SomaliNet Forums

sophisticate wrote:The only one that appears to make sense at the moment srsbsns. Also a forum is not a credible source.

Just accept that you are mostly Negroid.

I see Negroid traits in your avatar.

sophisticate wrote:The only one that appears to make sense at the moment srsbsns. Also a forum is not a credible source.

Paleo-African being Khoisans.

Itrah just read Somalis are 0.8% West African.

Somali's are a big mix. We are Cushtic, language wise which is a branch of Afro-Asiatic. We are African. Any DNA Shared with Mediterranean people, is due to their history with north africans. Our closest groups are near us, Afar, Oromo, Harari, Beja, Tigre, Tigray, Amhara, Silt'e, Zay, Argobba and others of the Horn of Africa.

WE have nothing to do with Caucasians.

JamalAddow wrote:Paleo-African being Khoisans.

Itrah just read Somalis are 0.8% West African.

When there is a Nilo-Saharan cluster. ethnic Horn Africans are 0% West African. That is just statistical noise.

Itrah wrote:

sophisticate wrote:The only one that appears to make sense at the moment srsbsns. Also a forum is not a credible source.

Just accept that you are mostly Negroid.

I see Negroid traits in your avatar.

I do not identify myself with a eurocentric classification, that was meant to be pejorative. Of the (5) groups you lump sum I would not use that label on any of them.

Also, if that is your way of making conversation - you failed.

JamalAddow wrote:

sophisticate wrote:The only one that appears to make sense at the moment srsbsns. Also a forum is not a credible source.

Paleo-African being Khoisans.

Itrah just read Somalis are 0.8% West African.

You're not supposed to take everything you read as gospel. Your source of knowledge is not infallible nor grounded in absolute fact.

I'm still waiting for a credible reference. No, blogs and forums do not count, lol.

sophisticate wrote: I do not identify myself with a eurocentric classification, that was meant to be pejorative. Of the (5) groups you lump sum I would not use that label on any of them.

Scientists still euphemistically use the term Negroid as ''Sub-Saharan African''. It's essentially a synonym for Negroid and used in many scientific papers.

sophisticate wrote:Also, if that is your way of making small talk - you failed.

It wasn't. I just wanted more clarification as to why you object to the term Negroid.

Itrah wrote:

sophisticate wrote: I do not identify myself with a eurocentric classification, that was meant to be pejorative. Of the (5) groups you lump sum I would not use that label on any of them.

Scientists still euphemistically use the term Negroid as ''Sub-Saharan African''. It's essentially a synonym for Negroid and used in many scientific papers.

sophisticate wrote:Also, if that is your way of making small talk - you failed.

It wasn't. I just wanted more clarification as to why you object to the term Negroid.

This is the definition from Google -

Negroid (also known as Congoid) is a term that is used by forensic and physical anthropologists to refer to individuals and populations that share certain morphological and skeletal traits that are frequent among most populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Itrah wrote:

sophisticate wrote: I do not identify myself with a eurocentric classification, that was meant to be pejorative. Of the (5) groups you lump sum I would not use that label on any of them.

Scientists still euphemistically use the term Negroid as ''Sub-Saharan African''. It's essentially a synonym for Negroid and used in many scientific papers.

sophisticate wrote:Also, if that is your way of making small talk - you failed.

It wasn't. I just wanted more clarification as to why you object to the term Negroid.

You are not familiar with orientalism are you? Those 'scientists' you promote, invariably have a Eurocentric perspective. Anthropologists, non European historians were primarily concerned with creating a fictional caricature of 'savage' people for audiences of white euro nations and acted to justify policies of slavery and imperialism.

Why is it is generally white Europeans who want to validate your ancestry and make labels for you? and then promote a fairytale theories for people like you with little self-esteem.

Itrah wrote:

sophisticate wrote: I do not identify myself with a eurocentric classification, that was meant to be pejorative. Of the (5) groups you lump sum I would not use that label on any of them.

Scientists still euphemistically use the term Negroid as ''Sub-Saharan African''. It's essentially a synonym for Negroid and used in many scientific papers.

sophisticate wrote:Also, if that is your way of making small talk - you failed.

It wasn't. I just wanted more clarification as to why you object to the term Negroid.

Interesting you say that. I remember reading that the term Sub-Saharan African is also racist. South Saharan African is the preferred term as it doesn't offend.

Check it out. https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/01/1 ... an-africa/

The terms may be eurocentric but genetic differences is a fact regardless of what terms you may desire to call them. Btw i reject the word negroid, it's racist and demeaning.

srsbsns wrote:You are not familiar with orientalism are you? Those 'scientists' you promote, invariably have a Eurocentric perspective. Why is it is generally white Europeans who want to validate your ancestry and make labels for you? and then promote a fairytale theories for people like you with little self-esteem.

It's not just used in population genetics but also in medical studies that have nothing to do with ethnicities. Just go to google scholar and type ''Sub-Saharan African+risk factors". Tons of medical studies using it.

Even Japanese and East Asian scientists are labeling Negroids as Sub-Saharan Africans and distinguishing them from other people.

Itrah,

My children are half madow. My mother is 2 shades away from having a white skin color and unfortunately I inherited her skin tone. On top of that I wanted my children to have the superior athletic genes of the madaw.

West Africa

Itrah wrote:

srsbsns wrote:You are not familiar with orientalism are you? Those 'scientists' you promote, invariably have a Eurocentric perspective. Why is it is generally white Europeans who want to validate your ancestry and make labels for you? and then promote a fairytale theories for people like you with little self-esteem.

It's not just used in population genetics but also in medical studies that have nothing to do with ethnicities. Just go to google scholar and type ''Sub-Saharan African+risk factors". Tons of medical studies using it.

Even Japanese and East Asian scientists are labeling Negroids as Sub-Saharan Africans and distinguishing them from other people.

The research that comes up uses the term because it has become convention, widely accepted. When they use sub-Saharan Africa they mean black people, irrespective of diversity or cultural and religious traditions. The way it is used is meant to imply inferiority, to differentiate the whiter populations of north Africa with the rest of the continent.

Asian scientists just build on work from prior euro studies, saxiib. Asians want to be white more than the whites, their involvement cannot be considered.

Xildiiid wrote:Itrah,

My children are half madow. My mother is 2 shades away from having a white skin color and unfortunately I inherited her skin tone. On top of that I wanted my children to have the superior athletic genes of the madaw.

West Africa

west african women are sexy.. curvy bodies and big futos