Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 24 Feb 2006 22:20 Post subject: AFRICANS
Salsassin wrote:
The problem is the evidence does not show a Black origin for the Greeks. It shows an African Presence among the greeks. There is a difference.
Hi,
The term Africa is problematic because denote a continent and not a race.
Mediterraneans, that's the key. All the people around the mediteranean sea share a genetic stock. And those people live in Southern Europe, Western Asia (Middle East) and North Africa. Palestineans, Jews, Phoenicians, Moors, Greeks, Sicilians, Andalucians, are all related people by history and certainly by genetics.
Take the distance from Sicilia to North Africa or from Gibraltar to Morocco, and it is quite easy to realize the Mediterranean sea was a LESS problematic barrier to cross than the Sahara desert.
Greeks are, by all standards, Europeans. What's wrong with that?
Also, it is very well known that early Greeks went to study to both Egypt and Mesopotamia, and that certain greeks have phoenician ancestry, like Pitagoras. Yes. They were all Mediterranean peoples.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1076 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 27 Feb 2006 14:23 Post subject:
Salsassin wrote:
The problem is the evidence does not show a Black origin for the Greeks. It shows an African Presence among the greeks. There is a difference.
Yes, you're right. I meant to address this by mentioning that Arnaiz-Villena's wording in the title was for attention-getting purposes. He probably should not have said a sub-Saharan origin, but rather a sub-Saharan genetic presence. (But then again, E-M78, a sub-Saharan-originating derivative of sub-Saharan E3b, is present in large numbers in Greeks, and migrated there presumably before the Neolithic; this may indicate a sub-Saharan "origin"). I suppose his wording may have contributed to the controversy on some internet message boards, but not with the controversy in the scientific community of the Jews / Palestineans study, since the latter was the only one pulled, and the Greek information in this study was peripheral. At any rate, despite his wording, it is quite obvious that he only tested some loci, upon which only some conclusions can be drawn from a people as a whole. I don't think he ever meant for it to come across that Greeks are equal to sub-Saharans. But the study does show some sub-Saharan admixture, and this is beyond question. That was the point of my post above.
Omar wrote:
The term Africa is problematic because denote a continent and not a race.
Mediterraneans, that's the key. All the people around the mediteranean sea share a genetic stock. And those people live in Southern Europe, Western Asia (Middle East) and North Africa. Palestineans, Jews, Phoenicians, Moors, Greeks, Sicilians, Andalucians, are all related people by history and certainly by genetics.
Take the distance from Sicilia to North Africa or from Gibraltar to Morocco, and it is quite easy to realize the Mediterranean sea was a LESS problematic barrier to cross than the Sahara desert.
Greeks are, by all standards, Europeans. What's wrong with that?
Also, it is very well known that early Greeks went to study to both Egypt and Mesopotamia, and that certain greeks have phoenician ancestry, like Pitagoras. Yes. They were all Mediterranean peoples.
In this instance, it is clear that they meant sub-Saharan, and not just any African, since they specified Ethiopian alleles in Greeks. I know Ethiopians have "Caucasoid" admixture, but the Ethiopian alleles found in Greeks couldn't be "Caucasoid" because they would have been found in great numbers in surrounding predominantly "Caucasoid" populations, and they weren't. When they tested neighbouring populations, they only found these alleles in any concentration in Ethiopians, which would have to mean they are sub-Saharan.
But this is only a small part of the Greeks' genetic composition, which in general is very similar to that of Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, etc. I'm not arguing that, and I never have. My main point in posting this is to discredit the claims of the Greeks on the old boards I used to post on who claimed the Greeks were the purest whites of all Europeans...absolute drivel! Like Frank has said repeatedly, the Mediterranean has been a genetic mixing bowl throughout the millennia.
Last edited by William on Tue 27 Feb 2007 17:43; edited 3 times in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 27 Feb 2006 15:04 Post subject: AGREE
William wrote:
In this instance, it is clear that they meant sub-Saharan, and not just any African, since they specified Ethiopian alleles in Greeks. I know Ethiopians have "Caucasoid" admixture, but the Ethiopian alleles found in Greeks couldn't be "Caucasoid" because they would have been found in great numbers in surrounding predominantly "Caucasoid" populations, and they weren't. When they tested neighbouring populations, they only found these alleles in any concentration in Ethiopians, which would have to mean they are sub-Saharan.
But this is only a small part of the Greeks' genetic composition, which in general is very similar to that of Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, etc. I'm not arguing that, and I never have. My main point in posting this is to discredit the claims of the Greeks on the old boards I used to post on who claimed the Greeks were the purest whites of all Europeans...absolute drivel! Like Frank has said repeatedly, the Mediterranean has been a genetic mixing bowl throughout the millennia.
Hi,
Well, it is quite clear today that both Egypt and Ethiopy had, since ancient times, admixture with Subsaharian Africans. No doubt about it. Which does not contradict the fact they have large "caucasian" populations as well, and even some nordic looking individuals.
Also, it is quite clear Greeks are not the prototype of "whiteness" White Supremacists dream, either. Yes. The Mediterranean peoples were multiracial since the beginning of history, and centers like Babilonia, Egypt and Palestine were melting pots of different peoples. Greeks themselves are a mixture of Mediterranean with Germanic barbarians.
What is most interesting is that civilization appeared precisely in that melting pot that was the Fertil Crescent. And, for certain, Ethiopy should be more recognized for its contribution to civilization.
And Greeks? Well, they developed their civilization from Crete, but they were to study to Egypt and Babilionia, and they admired their masters.
The old world was not white and black, but a melting pot. That's the lesson we should learn.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
