Somali women, SJW, BLM feminist says we were enslaved by Arabs

[Lord Flacko]

In other words, Somalis were all over the Horn of Africa spread out inwards and not just on the coast...

What ?

Somalis weren't all over the Horn. We are today, but we weren't then. Expansion helped give us the land we have today, and that expansion came after the advent of Islam and creation of clans to facilitate and help capture land. In fact that was most likely the main use of a clan then. Organized groups of people that secured their own grazing land with their own wells and resources.

You can re-read what I posted if you lost my intention of the post. And also do you admit to being historically wrong on the subjects where I answered you? Everybody makes mistakes, all I want is for you to know the truth, and stop spreading misinformation.

 

[DuctTape]

Again...no one is talking about the slave trade from the 7th century. The East African slave trade started during the 7th cenuty...everyone keeps mentioning Bantus but Bantus weren't used until the 1900s. I keep repeating this and everyone is ignoring it...why does everyone keep mentioning Bantus? No one's talking about Bantus because they weren't used until the 20th cenuty...
If you look at Somali DNA tests on YouTube, a lot of the DNA says South Eastern Bantu and Middle Eastern...

Also this is the kind of intellectual discussion I expect...it's no need for people to throw insults, we're still strivung to be better people at the end of the day.

Bantus were traded by Arabs and were called "Zanj", with Southeast Africa being labelled by the Arabs, "Bilad al-Zanj" (land of the blacks).

Also, there is no southeastern bantu ancestry in Somalis, 23andme actually didn't have any Somali samples when the people in those videos paid for their tests, which is why it is displayed as South eastern bantu and not cushitic.

Note that Somalis are close to 99% East African here because of something called the "calculator effect" - 23andme only took about 12 or so Somalis and other East African peoples as their sample populations, basically telling you that you're "96% Somali and nothing else", making it not very useful for people who want to find out their exact ancestry. Broad-ass regions like "East Africa" really aren't good indicators of where you're "really" from but I think 23andme also gives people their raw data so it's not totally useless.

 

[Yahya Liban-Lewis]

@Caraweelo X Are you behind the youtube account?

Didn't read your previous replies

- Yahya Liban-Lewis

 

[Mohamud]

can we just lol one more time at how incompetent the arabs and indians were with slavery? some of these revolts lead to actual land loss in the middle east and Africa and subservient ethnic groups gaining political capital

Note that Somalis are close to 99% East African here because of something called the "calculator effect" - 23andme only took about 12 or so Somalis and other East African peoples as their sample populations, basically telling you that you're "96% Somali and nothing else", making it not very useful for people who want to find out their exact ancestry. Broad-ass regions like "East Africa" really aren't good indicators of where you're "really" from but I think 23andme also gives people their raw data so it's not totally useless.

they're still useful as a database to compare to older genomes once viable specimen are found. eventually we should be able to completely map out African ancestry and migration patterns from the very beginning.

also it is worth noting just how much cushitic genes these southeastern groups absorbed over the past few thousand years (before and during the bantu expansion). it isn't quite known how much they have given the sparsity of samples to compare, but a lot of groups down there are admixed.

 

[Caraweelo X]

What ?

Somalis weren't all over the Horn. We are today, but we weren't then. Expansion helped give us the land we have today, and that expansion came after the advent of Islam and creation of clans to facilitate and help capture land. In fact that was most likely the main use of a clan then. Organized groups of people that secured their own grazing land with their own wells and resources.

You can re-read what I posted if you lost my intention of the post. And also do you admit to being historically wrong on the subjects where I answered you? Everybody makes mistakes, all I want is for you to know the truth, and stop spreading misinformation.

No one is talking about the Arab Slave Trade starting from the 7th century...

 

[Merca]

No one is talking about the Arab Slave Trade starting from the 7th century...

Are you a Somali Bantu?

 

[Lord Flacko]

Again...no one is talking about the slave trade from the 7th century. The East African slave trade started during the 7th cenuty...everyone keeps mentioning Bantus but Bantus weren't used until the 1900s. I keep repeating this and everyone is ignoring it...why does everyone keep mentioning Bantus? No one's talking about Bantus because they weren't used until the 20th cenuty...

You for real?

I answered you on this already

Bantus from the black South on the Mogadishu market in 1609.

Slave labor in East Africa was drawn from the Zanj, Bantu peoples that lived along the East African coast.[2][8] The Zanj were for centuries shipped as slaves by Arab traders to all the countries bordering the Indian Ocean. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs recruited many Zanj slaves as soldiers and, as early as 696, there were slave revolts of the Zanj against their Arab enslavers in Iraq (see Zanj Rebellion). Ancient Chinese texts also mention ambassadors from Java presenting the Chinese emperor with two Seng Chi (Zanj) slaves as gifts, and Seng Chi slaves reaching China from the Hindu kingdom of Srivijaya in Java.[9]

The Arab trade of Zanj (Bantu) slaves in Southeast Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by 700 years.

So Bantus rebelled as slaves in 696 but didn't become slaves until 1900s?

Bantus were used heavily, but the trade itself only became more detailed, noted and most importantly hugely more popular in the 1800s when Omanis controlling Zanzibar.

From 1800 to 1890, between 25,000–50,000 Bantu slaves are thought to have been sold from the slave market of Zanzibar to the Somali coast.[47]

It was during the 1800s that Arabs especially wanted slaves as they were becoming states entering the period of Industrialization.

One important commodity being transported by the Arab dhows to Somalia was slaves from other parts of East Africa. During the nineteenth century, the East African slave trade grew enormously due to demands by Arabs, Portuguese, and French. Slave traders and raiders moved throughout eastern and central Africa to meet the rising demand for enslaved men, women, and children. Somalia did not supply slaves -- as part of the Islamic world Somalis were at least nominally protected by the religious tenet that free Muslims cannot be enslaved -- but Arab dhows loaded with human cargo continually visited Somali ports.[

The trade existed for long, but only then became hugely popular.

 

[Lord Flacko]

If you look at Somali DNA tests on YouTube, a lot of the DNA says South Eastern Bantu and Middle Eastern...

Also this is the kind of intellectual discussion I expect...it's no need for people to throw insults, we're still strivung to be better people at the end of the day.

Not this fucking shit again.

ANCESTRY.COM IS NOT A LEGITIMATE DNA TESTING SITE FOR SOMALIS. IT DOESNT NOT HAVE THE SOMALI OR CUSHITIC GENOME SO WHEN MET WITH IT, IT WILL GIVE YOU GUESSTIMATES BASED ON LOCATION. Also half south half north. THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATE RESULTS. Somalis are NOT half breeds of Arabs and Bantus.

Before, 23andme used to also not have the Cushitic genome, but they did more testing and suddenly Somalis on there went from 50% european to 99% east african. And now recently they did more testing on specifically Somalis/Cushites to make more detailed DNA results.

A somali currently
note Cushitic is a subgroup within East Africa at the moment

These are ALL SOMALIS. Heres some other East Africans to give you some context.

Sudanis (WHO ARE LEGITIMATE HALF MUTTS)

Xabashi (who are actually fully mixed with Arab)

Ethiopian

Kenyan Luo

Kenyan

Tanzanian

Rwandan

Somalis ARE NOT HALF BREED MUTTS. WE ARE PURE SOMALI CUSHITES. End of story. When more testing on our genome is done, a Cushitic result will be displayed and Somalis will be pure Cushitic with Oromos second.

 

[Lord Flacko]

No one is talking about the Arab Slave Trade starting from the 7th century...

I've already adressed all of your points. You've lost.

kulaha nobody is talking about it I just did in the post you qouted.

 

[maestro]

No one is talking about the Arab Slave Trade starting from the 7th century...

Bantus were definitely slaves in the 7th century . Also slave trading extended to habasha since a lot of slaves in Arabia were from there but it doesn't mean the Arabs were practising Arab Supremacy and coming to Africa to enslaves people who are inferior.

Arabs used to enslave the other Arab tribes they fought against and sold them to romans and Persians. Also the bulk of slaves being traded at that time was from the Roman kingdom and Persia since these two empires conquered vast lands and people. Does this mean Arabs were practicing Arab supremacy when they sold and bought European slaves and Persian slave?

Slavery was just a normal business and a lucrative one indeed. No one subscribed to the bullshit 17th century racist Euro supremacist ideals of negros being inferior and therefore associated with slavery back then.

 

[Mohamud]

>half breed mutts

let's settle down here.

and sxb weren't you and others championing that older genetic study that gave us 35% eurasian genetics? i remember that old anthromadness thread and the debates afterwards.

and genomic studies have taken place haven't they? they found the mota man (an essentially perfect cushitic specimen before the bantu expansion and any cushitic migrations) and i'm pretty that one specimen proved a eurasian migration occured. the statistical error is more closely situated with how much admixing occurred - they have ludicrous numbers like 35%.

also most of the south-eastern nilote-cushitic admix groups came back significantly more cushitic than nilotic which i didn't know. i thought for sure rwanda would back more west-african than east.

 

[DuctTape]

Somalis ARE NOT HALF BREED MUTTS. WE ARE PURE SOMALI CUSHITES. End of story. When more testing on our genome is done, a Cushitic result will be displayed and Somalis will be pure Cushitic with Oromos second.

I agree with your points except for this one. No ethnic group is "pure". Humans have been intermixing with other humans for thousands upon thousands of years.

The non-African (you can't really call it Arab as these are pre-Arab ancient Middle Eastern populations) admixture skews us towards Europeans/Arabs on a PCA plot graph compared to other Africans, so we aren't "Pure". But, this admixture is so old and so ancient that if you want to consider it a part of the Somali genetic makeup and indigenous, then you can, because most populations aren't truly "indigenous" to the land they live in. I just wanted to clear up that no-one is technically genetically "Pure".

 

[Lord Flacko]

More Somalis for you @Caraweelo X

Somalia 1

Somalia 2

Somalia 3

Somalia 4

Somalia 5

Somalia 6

Somalia 7

The contrast between highland Ethiopians and Somalis in skin color is so great that one must postulate that the original non-negroid narrow-bodied and narrow-faced strain which the living Somalis represent was not white skinned in any sense of the word, for the Somalis are the least negroid people in East Africa.

Somalis are pure people, as evident by how homogenous we are.

 

[Lord Flacko]

>half breed mutts

let's settle down here.

and sxb weren't you and others championing that older genetic study that gave us 35% eurasian genetics? i remember that old anthromadness thread and the debates afterwards.

and genomic studies have taken place haven't they? they found the mota man (an essentially perfect cushitic specimen before the bantu expansion and any cushitic migrations) and i'm pretty that one specimen proved a eurasian migration occured. the statistical error is more closely situated with how much admixing occurred - they have ludicrous numbers like 35%.

also most of the south-eastern nilote-cushitic admix groups came back significantly more cushitic than nilotic which i didn't know. i thought for sure rwanda would back more west-african than east.

I'm a Somali Cushitic Supremacist

But the Cushitic Genome hasn't been mapped enough, which is why sample supplies were in high demand and free for some time a while back. If you go back thousands of years you'll find admixing, that is inevetable. But Somalis are a pure class. We're quite homogenous. Any admixing came before the time of documentation. In the last thousand years at least, we have not mixed out.


I go a little hard when I'm tired.

 

[Mohamud]

@Prince of Hobyo admix is an admix sxb. if it doesn't become it's own mutation and plottable to one region alone then it is foreign genes. end of story. there's no point harping on a timeline when that admixture would have happened some 4.5k years ago at most. if it's insignificant and too long ago to address, than the bantu expansion is as insignificant as that considering it happened just after that.

you'd have to accept the rendille and other cushtic mixes as your homeboys

I agree with your points except for this one. No ethnic group is "pure". Humans have been intermixing with other humans for thousands upon thousands of years. View attachment 11896 View attachment 11897
The non-African (you can't really call it Arab as these are pre-Arab ancient Middle Eastern populations) admixture skews us towards Europeans/Arabs on a PCA plot graph compared to other Africans, so we aren't "Pure". But, this admixture is so old and so ancient that if you want to consider it a part of the Somali genetic makeup and indigenous, then you can, because most populations aren't truly "indigenous" to the land they live in. I just wanted to clear up that no-one is technically genetically "Pure".

there's no way it's 45%

statistically not plausible given how little affinity we have with europe in contemporary genetic studies. the most i've seen with the corrected numbers is 35% which is already something i don't buy.

but you are correct that there's no single group that remained "pure" save perhaps the aboriginal tribes in melenasia and australia. if genes are distinctly shown to have come from one area, then those genes being present in other groups were brought in. no real discussion around that so there's no point attempting to discuss who's "more pure" at least until an ancient genome is viably tested against our own DNA. then we will have every answer we require.

 

[Lord Flacko]

I agree with your points except for this one. No ethnic group is "pure". Humans have been intermixing with other humans for thousands upon thousands of years. View attachment 11896 View attachment 11897
The non-African (you can't really call it Arab as these are pre-Arab ancient Middle Eastern populations) admixture skews us towards Europeans/Arabs on a PCA plot graph compared to other Africans, so we aren't "Pure". But, this admixture is so old and so ancient that if you want to consider it a part of the Somali genetic makeup and indigenous, then you can, because most populations aren't truly "indigenous" to the land they live in. I just wanted to clear up that no-one is technically genetically "Pure".

By pure I mean in that we haven't mixed with Bantus or Arabs in any significant capacity for the last thousand years or so. Only reer xamars can be proof of mixing, but theyre a small community that mixed with us, and they didn't change much or anything. With Bantus there have been next to zero mixing.


Of course admixing is inevitable. Its human history. I believe that the admixing in our population is quite old, several thousands of years old. Though I'm not an expert, but I remember having heard we carry a gene that arose 12 000 years ago in some population in the Levant/Isreal. More info can be found on the blog of antrhodamadness (if that was his name)

 

[DuctTape]

By pure I mean in that we haven't mixed with Bantus or Arabs in any significant capacity for the last thousand years or so. Only reer xamars can be proof of mixing, but theyre a small community that mixed with us, and they didn't change much or anything. With Bantus there have been next to zero mixing.


Of course admixing is inevitable. Its human history. I believe that the admixing in our population is quite old, several thousands of years old. Though I'm not an expert, but I remember having heard we carry a gene that arose 12 000 years ago in some population in the Levant/Isreal. More info can be found on the blog of antrhodamadness (if that was his name)

That's the thing sxb, "Pure" is a super subjective term and you might consider us pure but someone else might consider us "mutts", as you so eloquently put it
Don't liken our sudani friends to dogs
They didn't do anything to you
Also yeah, he's called Anthromadness. He has a great blog, I think he's an amateur DNA biologist

 

[Lord Flacko]

@Prince of Hobyo admix is an admix sxb. if it doesn't become it's own mutation and plottable to one region alone then it is foreign genes. end of story. there's no point harping on a timeline when that admixture would have happened some 4.5k years ago at most. if it's insignificant and too long ago to address, than the bantu expansion is as insignificant as that considering it happened just after that.

you'd have to accept the rendille and other cushtic mixes as your homeboys



there's no way it's 45%

statistically not plausible given how little affinity we have with europe in contemporary genetic studies. the most i've seen with the corrected numbers is 35% which is already something i don't buy.

but you are correct that there's no single group that remained "pure" save perhaps the aboriginal tribes in melenasia and australia. if genes are distinctly shown to have come from one area, then those genes being present in other groups were brought in. no real discussion around that so there's no point attempting to discuss who's "more pure" at least until an ancient genome is viably tested against our own DNA. then we will have every answer we require.

When I say mixing and pure, I'm talking in the last 1000 years min, also the timeframe with actual documentation of Somalis. We have WestEurasian DNA, but not from fucking Arabs or being raped by them a couple hundred years ago. It's old. Never said it's insignificant, but to the discussion about Somali history (slave trade, sultanates, islam) it's not relevant. For another discussion perhaps

Finally, one more point I would like to place absolute importance in understanding is that West Eurasian ancestry in Horners is simply not owed to recent input. By recent I mean where many ethnic Somalis think we're somehow a mixture between Arabians & "native peoples", a mixture that may have occurred around ~1400 years ago or so.

http://anthromadness.blogspot.no/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html?m=1
The man has an interesting blog with actual data.

 

[Lord Flacko]

That's the thing sxb, "Pure" is a super subjective term and you might consider us pure but someone else might consider us "mutts", as you so eloquently put it
Don't liken our sudani friends to dogs
They didn't do anything to you
Also yeah, he's called Anthromadness. He has a great blog, I think he's an amateur DNA biologist

I like saying Pure it rolls of the tounge easily


I said half breed mutts but that was in the heat of the moment, I take it back of course:siilaanyolaugh:

 

[Bahal]

We descend from a group of people who themselves originated in the Horn, spread to the north, crossed the Sinai, returned to Egypt, and spread from there to the south and west.

They mixed with some folks on their way south which then led to the rise of present day Cushites.