Kur17:

Jivunie mzeiya!

2018 FIVB World Volleyball Championship, Japan
Group D

Kenya vs Kazakhstan



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpzSLIzFOaM

I think you havent studied the subject matter deeply.The relationship btw niger-congo with bantus as a example with nilo saharan with nilotes as example is solidifying to extend its now thought niger-congo is actually a branch of nilo-sahara.The afro asiatic is also related except maybe for semites where a branch has levant origin..arabs $ jew..otherwise the Chadic afro-asiatic are closely related to east Africa cushites despite living 2000kms away from each other.Africa origin of Afro-Asiatic points to Chad..only one branch of (semite) dont mostly live in Africa - the rest of 4 branches have always lived in Africa - and yet all Afro-Asiatic would love nothing more than Middle-eastern/Levant origin. In summary there is compelling evidence from language, genetics and history that point to Lake Chad basin as homeland of all modern day Africans except the Khoisans. The Khoisan have West Eurasian ancestors - and you can see with their facial features - squinted eyes, small bodies and etc.I know for religious and other reasons all Africans would love to associate with middle east semites (arabic & hebrew jew) - but they'd be very surprised to know the old testament was actually written stories from Lake Chad.


Lake Chad now is a very small lake - most of it covered by desert- but it's Africa biggest basin - and with Nile basin - most of modern day Africans (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Sahara & Afro-Asiatic) most likely traces their origin there - before they split. Maybe the semites belong to Levant - mesopotamia basin - but certainly majority of the rest of Afro-Asiatic - chadic (Hausa), berbers, cushites (somalis, oromos) are african.

Hati13:

Every human are related but the question is how recent? The relation between Bantu, Niolte and Cushite wasn’t recent as you assume. I don’t know where you get the information that Bantu, Niolte, Cushite and Semite had common origin and that was in Chad.

Pre-Cushite and pre-Semite split from Afroasiatic speakers and the latter had no direct relation with Bantu and Nilote (at least most of them). Pre-Bantu and pre-Niolte had also no direct relation with eachother.

Khoisan are related with Africans (not all but some). For example, before the Bantu expansion into East Africa there was a strong connection between them and Ethiopians (genetically).

TayserMahiri:


Sudanese Nubians (blackest folks in black Africa) were the Pharaohs of the 25 th Dynasty of Egypt after invading and conquering from their southern Kush Empire. This explains a lot why people want Kush tied to their his-story. What I have never understood is why Somalis fight to death to claim Kush as their empire when it is so obvious it was a Nubian empire. This was Kush in 700 BC

Not all Sudanese are nubians, and the term Nubians were not a collective group, but it consist of many different nationalities. However there is a difference between the Nuba people from the Nuba mountains, than Nubians.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtA7oKmlWU


This group above is depicted
http://archive.is/rPypk#selection-19.0-26.0

[img]https://archive.is/rPypk/47eb7150f4e59696f915381a7a6af235b7592f36.jpg[/img]

and these are people from the Nuba mountains,





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OylCfLgiZak

[img]https://www.tourprom.ru/site_media/images/news/20837/nubiitsy.jpg[/img]

and both groups was represented although they were separate, one group always resided south, while the other was more or less in various time in history part of Egypt.

Egyptian art also depicts a regional distinction in Nubian physical types.24 During the Old and Middle Kingdoms, Egyptian rule extended to around the third cataract. Nubians are portrayed with skin of varying shades of darkness, distinctive dress and the facial features of an Egyptian. When the New Kingdom
extended its rule south beyond the fourth cataract, there was a corresponding change in the artist’s portrayal of the Nubian. The Southerners are shown with
distinct Negroid features—dark skin, everted lips, prognathous jaws and kinky hair. All of the ancient Nubian wrestlers share a physiognomic
similarity to the south-Nubian Negroes alluded to in the Egyptian sources

http://www.occasionalwitness.com/content/nuba/02Culture04wrestling.htm

rvp2018:
I think you havent studied the subject matter deeply.The relationship btw niger-congo with bantus as a example with nilo saharan with nilotes as example is solidifying to extend its now thought niger-congo is actually a branch of nilo-sahara.The afro asiatic is also related except maybe for semites where a branch has levant origin..arabs $ jew..otherwise the Chadic afro-asiatic are closely related to east Africa cushites despite living 2000kms away from each other.Africa origin of Afro-Asiatic points to Chad..only one branch of (semite) dont mostly live in Africa - the rest of 4 branches have always lived in Africa - and yet all Afro-Asiatic would love nothing more than Middle-eastern/Levant origin. In summary there is compelling evidence from language, genetics and history that point to Lake Chad basin as homeland of all modern day Africans except the Khoisans. The Khoisan have West Eurasian ancestors - and you can see with their facial features - squinted eyes, small bodies and etc.I know for religious and other reasons all Africans would love to associate with middle east semites (arabic & hebrew jew) - but they'd be very surprised to know the old testament was actually written stories from Lake Chad.

Lemme guess all those names used in Old Testament were in Africa. So Syria, Palestine , Canaan, Sinai in Africa. Look boss you know that’s just a lie

Question why do you guys think the white dude have the clear understanding on the subject…Thats the problem with Africans. We don’t believe ourselves (an got nothing to do with science)..look white dude comes n tell you where ya all come from then believe it 100 % then rubbish the folk tales of our ancestors coz this is 21st century n the white guy is always correct….Funny thing some of the called proof got no scientific backing….please wake up and smell the coffee

ababda:



Not all Sudanese are nubians , and the term Nubians were not a collective group, but it consist of many different nationalities. However there is a difference between the Nuba people from the Nuba mountains, than Nubians.

Totally in agreement ....

I am talking about old testament pre-exodus; Genesis, Noah flooding (actually Lake Chad flooding) and the likes were old stories copied from Africa.Majority of the bible of coz is recent history 2,000 that centers around the Jews.

mtisTheQubit:


Lemme guess all those names used in Old Testament were in Africa. So Syria, Palestine , Canaan, Sinai in Africa. Look boss you know that’s just a lie

Scientist or academicians are not "white dudes". The rigors of research and science would eliminate such bias. And those researchers still consider oral histories - as a source but ultimately majority if not all of Africa oral history is only believable by small kids. Just like the bible is only believable by really stupid people.

mtisTheQubit:
Question why do you guys think the white dude have the clear understanding on the subject…Thats the problem with Africans. We don’t believe ourselves (an got nothing to do with science)..look white dude comes n tell you where ya all come from then believe it 100 % then rubbish the folk tales of our ancestors coz this is 21st century n the white guy is always correct….Funny thing some of the called proof got no scientific backing….please wake up and smell the coffee

rvp2018:
I am talking about old testament pre-exodus; Genesis, Noah flooding ( actually Lake Chad flooding ) and the likes were old stories copied from Africa.Majority of the bible of coz is recent history 2,000 that centers around the Jews.

Ok msee ya made my day...

rvp2018:
Scientist or academicians are not "white dudes". The rigors of research and science would eliminate such bias. And those researchers still consider oral histories - as a source but ultimately majority if not all of Africa oral history is only believable by small kids. Just like the bible is only believable by really stupid people.

Boss please calm ya tities..like one would say… lets please stick to science stuff not personal emotions …

You need to really study history. I am talking you going from 100yrs to 1,000yrs to 10,000yrs to 20,000 yrs. The bible is semitic story - the semites are afro-asiatic - who either lived in Africa or Middle East - obviously using just common sense it appears they lived in Africa - because 5 out of 6 of Afro-asiatic live in Africa. The old testament - genesis and all those five books - is collection of old semitic stories - about their origin - more like your oral history passed generation from generation -

mtisTheQubit:

Ok msee ya made my day...

Let me repeat that again - the Bible is semitic oral history only believable by small kids. It's akin to stories you hear about Maasai descending from heaven with a dog or something as inane as that. The bible starts as collection of very old oral history of semites (in this case the hebrews) then proceed to the "modern" recorded history about 2,000 yrs ago under the roman empire (christianity - which jew reject) or Islam (arabic copy paste).

Rain induced flooding legends was common legend - around Lake Chad - and Jews at that time - most likely lived in Lake Chad basin together with proto-bantus, proto-nilotes, proto-cushites etc.

mtisTheQubit:

Boss please calm ya tities..like one would say… lets please stick to science stuff not personal emotions …

rvp2018:
You need to really study history. I am talking you going from 100yrs to 1,000yrs to 10,000yrs to 20,000 yrs. The bible is semitic story - the semites are afro-asiatic - who either lived in Africa or Middle East - obviously using just common sense it appears they lived in Africa - because 5 out of 6 of Afro-asiatic live in Africa. The old testament - genesis and all those five books - is collection of old semitic stories - about their origin - more like your oral history passed generation from generation -

boss we are debating on Bantu migration not the bible...so question why do you dismiss our African folk tales of our ancestors with no scientific proof ..

rvp2018:
Let me repeat that again - the Bible is semitic oral history only believable by small kids. It's akin to stories you hear about Maasai descending from heaven with a dog or something as inane as that. The bible starts as collection of very old oral history of semites (in this case the hebrews) then proceed to the "modern" recorded history about 2,000 yrs ago under the roman empire (christianity - which jew reject ) or Islam ( arabic copy paste ).

Rain induced flooding legends was common legend - around Lake Chad - and Jews at that time - most likely lived in Lake Chad basin together with proto-bantus, proto-nilotes, proto-cushites etc.

like i said calm down please...am only interested in sober discussion...The last bolded quote please provided evidence please not assumption

I am just helping your with condensed history - based on evidence and facts - not idiotic oral histories - do you think unschooled Africa has a concept of North or South - which are scientific construct that are as old as compass - so when you come and say Merus or I don't know who claim to come from Misri or North - you're just parroting child stories like Genesis in the Bible?

So let me help you again.

At the time the start of bible - we are talking about 6,000 yrs ago. At that time - the Bantus did not exist - neither did the Jew exist. That period based on science - proto-current africans - most likely lived together as one tribe - speaking one language - most likely settled either in 3 or 4 areas - Lake Chad (huge basin that occupied 10% of Africa), Nile basin (extending from Sudan to Egypt to Ethiopia) or the Levant(middle east -Mesopotamia basin- Syria-Iraq) - as sedentary farmers. The rest of Africa was populated by small bands of Khoi-sans - the aboriginals - who are west asians based on dna.

The bantus existed around 4,000-3,000 yrs ago as seperate people and language - most likely in Cameroon - meaning they most likely moved south from Lake Chad or Nile Basin - still as farmers. They would disperse - and keep differentiating - into the current tribes. The Nilo-saharans and Afro-asiatic would adopt pastoralism with desertification - and similarly disperse mostly north and east wards. They would be seperated from Bantus by sahara desert belt and tse tse fly belt.

You can say for example kikuyu is closely related to Merus - then to Kambas - then Chaggas & Sukumas - then Hutus/Kongos - then Igbo/Yoruba - then to pre-bantu/proto-bantu - then to Jew/Nilote/Berber/Somali - then older humans - all stretching to about 200,000 yrs!! - then you start jumping to chimpanzees and monkeys as your cousins - and eventually to bacteria as greater cousin - and single celled Amoeba about a billion years as probably your ancestor as a living thing.

mtisTheQubit:

boss we are debating on Bantu migration not the bible...so question why do you dismiss our African folk tales of our ancestors with no scientific proof ..

rvp2018:
I am just helping your with condensed history - based on evidence and facts - not idiotic oral histories - do you think unschooled Africa has a concept of North or South - which are scientific construct that are as old as compass - so when you come and say Merus or I don't know who claim to come from Misri or North - you're just parroting child stories like Genesis in the Bible?

So let me help you again.

At the time the start of bible - we are talking about 6,000 yrs ago. At that time - the Bantus did not exist - neither did the Jew exist. That period based on science - proto-current africans - most likely lived together as one tribe - speaking one language - most likely settled either in 3 or 4 areas - Lake Chad (occupied 10% of Afric), Nile basin (extending sudan to Egypt to Ethiopia) or the Levant(middle east -Mesopotamia basin- Syria-Iraq) - as sedentary farmers. The rest of Africa was populated by small bands of Khoi-sans - the aboriginals - who are west asians based on dna.

The bantus existed around 4,000-3,000 yrs ago as seperate people and language - most likely in Cameroon - meaning they most likely moved south from Lake Chad or Nile Basin - still as farmers. They would disperse - and keep differentiating - into the current tribes. The Nilo-saharans and Afro-asiatic would adopt pastoralism with desertification - and similarly disperse mostly north and east wards. They would be seperated from Bantus by sahara desert belt and tse tse fly belt.

You can say for example kikuyu is closely related to Merus - then to Kambas - then Chaggas & Sukumas - then Hutus/Kongos - then Igbo/Yoruba - then to pre-bantu/proto-bantu - then to Jew/Nilote/Berber/Somali - then older humans - all stretching to about 20,000 yrs!! - then you start jumping to chimpanzees and monkeys as your cousins - and eventually to bacteria as greater cousin - and single celled Amoeba about a billion years as probably your ancestor as a living thing.

Ok boss ya cut to me as a fellow who have read lot of books. That all good but..have got my buts

There is nothing conclusive - this is history - but we go with most compelling evidence - and history get revised with new evidence. You need more than oral history though - because now we've got genetics of plants, animals & people have really studied languages, climates, and dug up deserts & forests - and discovered lots of stuff - that continue to buttress these theories - not by white man - but by brilliant scientist.

mtisTheQubit:


Ok boss ya cut to me as a fellow who have read lot of books. That all good but..have got my buts

rvp2018:
There is nothing conclusive - this is history - but we go with most compelling evidence - and history get revised with new evidence. You need more than oral history though - because now we've got genetics of plants, animals & people have really studied languages, climates, and dug up deserts & forests - and discovered lots of stuff - that continue to buttress these theories - not by white man - but by brilliant scientist.

First , this overall generalization of stuff like new scientific evidence n like is just BS to scare folks to toe the line but smart people think outside the box…
Second wasn’t much interested in the migration debate but kikuyu1 assertion pulled me back. First I thought the guy was crazy but more digging on the matter led to unsettling conclusion that most African tribes had common tales of migration from the north even before Christianity or Islam was introduced in Africa..an we talking of guys from east ,west and south Africa. Question… Did they all make up those stories?…

TayserMahiri:


Its not that straightforward. Do you know the name Bantu appears in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics? You'll find that virtually all Bantu speakers have an oral tradition that asserts they migrated from the North. You'd be insane to imagine that all Bantu peoples conspired to provide one consistent fake story to fool the world.

This site can give some insight, including that Nilotic Kalenjins were a military clan of Egypt

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=40739

Here, Bantu in Egyptian hieroglyphic script.

http://www.kaa-umati.co.uk/Bantu%20in%20Ancient%20Egypt.htm

Ultimately, one is to use their mental faculties to deduce what is believable and what is not. For me, the Niger - Congo origin hypothesis is likely correct but strictly as far as 'origin' goes. Beyond that, it limits the possibilities that the migration took an elliptical route from the central point. Obviously as some Watus were cutting through the dense forests eastwards and southwards, which btw took a very very long time, others were using easier routes in a north-easterly direction, helped by the holocene and the fact that the Sahara was not so extreme to the south by then as now. Thats how humans operate. People are rarely ever unanimous. Some groups would easily head straight north-east to the halfway point of the Nile River, whose name is recorded as Iteru in Ancient Egyptian language (very Bantoid sounding). The Nile itself used to pass through Libya at some point before it was pirated by a river that is now the northern Nile, which is what we know today. It used to curve westwards to Libya but its not exactly clear when it was fully swallowed and 'straightened'. So, the idea that all Bantus moved east-southwards ignores a lot of factors and over considers others like the impact of the Sahara, and that those folks were also in competition and rivalry over resources, and they were multiplying insanely fast. So, all moving in one direction is not so plausible. More plausible is to expect some radiation from the central point, with exception of DIRECT north, due, of course, to the Sahara. Do you know its actually possible that most of the first groups moved east and north east, avoiding the insanely dense impenetrable forest and then redistributed to their current locations from the north east and east? i.e southwards and westwards. Thats what all of the oral traditions suggest. And as I told you , its not likely that all Bantu peoples decided to fool the world by creating one unanimous fake story from Kenya all the way to South africa and central and west africa. That would have to be the most extensive lie ever conjured, requiring a lot of logistics and cooperation .

well put boss

TayserMahiri:




ok qubit

always resonating

rvp2018:
One word for you.We are in 21st century where genetics have been mapped.Quit relying on oral stories.Africa was divided by Sahara which stretches across africa and tse tse fly belt.Bantus couldnt move north without adopting pastoralism and Northern Africa could not cross the tse tse fly belt with their cattle. There is little evidence bantus ever were north or were cattle keepers..their lactose intolerance is dead give away.Sahara and tse tse fly belt divide Africa in nearly everything..culture, language, genetics

Ancient Egyptians were farmers who grew food crops such as wheat, barley, vegetables, figs, melons, pomegranates and vines. Your assertion that Bantus could only become pastoralists shows you dont even have an idea what part of the world we are talking about. Not Libya, not Algeria, not Morocco. Egypt! There's the Nile for farming!

rvp2018:
I think you havent studied the subject matter deeply.The relationship btw niger-congo with bantus as a example with nilo saharan with nilotes as example is solidifying to extend its now thought niger-congo is actually a branch of nilo-sahara.The afro asiatic is also related except maybe for semites where a branch has levant origin..arabs $ jew..otherwise the Chadic afro-asiatic are closely related to east Africa cushites despite living 2000kms away from each other.Africa origin of Afro-Asiatic points to Chad..only one branch of (semite) dont mostly live in Africa - the rest of 4 branches have always lived in Africa - and yet all Afro-Asiatic would love nothing more than Middle-eastern/Levant origin. In summary there is compelling evidence from language, genetics and history that point to Lake Chad basin as homeland of all modern day Africans except the Khoisans. The Khoisan have West Eurasian ancestors - and you can see with their facial features - squinted eyes, small bodies and etc.I know for religious and other reasons all Africans would love to associate with middle east semites (arabic & hebrew jew) - but they'd be very surprised to know the old testament was actually written stories from Lake Chad.


Lake Chad now is a very small lake - most of it covered by desert- but it's Africa biggest basin - and with Nile basin - most of modern day Africans (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Sahara & Afro-Asiatic) most likely traces their origin there - before they split. Maybe the semites belong to Levant - mesopotamia basin - but certainly majority of the rest of Afro-Asiatic - chadic (Hausa), berbers, cushites (somalis, oromos) are african.

Afroasiatic origin was in Ethiopia not Chad. I don’t know why you wan to relate this group with Chad. Even Semitic branch origin was in Ethiopia. Those proto-Semite who stayed in Ethiopia became the ancestors of EthioSemitic speakers while those who went to the Middle East became the ancestors of non-Africa Semitic speakers.

All humans including Africans originated in Ethiopia. Khoisan are African origin. Again I don’t know where you are getting your informations from.

rvp2018:
Right make that 4b.. very long time indeed

For what to happen?

rvp2018:
So they went north and disappeared into mummies. Well there is no denying that proto-bantus, proto-nilotes and proto-cushites are related..they definitely were one people who possibly split up in Chad ..

You think they split up 3 or 4 thousand years ago? You really need lessons in human history.

Hati13:

Oromo had nothing to do with Kush civilization. This also apply for Somali. The only Cushite ppl part of Kush were Beja since they were already present in Sudan in ancient time.

Nubians and other Sudanese need to start claiming Kush/Ethiopia. Their scholars claim it but the mass population don’t. I think most of them being extrem Islam contributed for them not to care about their pre Islam history.

Wenedem, you are definitely playing Ethiopian politics now. Theres a lot of literature showing that Oromos were part of Kush, including that their civilization could have led to the development or at least played a part. The problem with Ethio history is things get messy when Oromos are involved. Non-Oromos (essentially govt elements) assert that Oromo had nothing to do with the empire with some very fishy motives. I really dont know why you folks detest Oromos that much. On the other hand, Oromos claim most of Kush (and Nubian) history is fake with an agenda to marginalize them, and they are the real owners. Do you know one Dr. Megalommatis? He is an Oromo intellectual.

This is the first dna of my people,100 percent African, Bantu and the Khoisan = Southern Africa . Bantu Forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0cZNsJwIiM

rvp2018:


The khoisan are NOT related with Africans but more linked to Asians.The relationship is hierarchical.The same way proto oromos and proto somalis were one people before they became oromo $ somalis.Humans were once localised before spreading into races, tribes and such.

What a disingenuous job you're doing misinforming people. If something is not your forte please dont force it and dont make things up. What the hell?

Khoisan are related to other Africans and largely so from the San end. Remember Khoisan is an amalgamation of two ancient tribes, the Khoikhoi and the Sans. They must have told you that in History.

This is the story from DNA.

About 140,000 years ago human populations from East or Central Africa moved southwards and “colonise” western southern Africa. The probable nearest living relatives of these source populations are:

the Hadzabe people from north-central Tanzania; and

Mbuti pygmies from the eastern Congo.

This migration gave rise to the present-day San hunter-gatherers.

Much more recently – about 2000 years ago – there was a second movement of “colonists” from the north into southwestern Africa. They gave rise to the pastoral Khoikhoi people.

This second group of “settlers” carried within its genome bits of Eurasian-sourced – and even some Neanderthal – DNA derived from European humans who had returned to Africa about 3000 years ago.

Subsequent to this second colonisation, there was intermixing between the Khoikhoi and San. This gave rise to their close anatomical similarities despite the fact that they retained their marked cultural and linguistic differences.

Much more recently – about 1700 years ago – there was a third major north-to-south migration. This time it was the Bantu-speaking Africans into south-eastern Africa. Those “settlers” that eventually became the Xhosa peoples moved westwards and encountered the Khoikhoi, whom they drove further west and intermixed with genetically.

https://theconversation.com/how-the-origin-of-the-khoisan-tells-us-that-race-has-no-place-in-human-ancestry-53594

One last thing, humanity's relationship is not hierarchical as you claim. Its a Network! The relationship between Khoisans and other people, for example, is not ladder-like. You are doing terrible injustice to knowledge.