https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5P2F_oUVM

KidStranglehold:


Is there any reasons why horners are disliked?

because of their fake superiority complex

gallivant:


Finally, someone with some sense.Last time I checked Sudan was not in the horn.I would also like to add that Ethiopians are hamitic, not cushites.

i know right

superdog531:
We north sudanese are mixed nilo saharan and arab we are not cushite we are more related to other nilo saharans

THANK YOU somebody gets it

KidStranglehold:


How was your experience with American blacks while you were in America?

I ask because some characters on this site like to view African Americans as stereotypical things such as "thugs, drugs addicts, prisoners, single parents,etc" without even ever being in America.

which is funny because whats the difference between this


and this

Fulaman198:


You do realize the first picture you linked is not of a Fulani, in the Fulfulde language those are the Rimaybe or those who were slaves integrated into Fulani culture. There is a HUGE difference. You don't really know anything about Fulani culture.

The Fulani caste system is a very interesting one.

You have the slaves who represent the Maccube or Rimaybe class and then you have the pure Fulani who are the Rimbe. Even today, we recognise those who are not truly Fulani by their names (though many Rimaybe in order to fit now possess full Fulani names). An example is Juldeh Camara who says he is Fulani (he is now by culture but not by blood or looks). His name "Camara" is a Mande name, which means he was a Mande slave integrated into Fulani culture thus is part of the Rimaybe caste system.

If you don't understand something, instead of jumping to your own useless conclusions, you can ask questions and sound intelligent.

so basically the Fulani are like the honers. straight haired soft features rule. the standard kinky haired blacks are slaves

Supper:


No we're not.

"It is estimated that over 50% of the slaves imported to North America came from areas where Islam was followed by at least a minority population. Thus, no less than 200,000 came from regions influenced by Islam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Slaves

Islam, historically, has had virtually no presence in lower Central Africa(what you're probably referring to as modern day Angola & the Congo). Which, is not to downplay the significance that had here(they kicked off one of our most ground breaking slave rebellions), but they were not the majority as north American slave masters came to despise them.

Just stop speaking on what you have no clue about.

in some areas

here is a are the Africans black Americans are made out of

Senegambia—13 percent (coast between present day Senegal and Gambia)
Gold Coast—16 percent (most of present day Ghana)
Bight of Biafra—23 percent (most of present day Nigeria and Cameroon))
Windward Coast—11 percent (present day Liberia and Ivory Coast)
Region between Angola and Congo—25 percent (present day Congo, Zaire, Angola, Namibia)

South Carolina

40 percent of all Africans arrived through Charleston, SC from the following areas:

Angola/Congo represented 40 percent
Senegambia represented 19 percent
Windward Coast represented 16 percent
Gold Coast represented 13 percent

anyway black culture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hWWVrEHaRA

the banjo


despite it being a redneck stereotype it has African origins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea9GzQ7331w

"There are several theories concerning the origin of the name banjo. It may derive from the Kimbundu term mbanza. Some etymologists believe it comes from a dialectal pronunciation of the Portuguese "bandore" or from an early anglicisation of the Spanish word bandurria, though other research suggests that it may come from a West African term for a bamboo stick formerly used for the instrument's neck.

Various instruments in Africa, chief among them the kora, feature a skin head and gourd (or similar shell) body. The African instruments differ from early African American banjos in that the necks do not possess a Western-style fingerboard and tuning pegs, instead having stick necks, with strings attached to the neck with loops for tuning. Banjos with fingerboards and tuning pegs are known from the Caribbean as early as the 17th century. 18th- and early 19th-century writers transcribed the name of these instruments variously as bangie, banza, banjer, and banjar. Instruments similar to the banjo (e.g., the Japanese shamisen, Persian tar, and Moroccan sintir) have been played in many countries. Another likely banjo ancestor is the akonting, a spike folk lute played by the Jola tribe of Senegambia, and the ubaw-akwala of the Igbo. Similar instruments include the xalam of Senegal and the ngoni of the Wassoulou region including parts of Mali, Guinea, and Côte d'Ivoire, as well as a larger variation of the ngoni developed in Morocco by sub-Saharan Africans known as the gimbri."

akonting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc9Y_uu1KH8

muafrika:
Good point on distance. But the East Coast Arabs reached as far as the Congo, though am not sure they got slaves too. [b]How does genetics prove? I thought many AAs were Nilotic [/b]while South Americans and islanders were mostly Bantu thanks to the Portuguese dealing with mostly East and Central African slaves while Brits dealt with W. Africa?

who told you that? AA's are mostly of west/central Africa

Supper:


I'm disputing your erroneous point about slaves only coming from the coast of Africa, which wasn't the case, especially for those destined for mainland North America where they were actually preferred. I didn't say anything about nilotes.

i did not say only i just said why would they go through the trouble. their are Malagasy slaves in peru but it's very small compared to the niger-congo groups. anyway Tyra Banks height is not because of nilotic genes.

ababda:


I think that is more or less isolation Terry, for example any group of people that "let say" isolate themselves or marry within themselves will develop certain characteristics that separate themselves from other people. That is why certain groups nearly all look alike from a outside observer point of view.

true but when they mean isolation i think they mean very little contact with other parts of the world.

Supper:


I see you're not only severely lacking in knowledge when it comes to African ethnography, but also of African diasporan ethnography.

Famous white Natchez Mississippi planter/slaver, William Dunbar, express that Mississippi planters held a preference for Africans from the interior, stating "there are certain nations from the interior of Africa the individuals of which I have always found more civilized, at least better disposed than those from the coast, such as Bornon, Houssa, Zanfara, Zegzeg, Kapina, and Tombootoo regions". "The bornon" are those from the bornu empire, the "Houssa" are the Hausa, "Kapina" refers to those from the Katsina region of present day northern /Vigeria and Southern /Viger. "Zanfara" refers to the Zamfara region, another region in present day Northern /Vigeria and southern /Viger. Tombootoo refers to the Bambara of Mail. All of these regions had heavy islamic influenced populations.

Also, please explain the American slave narrative of people like the Nilo-Saharan Zarma, Mahommah Gardo Baquaqua.
http://www.blackpast.org/gah/baquaqua-mahommah-gardo-1824-1857

still not nilotic though

Fulaman198:


Those guys in the Andaman islands could give Nilotic groups a run for their money in melanin composition.

they are most likely the darkest people on the planet

Supper:


No, original humans, homo sapiens idaltu, certainly didn't look any thing them or any humans alive today, homo sapiens sapiens. Evolution doesn't stop for a group of people just because they inhabit the same place that's said to be where the original homo sapien arose from. IE Modern day ethiopians aren't going to possess the same genetics or phenotype as the homo sapiens idaltu.

but you don't change much ether if you don't have much of an outside influence from others. these people been isolated for thousands of years


"The Andaman islands have been inhabited for several thousand years, at the very least. The earliest archaeological evidence yet documented goes back some 2,200 years; however, the indications from genetic, cultural and isolation studies suggests that the islands may have been inhabited as early as the Middle Paleolithic. The indigenous Andamanese people appear to have lived on the islands in substantial isolation from that time until the 18th century CE."


and then we got Aboriginal Australians
"in a genetic study in 2011, researchers found evidence, in DNA samples taken from strands of Aboriginal people's hair, that the ancestors of the Aboriginal population split off from the ancestors of the European and Asian populations between 62,000 and 75,000 years ago—roughly 24,000 years before the European and Asian populations split off from each other. These Aboriginal ancestors migrated into South Asia and then into Australia, where they stayed, with the result that, outside of Africa, the Aboriginal peoples have occupied the same territory continuously longer than any other human populations. These findings suggest that modern Aboriginal peoples are the direct descendants of migrants to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago. This finding is supported by earlier archaeological finds of human remains near Lake Mungo that date to 45,000 years ago."

homo sapiens idaltu looks like an aboriginal to a degree

Supper:


Anatolia [b]IS apart of Asia! smh And yes, the original turkic speaking peoples did arise out of Central Asia.[/b] Keep in mind I said turkic-SPEAKING people, not turkic-LOOKING people. Which is what I'm trying to drill into your head- that someone being Turkic or not is not based on what they looked like, but the language they speak.

So, for instance if we found out that the turkish langauge from Turkey's morphology, lexicon, and vocabulary is more in line with the original proto-turkic langauge than say, Turkic-Uighers from xinjiang, then guess what? Turks from Turkey would be more Turkic, than Uighers by the only sensible definition there is. Damn how they look.

you know what i meant

KidStranglehold:
Although the study's main focus was on Africa, Tishkoff and her colleagues studied DNA markers from around the planet, identifying 14 "ancestral clusters" for all of humanity. Nine of those clusters are in Africa. "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe, Tishkoff said.
Study Finds Africans More Genetically Diverse Than Other Populations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002485.html

im talking about looks. all of these people are Asian


[img]http://dc376.4shared.com/img/fF-j-Fy1/s3/1312c4d2ac0/Chinese_Girl[/img]

[img]http://abagond.files./2009/09/orang_asli3.jpg[/img]

muafrika:
How would you be sure? Consider that there are nilotes as far south as Tanzania and Congo.

slave records, genetics, culture. why would they go far into Africa to get slaves when there are plenty on the coast

Supper:


Considering it's genetics that determines phenotype, I'd say you've reached a cross-road in contradictory double thinking here. And even though it's subjective I'd still wager to bet that Africa has more phenotype diversity. Only thing is if I show you two picture of completely different looking Africans you'll just say that one is pure and the other is unpure.

And if that's the case, to play your game, I say that the west Asians in that pic are unpure as they might be mixed from Byzantine Europeans from the Roman empire or something.


So, then what was you point about all of the oldest people having similar looks, and including Negritos from Asia in the pic? When those features are as I said chosen by nature to fit the humid environments in which those people lived for thousands of years. I has nothing to due with being the "oldest people".

im saying the first humans look similar to those people

KidStranglehold:
According to Terrycars screwed logic. Only this represents "true pure" Africa.


Meanwhile these Khosians do not, because they don't fit his screwed views.


Even though they carry the oldest lineages. Are those Khoisan girls not "true pure" Africans?

Khoisan are the true south Africans

Supper:


No, that's what central Asian Turkic speaking people tend to look like. Anatolian & Caucasian Turkic speaking people tend to look different. And considering "turkic" is a language-based group. I'd say "purity"(if there exist such a thing) would be based on linguistic, not phenotype. Which could be determined by asking the questions like which turkic language has the highest number of words of "turkic" origin? Not, who looks the most "turkic".

yea it's called mixing/assimilation. Turks came out of Asia and took over Anatolia mostly with culture & language rather then genetics

Darfur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87aKQwXtNs

Fulaman198:


Nah the north you linked is not. What you posted are people with strong Mediterranean links from Greece, Rome and Turkey who have been assimilated into what they believe African culture to be

a ironically this is what "pure" turks look like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTCJ5hedcVA

Supper:


Just cause someone doesn't fit whatever contrived definition of "black" you have doesn't mean they're any less "pure" or indigenous than the next African. African diversity pretty much violates every Euro-American-centric definition of "race" there is(which is what you seem to be going off of). What part of "most genetically diverse continent" don't you understand?

genetically yes diverse in looks? no asia blows africa out of the water with looks

BTW.........Melanesians, Andaman islanders, and Australian Aboriginals have absolutely no genetic connections with any African groups that aren't shared with the entire human species. Their phenotypes are simply the result of traits being selected for evolutionary adaptations to a humid and/or tropical environment.

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

Fulaman198:


Your first picture with the obvious white ladies shows people of obvious Greek, Roman and Turk history. The women for crying out loud have red hair. They are no different from white south Africans

the very north is part of African diversity whether you or i like it or not. Moroccans & the other northerners may not like blacks or mixed in their nation but they are still part of Africa & they should accept that. north African are only African when it benefits them, like honers are only black when it benefits them

Fulaman198:


First picture are not really Africans that's where you and I disagree. Do you believe that white south Africans are African as well?

south African yes African hell no

KidStranglehold:


Its not about calling everyone black when "black" is more of a western term itself.

Africans


Africans


Africans

muafrika:
I would say even physical features unique to AAs, as there.

They are a mix of many physical features which many times exist separately according to ethnic groups( as in Bantus, Nilotes....or rather, smaller, specific ethnicities) in Africa.

Lets analyse Tyra Banks..


Those beautifull eyes are Bantu...

And the beautiful jaw bones

The height, body mostly nilote.

Colour...Who knows

nilotic were never slaves in the Americas

KidStranglehold:


I'm surprised Terrycar(no offense to him) is saying some of these things when he was one of the main contributors in my African diversity phenotype thread.

Like I said Africa has the highest diversity due hosting some of the oldest people on Earth. Saying that Africans have one type of skin tone is nonsense when we already know this:

i know African diversity like the mixed north. blasian Madagascar and others. i just don't call everybody black.