In general, the term "Arab" in modern times is applied to a large group of different peoples that share in common the Arabic language, which for the overwhelming majority of them is not their original one but the tongue imposed to their forefathers by the Muslim conquerors. Such a definition is ethnically unsuitable, in the same way as it would be inappropriate to call "Spaniards" to all Spanish-speaking peoples or "English" to all those non-British folks whose primary language is English. It is true that the Arab countries have not only language in common but also most cultural features as well, yet, this is the result of the colonization and subsequent annihilation of the original pre-Arabic culture. Therefore, it is more correct to speak of them as "Arabized" peoples rather than Arabs.
From the ethnic viewpoint, the term "Arab" is roughly equivalent to "Arabian", namely, in reference to the only people considered to be Arab since the beginning and identified as such by themselves and by their neighbours.
t happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population, and 2) in a quite improper way, by calling "Arab" to ancient peoples that existed in the Middle East in order to claim historical rights and legitimate the Arab occupation. So, it is necessary to reach a clear definition in two directions: which peoples are Arabs and which are not. Concerning the origin, the most widespread myth is that Arabs are Ishmaelites, what in the case of all the Arabized peoples is not true at all
The original Arab culture has been lost and the most reliable information we have about it comes from external sources, because Islamic revisionism has produced a legendary account in replacement of the scientific truth, and so one of the most fascinating cultures of the past is now missing.
The Arabian myths have been created in order to legitimate the "pre-existence" of Islam by ascribing fanciful tales allegedly happened in Arabia to Hebrew Patriarchs and Prophets. Through these legends turned into "history", Arabs claim an Avrahamic origin through Yishmael, who was only the forefather of some tribes that intermarried with many other peoples that were already settled in Arabia much earlier than him and within which the Ishmaelite lineage was largely assimilated. Therefore, the equation Arab = Ishmaelite is a myth, because Ishmael was not an Arab, nor the forefather of all Arabs; actually, his descent contributed to the formation of the peoples that came to be known as Arabs some centuries later. Connected with the alleged Ishmaelite identification, the Semitic identity is taken for granted, yet, this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ishmaelites were a mixed group with a strong Hamitic component, as we will see in this essay
I'm sending you a note.
jmsnooks 1 month ago
Lots of interesting data... Thanks for sharing!
gtasoul 1 month ago
Nice video, thank you.
Just see their faces.
They definitively aren't mediterraneans nor white...
beauceronyx 3 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de samysamy25
@samysamy25 No such thing as negroids nor white caucasoids samy.Nice try.
SelfTheSoulfuric 3 months ago
@samysamy25 :Azul fell ak a mis umazigh,tanemirt pour le partage, tu as bien choisi la musique pour la vidéo
gedha:(bravo) ar imiren,
nohara126 4 months ago in playlist Favoris de nohara126
@GodGrandmaster
yeah some north african sub-clades are so recent like that among somalis, sudanese and ethiopians . others are so OLD mainly noticed among nilo-saharans "those are believed to having Holocenic origins from North Africa" Keita's is so biased and a great manipulator..all the ways suggested that upper egypt was the source of migrations to southern africa as far from the paleolithic times. Probably there was a local evolution in east africa nearly successful for proto-negroid type
samysamy25 5 months ago
@GodGrandmaster
Horn African Connection towards Egypt and North Africa is mainly due to the caucaziod side , where afrocentrics have thinking that it was about Negroids. Aframs are obsessed in the topic of east africans. cause they look like better than them and even regarded as "Super Perfect Negroids" due to their caucasian features and Long skulls. and u knows that afro-americans are mainly of congoid-congolese type. this one is Hybrid between archaic speciemen and devolved caucasian
samysamy25 5 months ago
Which, like I pointed out, is not the same as geographically proximate people. That's what the article on Hofmeyr says at least.
GodGrandmaster 5 months ago
@samysamy25 Of course, Brace didn't come to this conclusion in his study of Predynastic Egyptian crania (that there was a closer connection), so I'm of the mind that the Horn African connection is only when you take certain things into consideration; modern East African craniofacial type is also affected by the populations with "Negroid" craniofacial type. But the North African and Near Eastern impact is noticeable, though I'm sure it has something to do with the archaic parent popualtion too
GodGrandmaster 5 months ago
@samysamy25 I understand. I was just talking about that in response to Keita's claims that Upper Egyptians are more similar to the more southerly Africans, including Nubians and Horn Africans, while being of local upper Northeast African evolution, according to him as well. Of course East Africa has been on the receiving end of North African migration...where sub-clades of North African haplogroups are predominant....
GodGrandmaster 5 months ago