"Sub-Saharan" African Labeling Correct or Incorrect ??

[beyoku]

^ I actually dont mind the term "Negro/Negroid" either. With that term you can describe a set of features or a variation and talk about any population around the globe. If there is a "Black" population in Southern Algeria that has been there for 10's of thousands of years its not correct to call them "Sub Saharan". Negro fits well though.

[AMICHAI]

Genetics got nothing to do with race, ethnicity. Black africa is based on appearance and not genetics, culture, religion.

This thread specifically asked about E1B1A's (genetics) being labeled sub-saharan correctly or incorrectly, considering they're historical occupation of lands within, above, and below the pseudo boarder called the sahara. That means that you are somewhat off-topic (by bringing up appearance). However, your suggestion of calling E1B1A's (people that are usually labeled sub-saharan) "black africans", neglects people that may have E1B1A ydna but do not look "black african" (vice versa). It also neglects the existence of them in lands prior to them being labeled "sub-saharan" (by people that were not in the land for most of E1B1A's existence). Get it??

[Lol_Race]

Niger-Congo, Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan and Indo-European are all broad language families and Keita is correct in stating that what you see today doesn't always reflect what was in the not too distant past. My personal opinion of some of your views is that you put too much emphasis on raw data and not enough on how they arrive at those conclusions. There might be broad correlation between language and ancestry based on recent events and gene exchange, but just think about it, most of the language families today arose after the uniparental and autosomal variants they associated with today. I don't think Keita pretends to know the details of everything, he urges more caution and asks more questions than anything else.

I don't know what you're trying to say. I look at the data and not how they arrived at their conclusions? In the recent Ethiopian study, I actually ignored their estimated admixture proportions and the admixture dating. I don't think the admixture date makes any sense for most of the groups (the ancient mixture in India was also dated to a similar period using the same software), and I don't know how reliable their Africa vs. Eurasia method is, because I have no idea how well it works. It seems odd to just run them against CEU and Yoruba.

If you criticize these studies, you should specifically identify what it is that's wrong with the model. Exemplify, if possible. If you are unable to specify what's wrong but still mistrust the results based on other forms of genetic data or data from other disciplines, specifically state what you are basing that on and why you think it overrules this particular piece of evidence. Then we might be able to have a healthy discussion.

Saying that northern-central Ethiopians can't have 40-50% admixture because "that's impossible" and 20% or whatever makes more sense to you (maybe that's what you'd prefer) is not something I'll ever take seriously. You have no idea what the Afroasiatics coming from the north were like genetically, or what the exact impact of proto-Ethiosemites was. And neither do I. That is why I look at genetic comparisons between groups to see what inferences are possible based on the known history about the interaction between the sampled groups.

Do you even know how this modern technology works before you criticize? Some of this modern technology comes with caveats and liabilities you don't even read about, you get totally fixated on raw data. If you run tests on the same populations using different techniques and different samples you get different conclusions which means they're only as good as what the user puts into it. And please stop saying people criticize because they don't like results, thats not a reasonable argument. I saw that video Keita even talked about a theory he will not ignore about how R1b1* came into Chadic speakers from the Middle East while other people are dissing the theory as diffusionism. He uses the PN2 example to show how African peoples all tie into one another and are not totally separate discrete units. He rightfully criticized another Y DNA study for suggesting Fulani came from the Middle East, studies need to be critiqued for accuracy.

I'm not some omniscient being who knows exactly what the statistical models are based on and what results will be generated in every instance based on some perfect understanding of the software, if that's what you're asking. I doubt even the authors of the software would fit that description. But I have seen a whole lot of data, a whole lot of abundantly clear correlations with other discplines, and therefore trust in my own ability to make up my own mind based on the available samples and analyses, even if geneticists may suggest something different, and even though I am aware of some possible caveats. No shit about ADMIXTURE output being dependent on input, do you have a suggestion for how it could be used in a better way? Bandar Qasim's global database of samples should work well enough, and you can see all of the runs from K=2 to K=10.

My experience since I started visiting these kinds of forums is that the same people who complain about the methods used in some of these studies (again, usually without specifying) are often guilty themselves of blatant bias, posting selective studies or quotes that don't necessarily even support their argument, and posting autosomal studies with obvious flaws (e.g. a very low resolution), whenever it fits their own agenda. So I stopped taking those Afrocentrists seriously a long time ago.

The argument per se, i.e. that the Eurasian ancestry in East Africans may be overestimated in some instances, is something that I've been open to ever since joining this board. So it's not the core "Afrocentric" argument I have a problem with, but the logic of some Afrocentric posters. I think that much of the genetic raw data I was previously looking for is now available, and so I can make up my own mind about things, in cooperation with others interested in finding the truth (I thank Bandar for his efforts running ADMIXTURE ). The main things I think are lacking at this point are a clear look at Omotic uniparental markers to elucidate the nature of their Eurasian component and how this may relate to their Afroasiatic origin, a more general look at Afroasiatic uniparental markers and wider sampling of their autosomal DNA to look at correlations between Y-DNA/mtDNA and autosomal DNA (Upper Egyptians and other undersampled groups should be included). The last thing is ancient DNA. FGS may also improve the reliability of analyses in a major way.

It wouldn't surprise me if the ancient DNA (should it contain signs of ancestry that a particular grouping would deem undesirable) might also be deemed unreliable, unrepresentative, or whatever excuse you can think of. Just as some still question that the ancient Egyptians had significant Eurasian ancestry, when Eurasian lineages have even been found in ancient Nubians.

[AMICHAI]

Below is an FYI for this thread

The Etymology of Black
black (adj.)
O.E. blæc "dark," from P.Gmc. *blakaz "burned" (cf. O.N. blakkr "dark," O.H.G. blah "black," Swed. bläck "ink," Du. blaken "to burn"), from PIE *bhleg-"to burn, gleam, shine, flash" (cf. Gk. phlegein "to burn, scorch," L. flagrare "to blaze, glow, burn"), from root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn;" see bleach. <<<<whaaaattt????

The same root produced O.E. blac "bright, shining, glittering, pale;" <<<whaaaaattt???? the connecting notions being, perhaps, "fire" (bright) and "burned" (dark). The usual Old English word for "black" was sweart (see swart). According to OED: "In ME. it is often doubtful whether blac, blak, blake, means 'black, dark,' or 'pale, colourless, wan, livid.' " Used of dark-skinned people in Old English.

Let's have a look at bleach etymology

bleach (v.)
O.E. blæcan "bleach, whiten," from P.Gmc. *blaikjan "to make white" (cf. O.S. blek, O.N. bleikr, Du. bleek, O.H.G. bleih, Ger. bleich "pale;" O.N. bleikja, Du. bleken, Ger. bleichen "to bleach"), from PIE root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn" (cf. Skt. bhrajate "shines;" Gk. phlegein "to burn;" L. flamma "flame," fulmen "lightning," fulgere "to shine, flash," flagrare "to burn;" O.C.S. belu "white;" Lith. balnas "pale"). The same root probably produced black; perhaps because both black and white are colorless, or because both are associated with burning. Related: Bleached; bleaching.

SMH!

So....does "black" mean dark, bright, shiny, or pale??? Or, does bleach, mean "black"?? lol

(you should be able to see why western terms are inappropriate for a people that has existed longer than the term being applied to them)

_______________________________________________
Sorry for the multi-post this forum is acting very weird!

[Game Theory]

My experience since I started visiting these kinds of forums is that the same people who complain about the methods used in some of these studies (again, usually without specifying) are often guilty themselves of blatant bias, posting selective studies or quotes that don't necessarily even support their argument, and posting autosomal studies with obvious flaws (e.g. a very low resolution), whenever it fits their own agenda. So I stopped taking those Afrocentrists seriously a long time ago.

Can you specify blatant bias? When I criticized the Brace et al study on ancient Egyptians and stated exactly why you accuse me of complaining because I don't like the results. This Ethiopian study is not very high and resolution and every study has flaws and shortcomings, I pointed out in the Ethiopian study how French and Yoruba are not very good sample selections to ascertain mixture in Ethiopians and even cited literature from another study explaining why samples that not truly representative of the parental ancestral population don't yield reliable results. You make some very good points IMO, just be aware of the shortcomings. Dienekes was able to take raw data on Yoruba and through manipulation of the controls made Yoruba come out as 64% "Eurasian," he's using the same software but get skewed results, you get my point?

The argument per se, i.e. that the Eurasian ancestry in East Africans may be overestimated in some instances, is something that I've been open to ever since joining this board. So it's not the core "Afrocentric" argument I have a problem with, but the logic of some Afrocentric posters. I think that much of the genetic raw data I was previously looking for is now available, and so I can make up my own mind about things, in cooperation with others interested in finding the truth (I thank Bandar for his efforts running ADMIXTURE ). The main things I think are lacking at this point are a clear look at Omotic uniparental markers to elucidate the nature of their Eurasian component and how this may relate to their Afroasiatic origin, a more general look at Afroasiatic uniparental markers and wider sampling of their autosomal DNA to look at correlations between Y-DNA/mtDNA and autosomal DNA (Upper Egyptians and other undersampled groups should be included). The last thing is ancient DNA. FGS may also improve the reliability of analyses in a major way.

Excellent points. I don't think any "Afrocentrists" deny admixture Horners, well let me speak for me, I don't deny it, I just think the results I've seen use the wrong sample populations and SNPs in the studies. Even with 50% Eurasian mixture I'm not stupid, you Horners are not mullatoes and are just as African as any other Africans.

It wouldn't surprise me if the ancient DNA (should it contain signs of ancestry that a particular grouping would deem undesirable) might also be deemed unreliable, unrepresentative, or whatever excuse you can think of. Just as some still question that the ancient Egyptians had significant Eurasian ancestry, when Eurasian lineages have even been found in ancient Nubians.

Eurasian haploid markers in ancient Nubians isn't surprising since they assimilated geneflow from some Ancient Egyptians who may have carried such markers themselves.


I'd like to see more of a focus on culture and archaeology. Genetics tell only small part of the history.

[Lol_Race]

Can you specify blatant bias? When I criticized the Brace et al study on ancient Egyptians and stated exactly why you accuse me of complaining because I don't like the results. This Ethiopian study is not very high and resolution and every study has flaws and shortcomings, I pointed out in the Ethiopian study how French and Yoruba are not very good sample selections to ascertain mixture in Ethiopians and even cited literature from another study explaining why samples that not truly representative of the parental ancestral population don't yield reliable results. You make some very good points IMO, just be aware of the shortcomings. Dienekes was able to take raw data on Yoruba and through manipulation of the controls made Yoruba come out as 64% "Eurasian," he's using the same software but get skewed results, you get my point?

My opinion is based on ADMIXTURE experiments with all of the relevant samples, not the conclusions presented in Pagani's study.

BTW, Dienekes' weird estimate was something he found using TreeMix, not ADMIXTURE.

[Avenue]

North Central/West African are Saharan Africans. We have populations in Both North and South. So we really are Supra Saharan Africans(SSA). At least that's what it should stand for. There is nothing wrong with Sub-Saharan African though because it fits with a region unlike Negroid. With that said I won't mind the term Negro-lander from Negro Land either; if they want to name us negro or Negroid then Call Sub Saharan Africa the Dark Continent. lol just joking but really I just like some Consistency