Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 18:11 Post subject: Re: Khoi-San
Altertude wrote:
Not wrong key, wrong glasses
Hi,
Beep!
I don't think so. Khoi-San are only "skin deep" Black people. Similarities between Bantues and Khoi-San seem to be superficial. This is something anthropologists have shown and genetics also agrees. "Blacks" of the region belong to two different "races". Is like the relation that exist between an Inuit and a Mayan native. Or between a Norwegian and a Greek.
Quote:
In the thread “Where Have All The Blacks Gone”
oevega wrote:
These ones, perhaps, would be consider blacks
.
This quote is out of context. The point is was if a group of North Africans could "pass" as Europeans. In fact many do. These group is of people I judge they will be noticed in Europe. And, because Europeans only know about Europeans and other, certainly they will be classified as Blacks in there.
In Latin America it would be deferent:
Dark skin and European features. She could be confussed with Cuban mullata.
This guy has "Latino" facial features and dark skin. He would be considered Cuban or Brazilian mulatto.
The lady above is Black African. No interpretation on her.
This fellow would be considered a "moreno" (brown). There are lots of Iberians and Italians that are close to that phenotype. Actually, about half Arabs have that phenotype as well. In fact, he look like Mario Moreno, Cantinflas, a Mexican comedian.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 06 May 2006 19:44 Post subject: Re: Khoi-San
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Not wrong key, wrong glasses
Hi,
Beep!
I don't think so. Khoi-San are only "skin deep" Black people.
Hi,
What does that mean?
Quote:
Similarities between Bantues and Khoi-San seem to be superficial. This is something anthropologists have shown and genetics also agrees. "Blacks" of the region belong to two different "races". Is like the relation that exist between an Inuit and a Mayan native. Or between a Norwegian and a Greek.
Anthropologists and missionaries have been making arbitrary divisions between Africans tribal nations, and putting them together in artifical countries for centuries, and I don't see why you even need to use "races" in this context?
Bantues and Khoi-San have lived on the continent called Africa for thousands of years. Yes, I do think so because Norwegian and Greeks are not thought of as "superficially similar" and of two different "races" are they?
oevega wrote:
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
In the thread “Where Have All The Blacks Gone”
These ones, perhaps, would be consider blacks
This quote is out of context. The point is was if a group of North Africans could "pass" as Europeans. In fact many do. These group is of people I judge they will be noticed in Europe. And, because Europeans only know about Europeans and other, certainly they will be classified as Blacks in there.
In Latin America it would be deferent:
Dark skin and European features. She could be confussed with Cuban mullata.
This guy has "Latino" facial features and dark skin. He would be considered Cuban or Brazilian mulatto.
The lady above is Black African. No interpretation on her.
This fellow would be considered a "moreno" (brown). There are lots of Iberians and Italians that are close to that phenotype. Actually, about half Arabs have that phenotype as well. In fact, he look like Mario Moreno, Cantinflas, a Mexican comedian.
Regards,
Omar Vega
I was having trouble putting some of your different posts into a context where I could make sense of them, or believe this is what you truly thought. This is why wanted to compare these pictorial assessments with the ones you made above. Saying one of them look Asian was just not credible to me. I seem to recall the context as Salsassin posting pictures of what he saw as typical North Africans (Imazighen/Berbers/Touaregs). My apologies, if I thought you meant, 'these are too dark for Berbers they look sub-Saharan' to me. The problem I think I'm getting at is in the Rules about writing as if you are speaking with the backing of your whole culture—the 'royal WE.
Now you seem to be saying here that a person's color is not fixed and final—it depends on the context. If that is the case, similarities between Bantues and Khoi-San in terms of skin color appear significant. If anthropologists, or the Bantues or Khoi-San themselves have told us about these peoples culture, we may understand yet more signs of unity between them.
I am getting pretty frustrated dealing with non-Africans trying to tell me about my people so I am going to wrap it up and address a few points. I don't know what your agenda is but my point is 1) The Khoi-San, like ALL indiginous sub-saharan African people, are Black Africans
You have not proved this.
Quote:
2) the earliest homo sapien sapiens resembled the Khoi-San peoples who are the oldest living link to them
No they did not.
Quote:
I would take offense to you calling yourself of 'African descent'. I realize you said Afrodescent, but just keep in mind you have nothing to do with my people. You are in no right to tell ME who my people are or aren't, I would die for the Africans of Senegal just like I would the Khoi-San of the Kalahari or the Oromo of Ethiopia.
I could care less what you would die for. Speak for the people of Zambia, cause nobody made you the officila spokesman of all of Africa.
Quote:
All Africans after colonialism identify themselves as racially Black (with the exception of some confused Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis). The Bantu and most West Africans belong to the same Niger-Congo language family, btw, and the Bantu originated in eastern Nigeria/western Cameroon 4000 years ago.
You have yet to prove this as well.
Quote:
Khoi-San are the purest people alive, Khoi-San identifying people have not mixed with the Bantu. There may be physical differences but as dark skinned African people, they are Black Africans.
Wrong, they haven't been isolated enough to be pure. Andamanese have more genetic 'purity' than KhoiSan.
Quote:
[b]The impact of the Bantu expansion on pre-existing hunter-gatherer communities was also appreciable. The contribution of Bantu-speaking peoples to the male-specific gene pool of the Pygmies is >50%, and a similar degree of admixture is detected also in the Khoisan-speaking !Kung (45%) and Khwe (58%). These Y-chromosome data agree with mtDNA data showing a higher “Bantu component” in the Khwe than in the !Kung (Chen et al. 2000)[b]
Quote:
Africans are one family.
humans are one family.
Quote:
I have a Scottish great grandfather and that's it, my hair is no different then my father who is 'pure' (or my mother and her siblings who aren't for that matter). Do you have eyes? The pictures of the Khoi-San I posted have nappy hair, it's not curly or straight, just uncombed.
nappy is a common term, it does not address levels of thickness or curliness in the hair.
Quote:
Correct, humanity is of African origin but you have nothing to do with us beyond pre-historic migrations. Non-Africans lost their phenotype (non Blacks) or culture (Western Blacks).
Wrong again. You are getting good at it. Population migrations out of Africa have been continuous all the way through historic times.
Quote:
I don't deny that it is subjective, but what is your point. Most Papa New Guineans could pass for Africans, most Irish cannot.
Depends which part of Africa. And Which irish. Some native Americans can pass as Japanese, doesn't make them so.
Quote:
Anyone can clearly see the similarities between the Bantu and Khoi-San as dark skinned sub-saharan African people
Similarities do not make the people the same. I can point out similarities with other populations as well.
Quote:
I think we have agreed that it is subjective, but the general consensus is that Koreans are not Black so with every 'social construct' are generaly agreed upon 'rules'. The Khoi-San are dark skinned African people with African hair, they qualify as Black Africans.
So basically you are saying because the majority of the people think the world is flat, that makes it so.
Quote:
Race is subjective, you're right. But why do you and White people have more of an authority on African categorizations then me, an African and other Black Africans?
They don't. Race doesn't exist.
Quote:
Haile Mengistu Mariam does not have the phenotype of Caucasian people
He may have some. Or maybe more Bantu ancestry. WHo knows. Halle Selasie who he overthrew definitely did.
Quote:
The Bantu are not generally mixed with the Khoi-San, only the Zulu and Xhosa have Khoi-San influence. You can see it in Nelson Mandela (Xhosa).
Wrong again. The KhoiSanid people used to range over most of Afrca, you see traces of their language and their genetics in various populations, but not everyone. All the way in Ethiopia.
Quote:
What business is it of yours who I consider my people?
About the same as you considering who I claim as mine.
Quote:
And Bushmen are homo sapien sapiens resembling the earliest homo sapien sapiens.
Wrong.
Quote:
Coming from an Afro-Latino, huh? I have NEVER even my life heard an African say they were not Black besides some Cushites. My parents raised me to believe I would have to work 3 times harder then White people to succeed in this society as a Black man, I don't have time to write an encylopedia on this, I know my own people.
You know some people Zambia. I know people inother parts of Africa. Your point?
Quote:
NO. You are NOT my family. I could care less whether you live or die. This is not a personal attack, I simply don't care about Afro-Peruvians. Tell me about Peru, not Black Africans.
Tell me about Zambians,and stopthinking you speak for all Africans.
Quote:
All Africans are not the same single ethnic group but all Africans share a common Africanness. Who appointed you the authority on this?
The same nobody that appointed you. The fact is many Africans do not feel that there is some Pan African culture.
nappy is a common term, it does not address levels of thickness or curliness in the hair.
You are getting pretty ridiculous. 'Nappy' refers to tightly coiled or 'wool' like hair. Other features are one thing, but the Bantu and Khoi-San CLEALRY share the same hair texture. Do you have 20/20 vision? I haven't heard anyone else on this forum, despite our differences, blatantly deny the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same hair texture.
In regards to your other stupidity
Quote:
In 2003 the press widely reported suggestions by Alec Knight and Joanna Mountain of Stanford University that the original human language may have had clicks. The evidence for this is genetic: the Ju/’hoan and the Hadza have the most divergent known mitochondrial DNA of any human populations, suggesting that they were the first, or at least among the first, surviving peoples to have split off the family tree. In other words, the three primary genetic divisions of humanity are the Hadzabe, the Ju|’hoansi and relatives, and everyone else. Since two of the three groups speak languages with clicks, perhaps their common ancestral language, which by implication is the ancestral language for all humankind, had clicks as well
The Khoisan show the largest genetic diversity in mtDNA of all human populations. Y chromosome data also indicates that they were some of the first lineages to branch from the main human family tree
Their distinct hunter-gatherer culture stretches back over 20 000 years, and their
genetic origins reach back over one million years. Recent research indicates that the San are
the oldest genetic stock of contemporary humanity. TEN thousand years ago their exclussive
domain stretched from the Zambezi to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic tothe Indian Oceans
I don't know what your agenda is but you are out of your mind, you really are ridiculous. Claiming race as a social construct is one thing, I can undertsand that.I can't sit here and deny it's not subjective or defined by human perception and culture. As much as I storngly' disagree', I can even see classifying the Khoi-San as distinct from the Bantu because there are obvious differences, inspite of hair texture and being African people. What I cannot COMPREHEND, is how you can blatantly look at a pictures of the Khoi-San I provided and say they don't have the same hair texture as the Bantu and one is "more kinky" (WTF?) then the other. What I cannot believe or stand is the fact that with all your claims you haven't COUNTERED the proof I've provided that the Khoi-San are the closest link we have to the early (and anatomically modern) homo sapien sapiens, this is established by "race doesn't exist" mainstream SCIENTISTS. The Hadza, by the way, are dark skinned.
Although uncombed and knotty, can ANYONE else, even with other disagreements, for all its worth, blatantly deny the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same kinky hair texture. Exactly how is someones hair "MORE" kinky then another (with Afro textured hair).Salassin, my hair looks like a 'Bushman's when I wake up, lol. It can be tight and hard or soft and 'fluffy' depending on how wet/dry or if its combed, my hair doesn't always look the same but it's the same texture. This man is a fool. All our other arguements are one thing (even though I'm right) but if you have eyes you can see they have the same hair texture as the Bantu. Salassin is an idiot through and through, he doesn't make any sense. What would it mean to him if the Khoi-San were our earliest link to the original (and anatomically modern) homo sapien sapiens? There's no denying they are the world's oldest peoples and I've provided proof.
Last edited by African_Prince on Sun 07 May 2006 16:54; edited 1 time in total
You are getting pretty ridiculous. 'Nappy' refers to tightly coiled or 'wool' like hair. Other features are one thing, but the Bantu and Khoi-San CLEALRY share the same hair texture. Do you have 20/20 vision? I haven't heard anyone else on this forum, despite our differences, blatantly deny the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same hair texture.
Nice try. Nappy just means Kinky; frizzy.
Again, I am not going by pictures, but just what I had read. You may be right.
Quote:
Bushmen are a naked, hungry people, slight of build and yellow-skinned; the only feature they have in common with their large-boned, darker-skinned neighbors, the Negro or Bantu tribes living at the edges of the Bushmen's territory, is their peppercorn curly hair. Otherwise, Bushmen are very like the Asian peoples, often having Mongolian eyefolds and rather broad, flat faces with almost no noses at all. Because of the dust, perspiration, and the blazing sun, their skins darken to a copper brown, but under their arms where sweat has washed the dust away the yellow skin shows. Bushman babies, in fact, are born pale pink, often with a dark, pigmented area at the base of their spines which Kung Bushmen call "the jar"- because, they say, the mother carries her baby and her water jar together in the pouch of her garment-but which we know as the Mongolian Spot.
Only two living populations are to day known to still (occasionally and increasingly rarely) have steatopygous women. Both are (or until very recently have been) among the few remaining hunting-gathering societies: the Khoisan of South Africa and the Andamanese. That those two populations also have in common the rare "peppercorn hair" type (see below) adds to the suspicions that they are somehow related. If so, it is a relationship that would go back right to the development of the earliest modern Homo sapiens. That he and she developed in Africa there is little doubt today.
Identity: The Sandawe are racially different from the surrounding tribes. Whereas most of the tribes in Tanzania are Bantu people, the Sandawe are San. They have lighter skin and are smaller, with knotty hair like that of the Bushmen, commonly referred to as peppercorn hair. They have the epicanthic fold of the eyelid (like East Asian peoples) common to the Bushmen.
Straight hair is found throughout most of the world, including the Americas, Asia, and parts of Europe. Europe has the most variation in hair curvature, ranging from straight to very wavy. The Middle East and North Africa have a lot of wavy and a few curly heads. Subsaharan Africans range from curly to very curly. The most curly hair is found in the Khoisans whose hair is often so tightly curled that it is called peppercorn hair because it looks like pepper corns placed on their heads.
Note the natural tendency to see the scalp because of the tight curls unless the hair is longer.
Yeah, it is just my imagination. These guys have the exact same hair.
I don't know what your agenda is but you are out of your mind, you really are ridiculous.
Your ad hominems will not change the anthropological claims.
Quote:
Claiming race as a social construct is one thing, I can undertsand that.I can't sit here and deny it's not subjective or defined by human perception and culture. As much as I storngly' disagree', I can even see classifying the Khoi-San as distinct from the Bantu because there are obvious differences, inspite of hair texture and being African people. What I cannot COMPREHEND, is how you can blatantly look at a pictures of the Khoi-San I provided and say they don't have the same hair texture as the Bantu and one is "more kinky" (WTF?) then the other. What I cannot believe or stand is the fact that with all your claims you haven't COUNTERED the proof I've provided that the Khoi-San are the closest link we have to the early homo sapien sapiens, this is established by "race doesn't exist" mainstream SCIENTISTS. The Hadza, by the way, are dark skinned.
Nice try. I address your claims below and above. As for the Hadza, so what? As Frank pointed out the latest study points to the KhoiSan and the Sandawe who are lighter are of the same age as the Hadza.
Quote:
Although uncombed and knotty, can ANYONE else, even with other disagreements, for all its worth, blatantly deny the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same kinky hair texture.
Obviously people do.
Quote:
Exactly how is someones hair "MORE" kinky then another (with Afro textured hair).
Ask the anthropologist.
Quote:
Salassin, my hair looks like a 'Bushman's when I wake up, lol. It can be tight and hard or soft and 'fluffy' depending on how wet/dry or if its combed, my hair doesn't always look the same but it's the same texture.
Go email the authors of those sites and tell them about your hair.
Quote:
This man is a fool. All our other arguements are one thing (even though I'm right) but if you have eyes you can see they have the same hair texture as the Bantu.
You failed your eye exam.
Quote:
Salassin is an idiot through and through, he doesn't make any sense. What would it mean to him if the Khoi-San were our earliest link to the original homo sapien sapiens? There's no denying they are the world's oldest peoples and I've provided proof.
Oldest LIVING people. The stupidity of some people.
Quote:
Quote:
In 2003 the press widely reported suggestions by Alec Knight and Joanna Mountain of Stanford University that the original human language may have had clicks. The evidence for this is genetic: the Ju/’hoan and the Hadza have the most divergent known mitochondrial DNA of any human populations, suggesting that they were the first, or at least among the first, surviving peoples to have split off the family tree. In other words, the three primary genetic divisions of humanity are the Hadzabe, the Ju|’hoansi and relatives, and everyone else. Since two of the three groups speak languages with clicks, perhaps their common ancestral language, which by implication is the ancestral language for all humankind, had clicks as well
The Khoisan show the largest genetic diversity in mtDNA of all human populations. Y chromosome data also indicates that they were some of the first lineages to branch from the main human family tree
Their distinct hunter-gatherer culture stretches back over 20 000 years, and their
genetic origins reach back over one million years. Recent research indicates that the San are
the oldest genetic stock of contemporary humanity. TEN thousand years ago their exclussive
domain stretched from the Zambezi to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Atlantic tothe Indian Oceans
Yep, the earliest LIVING people. And none of their language or their genetic evidence for this addresses their PHENOTYPE.
The oldest human crania found enough to identify phenotype is that of Herto Man. also known as Homo Idaltu.
As anthropologist Chris Stringer wrote:
Quote:
Every population has evolved over the last 150,000 years and we cannot assume that our last common ancestor had any particular "racial" characteristics. The Herto skull is huge and robust, and thus very different from the crania of modern people such as the San or Sandawe. Of any crania in the recent past it most resembles material like those from the late Pleistocene of Australia, but whether they show a retention of ancestral characteristics or re-evolved robusticity within Australia is uncertain.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 07 May 2006 17:19 Post subject: Blindness
Hi,
Hi, I really can't understand how you can find physical similarities between a Bantu person that look like this:
With another person (Koishan) that look like this
(For me this guy looks Asian)
Or another Koishan who like this
(For me this guy recall me Australoids and even some Caucasoids)
Look at the shape of the eyes, standard in the bantu, Asian in the khoisans.
Look at the nose, very wide and round in the Bantu, medium and well defined in the Koishan.
Look at the skin color and texture.
Look at the thickness of lips.
Even in hair, notice how much hair bantues have and how little Khoison have.
The shape of the skull is different as well.
No. You don't convince me both people are the same group at all.
For me, it is obvious Koi-shans are a race that have many things in common with Blacks but also with Asians, Australoids, Europeans. It is just common sense. They are supposed to be some of the of the oldest people alive, and is very likely all mankind descend from them.
The "nappy hair" is just irrelevant. Just one or two genes in common between Koishan and Bantues don't converte them in the same group in genetical terms. I just don't believe Koishans, that have so few hair, could comb theirs like Jimmy Hendrix
Again, I am not going by pictures, but just what I had read. You may be right.
Anyone can see the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same hair texture. I know my own hair texture. I have the same hair texture as other Bantu and Khoi-San. Hair can be styled differently, same hair texture.
Quote:
Only two living populations are to day known to still (occasionally and increasingly rarely) have steatopygous women. Both are (or until very recently have been) among the few remaining hunting-gathering societies: the Khoisan of South Africa and the Andamanese. That those two populations also have in common the rare "peppercorn hair" type (see below) adds to the suspicions that they are somehow related. If so, it is a relationship that would go back right to the development of the earliest modern Homo sapiens. That he and she developed in Africa there is little doubt today.
You are so damn weird (I am interested in the link between the Andamanese and the Khoi-San though). Aren't you White? You see non Khoi-San Black kids with peppercorn hair ALL the time. I had peppercorn hair when I was a kid. Not all the 'Bushmen' have peppercorn hair when they grow it out either.
Quote:
(The Khoisan have probably the kinkiest hair on earth, called “peppercorn” hair.)
Khoi-San hair is no different then African hair, they wear it uncombed and knotty. ANY Black person with kinky hair can have peppercorn hair, as I said, you see non Khoi-San Black kids with peppercorn hair ALL the time, are you really serious?? I did however think that you meant the Bantu had kinkier hair then the Khoi-San.
Quote:
Note the natural tendency to see the scalp because of the tight curls unless the hair is longer.
Yeah, it is just my imagination. These guys have the exact same hair.
They have the same hair TEXTURE not the same hair 'STYLE'
Like I've been saying, if you go to Zambia you see kids with knotty/peppercorn hair ALL the time. Do you live in Peru. You even see little ghetto Black kids in the U.S with peppercorn hair ALL the time where you can 'see the scalp'. Not ALL 'Bushmen' have peppercorn hair when they GROW IT OUT
Quote:
Your ad hominems will not change the anthropological claims.
You've seen my quotes in my previous post.
Quote:
Nice try. I address your claims below and above. As for the Hadza, so what? As Frank pointed out the latest study points to the KhoiSan and the Sandawe who are lighter are of the same age as the Hadza.
Quote:
Obviously people do.
I'd like to see ANYONE else who does....
You are telling me about my own hair texture and that of my own family. I really can't believe you, seriously though YOU SEE NON KHOI-SAN BLACK KIDS WITH PEPPER CORN OR KNOTTY HAIR ALL THE TIME. The Khoi-San wear there hair that way because it is uncombed and knotty due to their lifestyle.
Quote:
Ask the anthropologist.
No anthropologist claimed the Khoi-San have kinkeier hair then the Bantu, that link was an aesthetic observation. No one genetically has peppercorn hair, not all the Khoi-San do.I swear on my life and soul ou see African and Black American kids with parted peppercorn hair ALL the time, you are unbelievable. Where do you live?
Quote:
Go email the authors of those sites and tell them about your hair.
You are telling me that I and other Bantu have a different hair texture then the Khoi-San when the Khoi-San pics (the non peppercorn ones) are the same hair texture as me
Quote:
You failed your eye exam.
You are nuts. In all seriousness. Everyone can see the difference in STYLE (even then their are Bantu kids with peppercorn hair and Khoi-San people with longer kinky hair ).
Quote:
Oldest LIVING people. The stupidity of some people.
I've provided you with the links on their genetic relation to the earliest homo sapien sapiens. This is getting tiring.
Quote:
Yep, the earliest LIVING people. And none of their language or their genetic evidence for this addresses their PHENOTYPE.
The Khoi-San are their direct descendents (I've provided the dna proof), furthermore these were anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens, why would you speculate the African climate would have ever produced non-African looking people.
Quote:
The oldest human crania found enough to identify phenotype is that of Herto Man. also known as Homo Idaltu.
Homo sapien IDALTU. We are a sub-species of homo sapiens known as homo SAPIEN SAPIEN.
Quote:
Every population has evolved over the last 150,000 years and we cannot assume that our last common ancestor had any particular "racial" characteristics. The Herto skull is huge and robust, and thus very different from the crania of modern people such as the San or Sandawe. Of any crania in the recent past it most resembles material like those from the late Pleistocene of Australia, but whether they show a retention of ancestral characteristics or re-evolved robusticity within Australia is uncertain.
[/quote]
Learn the difference between homo sapien sapien and homo sapien idaltu.
Neither do many of the little girls in this picture
I found a picture of a Zambian girl with peppercorn hair but the link (when you go to google, it says 'see full size image', it says page forbidden) but maybe you'll find it at this website where its supposed to be from
Zambian boy with peppercorn hair, not as good as the other picture
Zambian children, not much hair but you can see the pattern
Not only are there plenty of peppercorn headed non - Khoi San Black children but you are blatantly sitting here claiming (telling me that I'M the one with eye problems ) that these Bantu
do not have the same hair texture as the Khoi-San I posted. You are a fool.
Last edited by African_Prince on Sun 07 May 2006 18:08; edited 4 times in total
Posted: Sun 07 May 2006 17:52 Post subject: Re: Blindness
Quote:
Even in hair, notice how much hair bantues have and how little Khoison have.
So is this genetic or aesthetic? There are Bantu with peppercorn hair and Khoi-San who DON'T have peppercorn hair when they grow it out.
Quote:
No. You don't convince me both people are the same group at all.
You're not African, who cares what you think.
Quote:
For me, it is obvious Koi-shans are a race that have many things in common with Blacks but also with Asians, Australoids, Europeans. It is just common sense. They are supposed to be some of the of the oldest people alive, and is very likely all mankind descend from them.
People keep making a Mongloid connection, but the Khoi-San are indiginous to southern and eastern Africa. The East Asians likely got their features from them, not vice versa. As much as you frustrate me, thank you for acknowledging mankind likely descended from them.
Quote:
The "nappy hair" is just irrelevant
.
It is irrelevent to YOU.
Quote:
Just one or two genes in common between Koishan and Bantues don't converte them in the same group in genetical terms
.
The same comparison can be made of Bantu and Nilotes, but they are still African people. I read somewhere about the similarity between Bantu and Khoi-San but I haven't posted because I don't know the details. The fact of the matter remains that they are indiginous sub-saharan African people.
Quote:
I just don't believe Koishans, that have so few hair, could comb theirs like Jimmy Hendrix
Neither could Bantu with little hair.
Last edited by African_Prince on Sun 07 May 2006 18:10; edited 1 time in total
1. I am growing increasingly weary of your ad hominems. Stop doing this.
2. This is the forum for molecular anthropology and genetics. A few messages ago, I asked "What unique physical or genetic traits do Africans have in common?" I was trying to move this thread away from poltical self-identity (a topic for a different forum) and back onto molecular anthropology and genetics. I would be grateful if you would please address my question.
1. I am growing increasingly weary of your ad hominems. Stop doing this.
2. This is the forum for molecular anthropology and genetics. A few messages ago, I asked "What unique physical or genetic traits do Africans have in common?" I was trying to move this thread away from poltical self-identity (a topic for a different forum) and back onto molecular anthropology and genetics. I would be grateful if you would please address my question.
For one, only African descended people (incl. the Andamanese and Melanesians) have kinky hair although not all Africans have kinky hair. (I know, I know, several Whites, Native Americans, Chinese, etc. have kinky hair, pictures please ).
I see a broad phenotype shared by all these people. I consider all indiginous sub-saharan African people to be my people and this is my right whether you agree or not.
For one, only African descended people (incl. the Andamanese and Melanesians) have kinky hair although not all Africans have kinky hair.
I was asking for a trait that is unique to sub-Saharan Africans. "Kinky hair" is far from unique to today's Africans. Today's Andamanese and Melanesians are no more closely related to today's sub-Saharan Africans than are today's Norwegians or Scots.
African_Prince wrote:
I see a broad phenotype shared by all these people. I consider all indiginous sub-saharan African people to be my people and this is my right whether you agree or not.
Andamanese and Melanesians are not indigenous sub-Saharan Africans. And while you may think that you have the right to label others as you wish, whether they agree or not, such socio-political labeling has nothing to with molecular anthropology or genetics.
My stance has nothing to do with whether I agree with your labels. I neigher agree nor disagree. (To be frank, I think it rather childish to label others.) That is not my point. My point is that this forum is not for discussions of socio-political labeling--whether voluntarily self-applied or involuntarily applied by someone else, as in your case. This forum is for discussions of molecular anthropology or genetics. Unless this thread moves back onto the topic of the forum I shall move it to one of the special interest fora. You can continue discussing socio-political labeling there.
Last edited by fwsweet on Thu 18 May 2006 15:57; edited 2 times in total
For one, only African descended people (incl. the Andamanese and Melanesians) have kinky hair although not all Africans have kinky hair.
I was asking for a trait that is unique to sub-Saharan Africans. This trait is far from unique to today's Africans. Today's Andamanese and Melanesians and no more closely related to today's sub-Saharan Africans than are today's Norwegians or Scots.
African_Prince wrote:
I see a broad phenotype shared by all these people. I consider all indiginous sub-saharan African people to be my people and this is my right whether you agree or not.
Andamanese and Melanesians are not indigenous sub-Saharan Africans. And while you may think that you have the right to label others as you wish, whether they agree or not, such socio-political labeling has nothing to with molecular anthropology or genetics.
My stance has nothing to do with whether I agree with your labels. I neigher agree nor disagree. (To be frank, I think it rather childish to label others.) That is not my point. My point is that this forum is not for discussions of socio-political labeling--whether voluntarily self-applied or involuntarily applied by someone else, as in your case. This forum is for discussions of molecular anthropology or genetics. Unless this thread moves back onto the topic of the forum I shall move it to one of the special interest fora. You can continue discussing socio-political labeling there.
How is my 'labeling' childish? The Khoi-San are indiginous sub-saharan African people, that's not my opinion. I believe the dictionary definition for Black or Negroid is something along the lines of 'descended from indiginous sub-saharan African people'. I 'label' Nigeria a West African country, is that 'chilidish'. I am a Black African and I consider all Black/indiginous sub-saharan Africans to be my people, what business is it of yours who I identify with? End all labels and stop being a hypocrite. 'Khoi- San', 'Bushman', 'Zambian','American' are all 'labels', you just don't oppose them.
As the studies you cite show, today's Andamanese are no more closely related to today's sub-Saharan Africans than are today's Scots or Norwegians. I am still looking for a trait that is UNIQUE to today's sub-Saharan Africans. The very fact that Andamaners have the trait you mentioned means that it is NOT UNIQUE to today's sub-Saharan Africans. Surely, this is not that challenging a concept.
African_Prince wrote:
The Khoi-San are indiginous sub-saharan African people, that's not my opinion.
We were talking about Andamaners, not Khoisan. I was asking for a trait that is UNIQUE and IN COMMON to today's sub-Saharan Africans.
African_Prince wrote:
I believe the dictionary definition for Black or Negroid is something along the lines of 'descended from indiginous sub-saharan African people'.
That is just silly. Our entire species is "'descended from indigenous sub-saharan African people." Do you consider the entire species to be "your people"? I was asking for a trait that is UNIQUE and IN COMMON to today's sub-Saharan Africans.
This is my last request for at least some content related to molecular anthropology or genetics.
We were talking about Andamaners, not Khoisan. I was asking for a trait that is UNIQUE and IN COMMON to today's sub-Saharan Africans.
In regards to the Andamanese I provided links, My pointing out that the Khoi-San are indiginous sub-saharan African people was in reference to your claim that my 'labeling' people was childish. What all indiginous sub-saharan African people have in common is that they are indiginous sub-saharan African people.....
It is subjective, but I identify with all indiginous sub-saharan African people. I am more concerned with ethnicity then I am race.
Quote:
That is just silly. Our entire species is "'descended from indigenous sub-saharan African people." Do you consider the entire species to be "your people"? I was asking for a trait that is UNIQUE and IN COMMON to today's sub-Saharan Africans.
Our entire human race is DESCENDED from indiginous sub-saharan African people, this doesn't mean our entire race ARE indiginous sub-saharan African people. Black Americans are of recent West African origin and I don't consider them to be my people
Just so I have an EXSCUSE not to respond no matter how tempting, you have my word that this is my last post in this thread. This is my claim or agenda:
1) The Khoi-San, as indiginous sub-saharan African people, are BLACK African people
2) The earliest homo sapien sapiens that mankind is universally descended from resembled the Khoi-San peoples, linguistically, culturally and by phenotype. These were anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens, why speculate that the sub-saharan African climate has ever produced non-African looking people
3) In regards to Salassin and even Oevega's claims : The Khoi-San and Bantu share the SAME African hair texture.Hair style (ie. uncombed and knotty) is not the same thing as hair texture. There are pepper corn haired Bantu children and Khoi-San with their hair grown out. The Khoi-San and Bantu share the same kinky African hair texture, for whatever its worth to you. Further more the Andamanese, Melanesians and sub-saharan African descended people are the only people with that hair texture (although not all East African groups have kinky hair and it's not due to mixture).
I am NOT responding to any more posts. I have said my peice, none of you have an authority on reality. I've grown tired and frustrated and have outlined in three points my position in this debate. I'm not even going to look at the thread responses.
It is subjective, but I identify with all indiginous sub-saharan African people. I am more concerned with ethnicity then I am race.
That pretty well sums it up. Although there is nothing wrong with your identity or your concern, you have been posting into the wrong forum (molecular anthropology and genetics).
Anyone can see the Khoi-San and Bantu share the same hair texture. I know my own hair texture. I have the same hair texture as other Bantu and Khoi-San. Hair can be styled differently, same hair texture.
All hair has the same texture. It is its thickness and curliness that differs. And obviously, it varies by population.
Quote:
You are so damn weird (I am interested in the link between the Andamanese and the Khoi-San though). Aren't you White? You see non Khoi-San Black kids with peppercorn hair ALL the time. I had peppercorn hair when I was a kid. Not all the 'Bushmen' have peppercorn hair when they grow it out either.
Feelfree to show a picture of you with your peppercorn hair.
It doesn't state absolutes, just predomonance. And admixture will cause even more variation.
Quote:
Khoi-San hair is no different then African hair, they wear it uncombed and knotty. ANY Black person with kinky hair can have peppercorn hair, as I said, you see non Khoi-San Black kids with peppercorn hair ALL the time, are you really serious?? I did however think that you meant the Bantu had kinkier hair then the Khoi-San.
There is a difference between knotty hair from being untouched and tighntness of curl. Nice try.
Quote:
I'd like to see ANYONE else who does....
I gave the links.
Quote:
You are telling me about my own hair texture and that of my own family. I really can't believe you, seriously though YOU SEE NON KHOI-SAN BLACK KIDS WITH PEPPER CORN OR KNOTTY HAIR ALL THE TIME. The Khoi-San wear there hair that way because it is uncombed and knotty due to their lifestyle.
So you have KhoiSan in your family? Would explain it.
Quote:
No anthropologist claimed the Khoi-San have kinkeier hair then the Bantu, that link was an aesthetic observation. No one genetically has peppercorn hair, not all the Khoi-San do.I swear on my life and soul ou see African and Black American kids with parted peppercorn hair ALL the time, you are unbelievable. Where do you live?
Atlanta. ANd those links where from anthropological sites.
Quote:
You are telling me that I and other Bantu have a different hair texture then the Khoi-San when the Khoi-San pics (the non peppercorn ones) are the same hair texture as me
Yep, different patterns can exist in the same population.
Quote:
You are nuts. In all seriousness. Everyone can see the difference in STYLE (even then their are Bantu kids with peppercorn hair and Khoi-San people with longer kinky hair ).
No styling involved. Natural growth
Quote:
I've provided you with the links on their genetic relation to the earliest homo sapien sapiens. This is getting tiring.
Wrong, you have provided links to them being genetically the oldest living.
Quote:
The Khoi-San are their direct descendents (I've provided the dna proof), furthermore these were anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens, why would you speculate the African climate would have ever produced non-African looking people.
Non modern looking does not mean non-african. And we are all direct descendants of them.
Quote:
Homo sapien IDALTU. We are a sub-species of homo sapiens known as homo SAPIEN SAPIEN.
Nice try. That is still a human ancestor.
Quote:
he implications of the Herto find for modern human origins are clear. Here were H. sapiens, more primitive than anyone now living but recognisably members of our own species, living in north-eastern Africa at a time when the Neandertal people were in sole occupation of Europe. Even later than Herto, the only people for whom we have evidence were still non-modern - an enigmatic Neandertal-like skull from Maba in China, and late H. erectus in Java. Just as predicted by the Out-of-Africa model, modern humans appear in Africa long before they are known from anywhere else.
There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterise any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as “generalised modern humans”. Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races.
When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area. The earliest H. sapiens specimen outside the Africa/Levant region is from Liujiang in China, whose dating was recently confirmed at 67,000 BP by a group led by Guanjun Shen of Nanjing Normal University. Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a “generalised modern”; it has no Mongoloid features.
The East Asian fossil record is not good enough to show when Mongoloid features began to develop. All we can say is that they must have developed before the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 BP) because this is when people began to cross what is now the Bering Strait (which was then a land-bridge); and Native Americans are Mongoloid.
H. sapiens began to enter Europe about 40,000 BP, but it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features - the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France.
Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.
And Australia? The earliest widely accepted dates for human occupation are of the order of 60,000 BP, not more, according to Bert Roberts of La Trobe University and the late Rhys Jones of the Australian National University. The claim that the Mungo Man skeleton is 62,000 BP has recently been challenged. According to a recent study led by Jim Bowler of Melbourne University, both Mungo Man and Mungo Woman may be only 40,000 years old (AS, April 2003, pp.18-21), but they are still the earliest skeletal remains we have from Australia. Are they Australoid?
Of all “major races”, Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full-blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Antón and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too.
In summary, the new discovery at Herto does not shatter any myths, but it extends the dataset, shifts the weight of evidence yet more decisively in favour of the Out-of-Africa model of modern human evolution, and helps to place modern racial variation very firmly into context.
Colin Groves is professor of archaeology and anthropology at the Australian National University.
Quote:
Learn the difference between homo sapien sapien and homo sapien idaltu.
It seems it is you who have to learn.
Zambia has had Khisanid populations and admixture. Your point.
Last edited by Salsassin on Sat 26 Aug 2006 21:28; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 {Posts: 26 } Location: Yazoo City, Mississippi
Posted: Sat 26 Aug 2006 11:52 Post subject:
The Khoisan are *NOT* the indigenous peoples of East Africa, there is no evidence for this in the fossil record. I have a pdf in my yahoo group that clealy demonstrates this.
The Khoisan are *NOT* the indigenous peoples of East Africa, there is no evidence for this in the fossil record. I have a pdf in my yahoo group that clealy demonstrates this.
Please provide a link. Several independent peer-reviewed, published studies (available in our "Various Admixture Studies" thread) have suggested that the Khoisan (and certain indigenous Ethiopians) share the deepest clade of our species's phylogeography. Furthermore. as we have discussed at length in another thread about EM35*, today's geographical marker patterns suggest that the Bantu expansion pushed the Khoisan's ancestors out of east Africa. Hence, I (and probably most members of this forum) would be interested in reading your pdf.
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 {Posts: 26 } Location: Yazoo City, Mississippi
Posted: Sat 26 Aug 2006 16:57 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Charles_Rigaud wrote:
The Khoisan are *NOT* the indigenous peoples of East Africa, there is no evidence for this in the fossil record. I have a pdf in my yahoo group that clealy demonstrates this.
Please provide a link. Several independent peer-reviewed, published studies (available in our "Various Admixture Studies" thread) have suggested that the Khoisan (and certain indigenous Ethiopians) share the deepest clade of our species's phylogeography. Furthermore. as we have discussed at length in another thread about EM35*, today's geographical marker patterns suggest that the Bantu expansion pushed the Khoisan's ancestors out of east Africa. Hence, I (and probably most members of this forum) would be interested in reading your pdf.
The study I'm referring to is
The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72
Who were the later Pleistocene Eastern Africans?
L . A . SCHEPARTZ
Abstract
A later Pleistocene Khoisan peopling of eastern Africa has been suggested by most researchers. The evidence cited consists of a few isolated crania, archaeological occurrences described as 'Wilton', rock paintings and scattered populations of present-day hunter gatherers speaking languages with clicks and viewed as bearing some physical resemblances
to living Khoisan groups. When these different lines of evidence are evaluated, it is clear that there is no strong basis for retaining the concept of later Pleistocene Khoisan populations in eastern Africa. Instead, the available data suggest that the later Pleistocene and Holocene
eastern Africans were tall, linear peoples.
I have the full text in my yahoo group. The skeletal evidence doesn't support Khoisan people once inhabiting East Africa.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
