way:
SOUTHERN Egypt has a modern Black MAJORITY while Egypt as a whole is mostly populated in the north probably at a ration of 10:1 or MORE. Most of the Migration and population growth has been in the North of the country, while the "Black people" live in the south
In ancient times it was REVERSED most people lived in the SOUTH of the Country and were of SOUTHERN ORIGIN.
Similar diversity - different demographics.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
As for what is being taught, the twin pillars of Afrocentrism are the claims that the West stole its culture from Egypt, and that Egypt was black. Schlesinger debunks both these fallacies, and disproves as well the relationship between ethnocentric education and self-esteem or academic achievement. Self-esteem, he notes, originates not in racial pride but in personal achievement....
Gulfporter 1 year ago
@Gulfporter Oh, please......Put up or shut up. As a matter of fact simply give it UP. Go to EGYPT! There are Black people IN EGYPT RIGHT NOW. Why do you people insist that the Black people in Egypt right NOW are somehow "different" from the people painted on the wall of Egypt which look EXACTLY the same?
Same color, same languages, same culture, same genetics, same skeletal features, etc. You guys lost a LONG TIME AGO. The "Black" populations IN Egypt have always been there.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago 2
Ancient egyptinans were different. They were multicultural like many places today. Ancient Greek people were way different. Now they're mixed with arabs. Europe itself was way different. Roman latin people and Celtic people ruled but today it's anglo-saxon. Arabs have a big pop in Europe. There was white pop in asia near china that doesn't exist anymore.
MrWWFattitudefan 1 year ago
bless this wise man, teaching these adult students...
CushiticSomalianMale 1 year ago
I see, so...afrocentrists are now claiming that olmecs, aztecs, maya, and egyptians were all black? Sigh...okay, whatever you want to believe, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. Heck...I'm actually related to Harry Potter, which makes me part wizard, AND I'm 3/21 Cherokee too! I think I may have some Peter Pan and Unicorn blood too! I am so special!
And, like you, all of this is fully supported by the historical records in my ass!
stillcracking 1 year ago
@stillcracking Other comments were removed, what do you have to say about the ACTUAL DATA presented by the speaker? you can talk about phantom "Afrocentrists" till you turn blue in the face but this video is not about Aztecs, Maya or Olmecs. It is about North East Africans. If you have any issues with the multidisciplinary evidence put forth by the anthropologist then please speak.
Anyone with Eyes (and Money) can go to Egypt right now and see the people he is talking about.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
this guy actually said AE looked like somalis , and thats a prove that infact somalis are nothing but AE who been hiding in the mountains of ethiopia after their defeat in AE by the romans + arabs etc , in mass exodus pattern they moved back to where every thing begun and thats why we dont have egyptians in egypt nomore .
TheDontkare 1 year ago
Ounjougou
I found it
The 10,000 and 9,000 BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene in Ounjougou): "The first sedimentary sequence of the Holocene can be observed at the Ravin de la Mouche. It's a channel dug into yellow Pleistocene silt and filled with coarse grained sand and pebbles. As a chronological reference for the upper levels of this early Holocene site, we hold ten radiocarbon dates between 9400 and 8400 BC
osirica 2 years ago
MY point finally has been VINDICATED. 2:40
Genetics studies will NOT tell you!!!
You cannot prove the race of the Ancient Egyptians with these silly genetic studies flying around.
osirica 2 years ago
Earliest Calendar: Aurignacian
32,000 BC.
Do you have evidence of anything earlier in the Sahara?
The first evidence of seafaring is in South East Asia.
Did you mean the earliest evidence of a boat?
That honor goes to Kuwait. at over 7000 years.
You probably were thinking of the Dufuna Canoe.
It is predated by canoes is France and the Netherlands and was a river canoe, not a seafaring one.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Yea, I see, you're right about the Canoe. But there is some archaeological complex in Nigeria that is extremely large and related to this culture. It's very old, but I don't know too much detail because I cannot find the pages associated with it.
That clearly is the oldest, I didnt know about it. IN the Sahara Desert there is a calendar found that is about 7000-10,000 years old.
osirica 2 years ago
Do you remember the name?
Salsassin 2 years ago
No. If I did I would have referenced it. Sorry.
I know this, there was a couple of news reports on it. It's a large circular site which shows evidence of some kind of engineering of some sort. There are entranceways for boats, like primitive locks or something. But they couldn't be sure. They did show the magnitude of it, it was a very large buried wall, covered by time and dirt, but it was semi-uncovered. The thing is about a quarter of a mile?
The site has the characteristics of a buried
osirica 2 years ago
Will look into it. So long as it's actual archaeology and not a Graham Handcock claim, or something like that, it definitely would be interesting.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Tichitt Walata, but I don't know if this is the same one. It talks about stone settlements done with high quality but nothing about the enormous site I am looking for.
"Coping with uncertainty: Neolithic life in the Dhar Tichitt-Walata, Mauritania, (ca. 40002300 BP)"
Holl, Augustin F. C.
osirica 2 years ago
That is Mauritania though and the dating is around 1600 BC I believe.
Salsassin 2 years ago
I think I now know WHY Keita says that:
For the people working from the fact that "Ancient Africans" (primarily) founded this civilization in "Ancient Africa" - Then of course, genetics of the population tells us "little." You could jokingly say: "What did you expect Chinese DNA?"
So for someone like Keita, its just as insignificant as finding "African" DNA in "African Americans"
African DNA is what we should EXPECT, there are MUCH more important things that are of "Cultural Interests"
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
RIGHT.
African DNA also doesn't tell us what they LOOKED like. Nor does "non-African" DNA.
Eurocentricistss make the big mistake of finding DNA segments that are found in high proportions outside of Africa. Through a long analysis they reach the conlcusion:
"People who did not look black came to East Africa, founded the Egyptians civilization and then mixed and overpopulated the region, making the East Africans themselves black no longer. "
Inductive reasoning, the Eurocentrist achilles heel
osirica 2 years ago
I agree, I think thats exactly what he was implying here. At the end of the video when the brother was asking if they were black (nergo is what is used) Keita
gave him an answer in a roundabout way that wouldn't really offend the other students in the room but if he (student) was pay attention this was a question that didn't need to be asked.
As I just stated to PKPMom, those claiming the Kemites do not understand nor practice the cultural behaviors, Africans however still do to this day.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
Very well said.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Maybe you've convinced yourself of that, but I'm not going for that nonsense. All humans derived from Africa. Arabs and any other Caucasians with enough melanin will become dark with much exposure to the Sun. A light colored so-called black man will fade away to typical Caucasian hue if locked up in solitary confinement for a long time. You presume too much. You weren't there to see what the first humans looked like. So you and everyone else really don't know. Closed minds reject possibilities.
tncdel 2 years ago
I removed the other posts because they did not pertain to the discussion. A black person will STAY black when locked up for a "Long Time" Dark skinned or light, your example is non-sense.
And "Caucasians" or White People out in the sun for extended exposure will literally BURN. Arabs have been living in the African desert for almost 1500 years - And there and even in their Home of Arabia, they are NOT as dark as the Actual AFRICANS that live in Arabia. [See Black Iraqis, or Black in Arabia]
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
That's a shame that you would censor opposing view comments. Sorry, but I consider yours as nonsense where it differs from my opinion. But we should both extend each other equal consideration to post.
tncdel 2 years ago
@AfricaTeacher Arabs shield themself from the sun mostly. They don't stay out in the sun. Plus the original arabs were dark brown. You are looking on a new version of arabs. Most of them are mixed with whites, and other people like turks.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
egypt of course was not the oldest civization in africa.
cell455 2 years ago
Interesting topic. Ancient Egypt was a mixture of East Africans, Asians and Europeans. When people say 'Egypt was black' many people interpret it as meaning that it was exlusively black, which isn't true.
However, the culture (the language, for example) was undoubtedly African. Only the most delusional racists claim otherwise. With that said, it's NOT "Afrocentric" to use AE or Nubia as examples of African civilization to counter the racist myth that blacks never built a civilization.
CyberCelebrity 2 years ago
What Europeans are you speaking of? Northern Europeans did not exist until 6-12k ago and they did not come into Egypt til AD. Greeks are an admixture and not N European & even then they came after the 25th dynasty.
johnsde1 2 years ago
Truthandjustice, where are u from?
lewibd 2 years ago
Too many "Afrocentrists" are knee-jerk reacting to Eurocentrism and continue to see Africa (esp. Sub-Saharan Africans) with disgust and avoidance.
Black Diaspora folks are starved for pride (Europeans killed it off) and some will latch to anything: Black Isrealites, Buffalo Soldiers, Black Olmecs, Black this or that...but NEVER show the same fixation with Great Zimbabwe, the Zulu Empire, or West Africa.
So sad to see this colonized state of Black folks. They murdered Black peoples souls.
TruthandJustice101 2 years ago 2
I think that is your Subjective opinion.
WHICH "Afrocentrists"? Dont call them out but leave them nameless. MANY in the African diaspora that study Africana speak about the more southernly Civilizations of Africa. Egypt is just by far the OLDEST and most documented.
We know little to nothing about the Nok cultures or the Eredo Ramparts. There is only pictures of the megaliths in Gambia and Central Ethiopia. Actually, MUCH is written about the Islamic kingdoms of the West Africa.
beyoku 2 years ago
Continued..
I think Black folks speak of Egypt so much because:
1 - Eurocentrists think its "Up for debate" and now is the time that the tide is turning from one of Garbage pseudoscience to actual truth about the Origins of the Civilization.
2 - Because it is simply the oldest and most documented Ancient Civilization in the world. Black Americans enjoy the study of Egypt with the same zeal that ALL of humanity does as it is arguably THE best human accomplishment in civilization.
My 2 Cents.
beyoku 2 years ago 6
true. people wanna be israelites and moors and all this other sutff when you have history. look it up.
Mr1700 2 years ago
When's the last time you met an African-American who wanted to fight with you by saying that he was related to the Zulu Empire in Southern Africa?
But yet, the Egypt thing is a fixation because white people value it. Black people opeprate through the eyes of white people, even toward their own history.
That's slavery of the mind. That's colonialism.
TruthandJustice101 2 years ago
so true
Mr1700 2 years ago
There's also the issue of his sampling methods artificially adding 'African' affinity too. His DW study decided the remains from a palestinian cemetery were Nubian- which has been shown incorrect by dental studies (more accurate) and is strange claim for somwhere so far from Nubia to start with.
the 'Africaness'- with all Asian crops and an Asian language (AA languages are not african- plenty of disagreement with Keita on that point from linguists as well as geneticists).
scruffypair 2 years ago
Any Notions of Haplogroup E, E3b, Afro-Asiatic, etc having anything other than an African origin are theories that are not in favor due to lack of evidence of simply Eurocentric wishful thinking.
I know you have read the studies, there are remains from the Sahara to Turkey that have affinities at one time or another noted as "Nubian." - Natufian immediately come to mind.
Battaglia and Cruciani also note migration from the Nile valley to the Levant, SE Asian, Europe and Turkey.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
BTW, oethr geologists have debunked Shochs older age for teh sphinx good and proper- visit Hall of Maat for the general howls of derision on that one.
There was a bog population movement from the near East across N Africa about 11k ago BTW, all the DNA studies down support that. So a10k age still wouldn;t have black Africans building it.
scruffypair 2 years ago
I agree with most of what Shomarka has to say. Allthough many times what he says is obscured by racialism. Egypt is indeed an African civilization. But that doesn't mean it was a Black nation. Or a White Nation. Africa is very diverse from the Berbers to the Nubians, the San to the Twa. And Egypt was a child of diversity. And Egypt did trade with the Middle East as well.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Dr. Keita goes lengths not to use certain terms. He refuses to say "black" and instead chooses "Dark" - But from the perspective of Africans: Dark = what we socially call "Black"
-Any person that reads genetics can easily recognize the underlying "Black Africaness" of the Ancient and MODERN population.
-Anyone that OBJECTIVELY looks at the artwork and colors of the paintings or even GOES TO EGYPT can easily recognize it as well.
Dr. keita calls the mummies "Somali Like" Somali = Black.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
Most the mummies recuperated are from southern Egypt. The mummies are just as much Berber like as they are Somali like. And all mummies are not dark. Dr. Keita is quite clear that they weren't just one color. Hed recognizes the heterogeneity of Egyptians like he recognizes the heterogeneity of Africa.
Salsassin 2 years ago
type in : 10a The Berbers: Masters of the Sahara
and see what Berbers look like, they don't all look like the lightskin population that you think they do.
politicalbrownkid 2 years ago
Why would I look at one of the two groups with the most admixture, those being the Kabyle and the Tuareg at the two ends of the spectrum.
Go look up the Chleuh or Chaoui
Salsassin 2 years ago
No, actually he said the Egyptians ranged from tropical African (mixed Eurasian African samples he used for this baseline) to a European value. It's only the Badari crania that came close to an East African value- and they are still as close to moder upper Egyptians.
He's also said there's been very little immigration into Egypt and that they looked the same
scruffypair 2 years ago
He didn't say anything about Eurasians, all you're doing is trying to confuse people buy drowning your non-point in rhetoric, you didn't refute any of his studies, you just cried about it, without proving anything. He didn't say " there's been very little immigration into Egypt" that is you misrepersenting, misqutoing, and out right lying about what he stated.
politicalbrownkid 2 years ago
the modern Egyptians are in the main the descendants of the Pleistocene inhabitants- he says there wasn;' much immigration. He says on a vid here their colouring and cranio facial shape was the same too.
You huys always claim he means tehy were black. He dowesn't He points out many Mahgreb samples have a European value and Egyptians ones are between that and his tropical- half Euirasian- Africans.
scruffypair 2 years ago
How are "Eurasians" reflected in the Y-Chromosome for the populations he references with genetics in the 2004 studies?
No one claims that they were "All Black"
East Africans carrying M35*, M2, or M33 INTO the Nile valley were (as they still are) "Black" or "Brown Skinned"
M35* mutating into the sublcade M78* probably happened amongst "Brown Skin" Africans in "Nubia."
MOST of the Ancient depictions show themselves as "Brown Skin" Africans. Not all But Most, this is what they point out.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
Actually in one study i see Keita using the Teita and Gabon as the only Sub Saharan references.
A later study (2004) uses Dogon, Teita, Zulu, and Somali-Oromo. All pretty homogeneous. When he incudes the Badari (Which Brace 93 Removed) many of the samples cluster with All of the Africans.
Futhermore Keita doesnt say "They looked the same" he says "The Same DIVERSITY EXISTED" - Those are 2 very different statements.
Other studies have an "Ethiopic" cluster that Egyptians cluster with.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
That's Right we somalian = Black orginaly from cushtic. african tribe
taano71 2 years ago
Could you be more blinded by pride of skin colour. "somalian=Black" If you want to sum yourself up to one phenotype than be my guest. You fully missed Dr. Keita's point over skin colour.
LIONOFTHEBRAVE 2 years ago
Black is to Africa what white is to Europe. Berber is a language group and culture, it isn't recognizable by a certain look(phenotype), so to suggest that they repersent a indigenous non-black African is wrong. The only mix of the oringal population that established the culture/civilization of "egypt" were Africans, noone else, and those people, along with the culture come from inner Africa, trade with the "middle east" is a useless point. Egypt was as Black as any other African nation.
politicalbrownkid 2 years ago
LOL> I don't consider all Europeans White. Sorry, Africa is not all Black. Algeria is not a Black nation.
Salsassin 2 years ago
You are in denial... Africa=black. Egypt is in Africa and was a black nation. Its okay dude. We not talking about what it is now with all the invaders living there. Egypt sprang from earlier nile valley civilizations, i.e. uganda, ethiopia, sudan, etc... That is black africa. Lets keep it simple and stop being devilish.
01xman 2 years ago
LMAO. Africa equals Maghreb. It only got used for the rest later. Tehenu and Tamahu. No earlier civilization in Uganda. Pont might have been in Eritrea, but no evidence of an older civilization than Egypt. We do have evidence of migrations from the South, the Est and then West. Try again.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Papyrus of Hunefer... they themselves says they come from the begining of the nile where god Hapi dwells at the foothill of the mountain (mount kilaminjaro). You only study early racist european american scholars who have always lied and usurped african history. The bible also says the garden of eden was Cush=Ethiopia/kenya area. Yes Egypt is the daughter of Cush and Nubia which is the Sudan. Try agin yourself.
01xman 2 years ago
Hunefer was written in the 12th Dynasty. LOL Try something closer to the source. Mount Kilimanjaro is no where close to the source of the Nile. And Eden does not give a place. Cush in the bible is clearly not Ethiopia as it describes rivers like the Tigris and the Euphrates. Look up Kassites. Cushan is Kassite.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Me too. You've never seen me post such silly things. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.
My point is that you should "free your mind" to allow more than one possibility, rather than polarized thinking dispositive of your predisposed bias. But, hey, that's your choice, if you want to remain resistant to objective truthseeking.
Have a nice day. I have other things to do now.
tncdel 2 years ago
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
Are you joking about that? Surely you already know that many Caucasians have dark brown skin too, right? Like in India, Sri Lanka, etc., etc. not to mention also Arabs with dark skin. So what's your point? There is no reason to think that the first humans were "black" or "white" exclusively. Maybe both varieties, maybe dark-skinned with Caucasian features, maybe even with skin tones similar to Arabs.
I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else. Let me know when time travel reveals it. :)
tncdel 2 years ago
Describing any AFRICANS as "Darkskin Caucasians" is based on pseudoscience.
I asked you to answer the 3 questions or NOT POST ABOUT "CAUCASIANS :
1- Who are these Caucasians?
2- What are the genetics marker (Y and Mtdna) ties these "Caucasoids" together.
3- Where do they originate?
You cannot answer this. Why because :
"Today scholars reject the concept because human genome studies have not demonstrated a precise genetic definition of Caucasian"
Answer these 3 Questions in your own words.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
What you call pseudoscience is no more valid than someone who disagrees with you calling your assertions pseudoscience.
Further, you really don't know the answers to the three questions you asked, and neither do I or anyone else, for real. But the difference is that I will admit it, and you won't.
If you want to redefine things to suit yourself, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I know this is something that gives your life meaning. So who am I to begrudge you your fun. :)
tncdel 2 years ago
No, I am sorry you have added zero value to the discussion of the Video.
You are In a sense saying that 1 + "X" = "Y" but your refuse to say or define EXACTLY what "X" is.
Now you are telling me that you "DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED" !
Well that is exactly why I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD! As you say yourself "Caucasian" has no definition. WHY are you describing populations in Abstract Scientifically bankrupt terms that shouldn't be applied to any Africans in ANY Case?
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
No, what I'm saying is that NO ONE really knows, you included. It is all pseudo-science. At best your theories are educated guesses.
Sorry, but I've found in life that there is often a huge gap between real-world facts and academic "facts."
You want to toot your own horn and push your biased agenda, trying to counter opposing academic drivel likewise claimed as fact by those who push their agendas.
Both are equally wrong. Till a time machine is invented, we can only guess about it.
tncdel 2 years ago
It is qseudoscience. Early european (white racist) scholars threw out this darkskinned caucasian bullshit to usurp african history. Caucasians are from the Caucas Mountains of Europe and had absolutely nothing to do with Nile Valley civilizations or accomplishments. They were illiterate and caveman like. They don't even dig up in Europe cause caucasians had nothing of interest. Stop usurping African History with your envious and jealous ways. No such thing has darkskinned Caucasians.
01xman 2 years ago
THey do dig up the Middle East and East Europe. Jericho and Catal Huyuk predate anything in Africa. And in Europe they found a civilization in the Austro German region that, at least, predates the Egyptian Pyramids. The Caucasus is in the Armenian region.
Salsassin 2 years ago
Correct Salsassin But you forget that the Sahara region of Africa the largest & hottest desert in the World a region larger than the U.S is covered by vast oceans of deep sand & barren mountianous rocky plateaus it's very possible there could be lost African Civilization or Kingdoms that predate Egypt or the Near East from the Neolithic wet phase or earlier when the Sahara was heavily populated very little archeological work is conducted in the Sahara because of the harsh environment.
ScarletLoco77 2 years ago
Sal you have to remember to that predating Catal Huyuk 9.000k was Gobekli Tepe 11.500 in Turkey. That civilization challenged scientific orthodoxy because the consensus was that only agriculturalist societies could construct advanced civilizations.Gobekli people were late Pliestocene hunter/gatherers.
And archeologist had claimed 11.500 k ago that humans were not capable of constructing monuments on that scale & the Gobekli Tepe had been inaccurately misdated by scientist in the 80's-90's.
ScarletLoco77 2 years ago
The earliest calendar found in the Saharan desert. The earliest burials found in Sudan. The first seafaring civilization found in Nigeria.
osirica 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, actually a lot of scolars are still using Caucasian and Caucasoid.
The mummies have shown nearly all Eurasian DNA types, AT. Claiming an all black African origin for AE is erroneous, and Keita doesn not support this at all.
The Y chr of Egyptians make it impossible for there to have been any mass Eurasian male immigration historically. Keita has actually said this in writing.
scruffypair 2 years ago
Well they shouldn't be using such term to describe Brown skinned :Africans Modern nor Ancient.
BTW no one here tsays "Ancient Egyptians were "ALL BLACK". We know for a fact that there were external non African and non Black immigrants into the Nile valley.
Llooking at the Y Chromosome though Egypt, the Maghreb, and the Sahara were populated by Sub Saharan East Africans. ALL populations in those areas are M35+.
M35 has an origin in Sub Saharan East Africa - There is no other way around it.
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
don't expect anyone to answer that
Mr1700 2 years ago
I think people know it but I dont think there will be any NEW information and evidence supporting these facts. Much of that is under lake Nasser. And Sudan is talking about building another 7-30 Dams that will flood Sudanese Nubia including areas of the Kerma kingdom destroying the deffufas and much more. It ridiculous.
Keita in the "Neolithic History" video when speaking of Egyptians origins speaks FIRST of Sudan and THEN moves to Egypt and further down the nile..
AfricaTeacher 2 years ago
You have to be kidding... Everyone knows the 1st human beings were black because black is dominant and white is recessive. Black produces brown and shades lighter. White is recessive and cannot produce brown or black. Every race is a mutation of the original black race. So in a way anyone not black/african is a mutant... Get out of denial and stop being of your ancestors which were devilish. India was 1st inhabited by africans thats why the dark skin. The original Buddahs were african.
01xman 2 years ago
Black is not dominant. Skin color is polygenic.
The first Buddhas came from two schools. LOL. Gandhara and Mathura. Look them up.
Salsassin 2 years ago
@01xman
Indians are dark skinned but are not "black" as in African ancestry. The last common ancestor between an Indian and African was 70,000 ybp.
And Buddha was an Indian prince. You want Europeans to stop usurping African history but you Afrocentrists have no problem usurping Chinese, Indian, West Asian history.
PKPMom 2 years ago
@PKPMom And they keep trying to steal egyptian history. their own history of mud huts and tribal wars with spears isnt good enough.
hannityforpres 2 years ago
@hannityforpres
Are you Egyptian? If so, I feel bad for you since you've totally lost your history. It's hard to win against these Afrocentrics because they have all day to keep spamming these videos.
PKPMom 2 years ago
Trying to steal is what they did, how could someone come from another culture, say they are the people of that culture and know nothing of the culture nor have they practiced the very rituals of that culture. Its just logical, the truth is the truth.
You sit here with your racist views like you are better than the facts but yet we don't see you posting studies nor do you have a PHD in anything close to genetic studies.
You like to scream Afrocentrics but you have no idea what it is.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
Ok chew on this:
The Dravidian race consists predominantly of south Indians. They are characterized by their dark complexion, large foreheads and dark hair and eyes. According to experts, this race arrived in India around 3000 B C.
Dravidians are believed to be of African origin. Similarities between their complexion, forehead structure and bone structure support this claim. After their settlement in India, they established a very sophisticated culture.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
There is no Dravidian race. People in S. India are referred to as Dravidians because they speak Dravidian languages. Secondly, the entire India is a varying proportion of Aryan & Dravidian people so you can't separate them. Dravidians were Mediterranean people, not African. Look up Cavalli-Sforza, William Howells or Stephen Oppenheimer, all renowned experts in genetics & anthropology.
PKPMom 2 years ago
Their religion was earth centric and was based on the worship of life-giving forces in nature. They made offerings of plants and herbs to these forces. With the arrival of the Aryans in India around 1500 B C, the Dravidians were forced to move towards the south and central parts of the country. The influence of Aryans in their religion saw a shift from nature-worship to the worship of gods and goddesses based in heaven. Their rituals now involved fire and smoke.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
The roots of Hinduism were sowed with this radical shift in religion.
With the decline in Indus Valley Civilization, the Dravidians established a rich culture in south and central India. Their contribution to the development of language and literature is immense. All the major languages used in south India are of Dravidian origin, Tamil being the root language.
Read this your self here:
india9 . com/i9show/Dravidians-57899 . htm
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
How do you answer Keita who says that both Dravidians and Dravidian languages, including Tamil, originated in Asia? Secondly, the skulls found in Indus valley conform to the people that live in that region now.
PKPMom 2 years ago
@PKPMom He never said the skull was white as a matterof fact if I remember it right he said that the features you would like to call white are from Africa from the start. (Prove me wrong) show me a link
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
Comment removed
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When you're finished chewing on that: Chew on this:
yeyeolade . wordpress . com/2007/03/13/the-blacks-in-i ndiathe-untouchables-are-calle d-dalits/
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
then this: dalitvoice . org/about . htm
Now tell me about them not being our people.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
Wait you said you wanted DNA proof too right? OK
krepublishers . com/02-Journals/IJHG/IJHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/IJHG-08-4-317-368-2008-Abst-PDF/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C/IJHG-08-4-325-08-362-Winder-C-Tt . pdf
Proves they are Nubian as well.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
Your link doesn't work but if I remember correctly, it's Clyde Winters. He's an Afrocentric that's been debunked on all anthropology forums and has no mainstream credibility. You need to do better than give me propaganda websites. Besides, he pays krepublishers to publish his writings where his references are articles he's written before. You'll need to do better.
PKPMom 2 years ago
@PKPMom
Who dunked his findings (Cited it)
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@PKPMom
You've seen the reciept of him paying them?
(Ceit it)
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@PKPMom I would like to see the receipt
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
I got your link to work and yes I was right - it was Clyde Winters. Clyde Winters, Rashidi and people of his ilk are not scientists. Clyde Winters has been trying for ages to connect Dravidians for years all to no avail.
This isn't proof. Show me accepted, mainstream scholars like Cavalli-Sforza or Spencer Wells. If you don't like white scientists, then find someone like Keita. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with propaganda websites.
PKPMom 2 years ago
@PKPMom That study Winter put together was a compilation of many researchers so what are you saying. Oh I get it because he's black it means nothing but I can listen to some white guy and he's right, right? Dalitvoices , org is by the Dalits themselves no whites or African American help. Delusion is something funny. When I present a Indian Doctor who stated he was Dravidian and apart the African family you shot that down too LOL I don't know what to tell yah.
Wasting your time A?
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@PKPMom So now is Ancient Egypt Black since you like Keita?
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
I don't know much about Egypt, its history or genetic but if Keita says so then I believe him since he seems to be someone with integrity.
PKPMom 2 years ago
Ok that's a fair answer.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@PKPMom You shouldn't refuse concrete evidence. Its not good thing to do in a debate when you can't cite anything to refute it. I will not read through hundreds of books to get back to what we have already proven.
MedjayCommander 2 years ago
@MedjayCommander
But you are not presenting evidence. I've been through that link. Clyde Winters contradicts himself. Like Keita, your citation admit that geneticists believe that Dravidian speakers originated in India. He then goes on to call mtDNA M as L3M. There's no such thing as L3M or L3N. Then here's this in your citation: Rosenberg et. al (2006) supports the absence of African genes in Indians. How does any of this support your case?
PKPMom 2 years ago
@PKPMom - I will juse make 2 comments :
1 - I have indeed seen articles that sample M1 IN India. There is also a new mutation "M16" that is found in Madagascar and African Americans.
2 - "L3m" is sort of dumbing it down. The thing is L3 is SO DIVERSE their really IS NO "M" and "N" - Those are just very diverse mutations of L3a. If you Google "Mtdna L3a" you will get a diagram that explains that.
Saying "Mtdna M" is just an easier way of saying Mtdna L3a1Mb2d1r4xxxx...etc"
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher
M1 is absent in India. We're talking population genetics here. And there's no M16 in India either. M & N are descendants of L. N is the predominant mtDNA of Western Europeans while M is the predominant in Asia. So how are people that are subclades of M any more related to L than people that are subclades of N? They are not. Indians are no more related to Africans than are Europeans or other Asians. And geneticists don't use L3M.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@PKPMom Why would you say M1 is absent if I JUST told you I have seen studies where it is present? Did you even LOOK for the results?
watch?v=xeKj-toC3Uc
Someone put the results of several studies into a video. This video is already in my favorites. SO, unless the data from the STUDIES is WRONG........Then M1 IS present in India. That author also post Y-chromosomes shared between Africa and India.
M16 is an African Maternal maker i referenced as proof as a possible origin of M* in Africa.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher Clyde Winters is not a source. Secondly, we're talking population genetics not individual. Even if there were an M1 found in India or West Asia, M1 is of Asian origin (see Anna Olivieri study of 2006)/ And M1 is largely absent in India (see Spencer Wells). And the population of Madagascar is African and Austronesian, not Indian. And M16 is not Indian.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@PKPMom I am not sourcing "Clyde Winters" dont be so obtuse!
You said - "M1 is absent in India"
I then linked a video with population genetic studies that show M1 IN INDIA. That makes you wrong.
M16 is Absent in India. I bring that up as an indication that there are still subclades from the ROOT of M* that are being found IN AFRICA. This leaves open a 'possibility' that M* is African in Origin. WHY? Because the PRECURSORS of M* are in Africa as well as African specific SUBLCADES of M*
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher The video you linked to is by Olmec who is Clyde Winters. M1 is not an Indian subclade. The subclades of M found in India and all of Asia are not found in Africa. The ones found in Africa originated in Asia and are the result of back migration from ME. M is found in China, Japan and E. Europe as well, so how are Indians any more related to you than the Chinese, Japanese or E. Europeans. Indians don't have any closer relationship to Africans than any other non-African.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher In this very video, Keita says that Dravidians "emerged in Asia and speak languages that emerged in Asia and practice cultures that emerged in Asia." This is in contradiction to your guy Olmec, aka Clyde Winters who claims that Dravidians emerged in W. Asia and that Dravidian languages are related to W. African languages.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@PKPMom OBTUSE! - "Clyde Winters" is not the individual publishing articles showing M1 in India. Dont use him as a straw man. I am not SAYING Dravidian are from anywhere else other than India. What i SAID and I stand by is "I HAVE indeed seen articles that sample M1 was in India" :
-Gonzales et al.
-Kivisild et al.
And M16 is not Asian in Origin, It is African, found in African Americans and ethnic groups of Madagascar that come from Africa. Argue about Dravidian origins with others.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher The two studies that Clyde Winters references both contradict what he claims. The Kivisild study states the following: "the absence of HpaI site at nucleotide position (np) 3592 among Indians seems clearly
to negate any recent substatial gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to the peninsula." The Gonzalez study states that M1 has an Asiatic origin. This only proves my point.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher The presence of M1 in India is in much lower frequencies than North Africa, Middle East or Europe. So what if M1 is in India - what does this prove? M1 is also in Europe and W. Asia. This doesn't prove that India has any more closer relationship to Africa than Europe or the rest of Asia.
And M16 is not present in India. If it's present among Africans in Madagascar, that's because Madagascar has a very mixed pop.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@PKPMom What does it prove? It proves that when someone says "M1 is not found in India" - THEY ARE LYING, thats what it proves. I am not arguing about the origin of Indian Ethnic groups, argue that with "Clyde Winters". I am just CONFIRMING the PRESENCE of the M1 marker in India.
M16 is found in African Americans and Madagascar ethnic groups of AFRICAN descent, not Malay. This ADDS evidence to the argument of an African origin of M* and M1 regardless of if the argument is accepted.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher How can M be
PKPMom 1 year ago
@AfricaTeacher Presence of M1 in India doesn't make me a liar as M1 is still not an Asian haplotype and is found in much higher frequencies in Europe & Middle East than in India. Just like R1b, the most common Y in W. Europe, is found in Africa but no sane person considers R1b an African haplotype. It is irrelevant where M originated because the dominant subclades of M in India are autochthonous.
PKPMom 1 year ago
@PKPMom - This is how it goes:
PKPMom - M1 is NOT in India.
AfricaTeacher - M1 IS in found India look at these studies.
Conclusion 1 : "AfricaTeacher" is CORRECT, and "PKPMom" is INCORRECT.
Conclusion 2 : If "PKPMom" KNEW such studies already existed OR "PKPMom" still chooses to say "M1 is NOT in India." then "PKPMom" = A LIAR.
Get it? Got it? - Good.
ALL dominant subclades of M in India are autochthonous. - VERY CORRECT.
I never gave an affiliation to M1 i simply said it EXISTS in India.
AfricaTeacher 1 year ago