|
Post by forumer on Oct 23, 2012 6:52:26 GMT -5
We keep hearing about the how the Hamites and ancient Somalis looked like, but slowly our standard looks and identity are disappearing, just look at the difference between the elders and the young, the latter looking as if they are bantus. The Somalis of old had sharper facial features and a higher percentage of straight haired individuals but now the younger generation have less sharper features,straight to wavy textured hair and the culture is slowly being forgotten. How would we preserve ourselves and bring back the standard look that Somalis were known for?
Wonderful and insightful forum by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 23, 2012 18:33:13 GMT -5
Greetings forumer! Welcome to the Hamitic Union. I'm not sure whether what you indicate has come to pass (though the potential is certainly there), but it's an important question nonetheless. The most feasible way to help the Hamitic peoples wherever they happen to be is to inform both them and others of their general background. Most people actually have no clue who Hamitic folks are, including Hamitic peoples themselves. So the onus is on us to educate them. A few suggestions: - Quote the data you find here for them directly. Like, say, in other discussions on other message boards.
- Link to/promote this forum whenever the opportunity arises, including the Hamitic Library. That way, interested parties can read the data for themselves and see that there's an active online Hamitic community (albeit, one still in its teething stage).
- Encourage Hamitic peoples and their friends to join the forum and/or start their own Hamitic-themed blogs. There are loads of Semitic blogs, so why not Hamitic blogs? The goal is to increase the size of the Hamitic enthusiast community.
All of the above must of course be done in a considerate, respectful fashion for all concerned parties.
|
|
|
Post by forumer on Oct 30, 2012 5:37:33 GMT -5
Sure telling them about it would make a slight difference but i dont think people would take advice on their history from a forum to be honest. i'm talking about maybe a slight form of eugenics without the castration of others of course.
|
|
|
Post by forumer on Oct 30, 2012 11:00:54 GMT -5
Endogamy is much more like it, but Hamites intermarrying (dont use the word "breed", they're not animals) with other Caucasoids is still interracialism isn't it?
and Ahnenerbe, are you a Hamite yourself or...?
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Oct 30, 2012 12:35:14 GMT -5
Endogamy is much more like it, but Hamites intermarrying (dont use the word "breed", they're not animals) with other Caucasoids is still interracialism isn't it? I wouldn't consider different Caucasoid subtypes who mate to be interracial, but intraracial. However since the Hamites are as such also an ethnicity or meta-ethnicity, mixing with other Caucasoids will result in the lose of their language, culture and so forth - so intermarriage with other Caucasoids should be obviously cautioned against. Nope, i'm British. My racial type has been called Atlantid or Kelto-Nordid. I came to discover about the Hamites through reading old books such as Grafton Elliot Smith who wrote about Hamites in ancient Britain - there was a mesolithic wave here from north africa, and defend the Hamitic origin of ancient egypt - as opposed to the Afroloons claiming they were 'Black'. Edit: name-change back to "Atlantid".
|
|
|
Post by makonnen on Oct 30, 2012 14:55:22 GMT -5
Hello Ahnenerbe7, your nickname sounds more german than british: welcome
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 30, 2012 23:54:08 GMT -5
Sure telling them about it would make a slight difference but i dont think people would take advice on their history from a forum to be honest. i'm talking about maybe a slight form of eugenics without the castration of others of course. People exchange such information all the time on anthropology/history forums. That's what those boards are largely there for. A person also can't preserve that which he or she does not acknowledge the existence of to begin with. Peoples of Hamitic ancestry thus first need to be made aware of their heritage, then taught that history so that they understand and more fully appreciate its value. The rest will follow. defend the Hamitic origin of ancient egypt - as opposed to the Afroloons claiming they were 'Black'. Unfortunately, Afrocentrists are not the only detractors. There are also certain folks on the Caucasoid periphery who feel threatened by the Hamitic reality, and this manifests itself in various passive-aggressive ways.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 30, 2012 23:55:50 GMT -5
Hello Ahnenerbe7, your nickname sounds more german than british: welcome Welcome back friend! It's been a while.
|
|
|
Post by makonnen on Oct 31, 2012 5:18:21 GMT -5
Hello Noah! It's true, but sometimes i come back and i read with interest in the forum: always nice to be here. I agree with you, there are many folks on the Caucasoid periphery who feel threatened by the Hamitic reality, and the problem is that people don't know the differences and imagine Africa like the land of 'Black' people only...
|
|
|
Post by forumer on Oct 31, 2012 8:05:09 GMT -5
Thanks to Ahnenerbe and Noah for your answers, i appreciate them. The main problem is the fact that people only, for some reason, want to recognise the semites rather than the Hamites, as if they want to dismiss the latter as fictional. Hopefully more work is published concerning Hamites and their long and rich history so that the entire world may recognise them just like they recognise the caucasoids of the north and the semites. Hamites are being made to be stuck in an everlasting limbo of " are they black or caucasian?", hopefully this gets resolved soon by bringing awareness to the masses of the general public.
And Noah could you find more info on the Macrobians of the Horn? i can only find some quotes from Herodotus. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 31, 2012 18:18:40 GMT -5
Hello Noah! It's true, but sometimes i come back and i read with interest in the forum: always nice to be here. I agree with you, there are many folks on the Caucasoid periphery who feel threatened by the Hamitic reality, and the problem is that people don't know the differences and imagine Africa like the land of 'Black' people only... That's exactly right brother. It's a mixture of ignorance and insecurity on their part.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Oct 31, 2012 18:18:52 GMT -5
Thanks to Ahnenerbe and Noah for your answers, i appreciate them. The main problem is the fact that people only, for some reason, want to recognise the semites rather than the Hamites, as if they want to dismiss the latter as fictional. Hopefully more work is published concerning Hamites and their long and rich history There's actually no shortage of work already published on the various Hamitic peoples. In fact, one could state without exaggeration that most of the publications on African history that were released in the pre-PC period are mainly devoted to Hamites and their considerable influence on the continent. However, after the 1960s and 70s, Hamitic theory grew less popular (though it has never entirely disappeared, as shown further below). There are several reasons for this: - The first reason is because certain scholars went overboard and started ascribing to Hamitic influence every last rudimentarily developed culture in Africa (not just the major civilizations). They also began labeling essentially Negroid tribes with somewhat thinner facial features, like the Tutsi-Hima, as "Half-Hamites". In reality, only those tribes' aristocracies were of partial Hamitic origin, and in many cases documented as such too. So the term began to lose its value after a while through this consistent and widespread misapplication.
We're now left with a strange double standard, where a few Nilotic groups in the Great Lakes region, who have over the years absorbed some Hamitic/Cushitic peoples, are often referred to uncontroversially as Nilo-Hamitic. Yet, it's somehow "inappropriate" to continue to refer to the actual Hamites that these Nilotes assimilated by their own proper, traditional Hamitic name? It's also somewhat amusing because in every genome-wide test that these particular Cushitic-admixed Nilotes take, they are reported as having on average slightly more West Eurasian admixture than African Americans (who are, of course, themselves recently admixed with Europeans). Gee, I wonder why that is?
- The other principal reason why Hamitic theory is not as popular as it used to be is due to pervasive anti-Hamitic bias in academia.
so that the entire world may recognise them just like they recognise the caucasoids of the north and the semites. Most North Africans are themselves of Hamitic origin, mainly via the Capsians who inhabited both East and North Africa. Consequently, North Africans share the same main E1b1b paternal lineages with Horners, and many maternal clades as well. Hamites are being made to be stuck in an everlasting limbo of " are they black or caucasian?", hopefully this gets resolved soon by bringing awareness to the masses of the general public. Horners are today socially classified in various ways, depending on location. However, in the actual genetic literature, they are regarded as being either predominantly of Hamitic ancestry (correct), or Arabs, or Afro-Arabs. For instance: "It is noteworthy that the Oromo and Amhara groups cluster together with the Berbers and other north African groups, consisting of Berbers, Egyptians (shared features include an absence of the DRB1*15021 allele and a high frequency of the DRB1*1302 allele, in common with the Metalsa group). This clustering may reflect these groups common ethnic origin from the ancient (pre-Neolithic) Hamites (Hamite-speaking people) [28] on the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts. Bedouins of the Arab Emirates and Sardinians are grouped together in the same main cluster with the other north Africans (cluster A), though at a greater genetic distance. This suggests the importance of the Arabian genetic influence (from the 7th century AD) in north Africa. The Spanish Basques are genetically related to the Berbers and the Moroccan groups, and cluster with the population of Spain (cluster B)."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0198885901003706
"Northern Sudanese and Somalis belong to two distinct population clusters in Africa: Negro-Arabs and Hamitic, respectively. The absence of the mutation among Somalis is therefore predictable and consistent with the absence of other African markers in this population and is probably due to their Hamitic origin"
scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22G191+A%22+%22The+absence+of+the+mutation+among+Somalis%22&btnG=Search&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
The funny part is, even when Horners are misclassified as Afro-Arabs, their actual Hamitic origins still typically show through. Note, for example, the authors' surprise below when their Somali "Arabs with an African admixture" wind up having unexpectedly high frequencies of the Caucasoid-associated HLA-B27 marker. "We reviewed the prevalence of HLA-B27 in 760 healthy individuals in the UAE, where the community is multi-ethnic. All were potential live donors for renal and bone marrow transplantation. The overall prevalence rate was 6.4%; 5.7% in Arabs only and 7.4% in the Asian group. Significant intra-racial variation were not observed between the major ethnic groups (P 0.235 and 0.1). Emirian Arabs exhibited a very low prevalence rate of 0.5% which was highly significant in comparison to other Arab subgroups, thus allowing a degree of intra-racial variations of the marker. The pair-wise comparison in all other Arab subgroups did not yield any significant differences. The Yemeni Arabs in this study had the highest rate of 17% and unexpectedly, Arabs with an African admixture (Somalis and Sudanese) also showed relatively high figures." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7481586
And Noah could you find more info on the Macrobians of the Horn? i can only find some quotes from Herodotus. The Macrobians had an active gold mining industry, maintained foreign relations with Near Easterners, and they also practiced embalming, like the Ancient Egyptians. They were probably descendants of the Puntites. So the real question is, who were the Puntites and where was the Land of Punt? Modern isotopic analysis of particular, mummified baboon specimens that were brought to Egypt from Punt has narrowed down this ancient territory to the Horn region. The Puntites were also visually depicted by the Egyptians as a people physically akin to themselves. In fact, they asserted that they descended from Punt. So that already gives us an indication that the Puntites were not a Negroid people. Puntites Another important piece of evidence is as follows: "As for the Punites, the regular inhabitants of the land of Punt, they are called [hieroglyphics] without the sign of foreign nations. The Punite is[...] a tall, well-shaped man, of a type which certainly belongs to the Caucasian race; his hair is flaxen, and is divided into well-made plaits; his nose is aquiline"
books.google.com/books?id=MFJxAAAAMAAJ&q=%22a+tall,+well-shaped+man,+of+a+type+which+certainly+belongs+to+the+Caucasian+race+;+his+hair+is+flaxen,+and+is+divided+into+well-made+plaits%22&dq=%22a+tall,+well-shaped+man,+of+a+type+which+certainly+belongs+to+the+Caucasian+race+;+his+hair+is+flaxen,+and+is+divided+into+well-made+plaits%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z6-RUOPiAu610AGaoYHQDQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
Does the fact that some Puntites were apparently flaxen/blonde-haired mean that the Puntites were Nordic? Of course not. It does, however, suggest that there was a Libyan stratum in the Horn, just like there was in Ancient Egypt. In fact, some Horners still have light-colored hair. Not exactly blonde, but certainly approaching it; like Queen Hatshepsut: Altogether, this further supports the observation that the Hamitic populations in the Horn were simply an extension of those further north in the Nile Valley: "it is strange to note that the modern Hamite Ethiopian series (Tigre) and even Somali-Galla remain virtually exempt of any black contribution. The Ethiopian plateaus must therefore have remained far from the currents of black immigration which took the natural route of the Nile, whether during the dynastic period or later and more intensively, from the beginning of our era on[...]
The entire Upper Egypt series from the fourth millennium up to the Roman period may be grouped inside a relatively narrow band located in the interval for the C2H distance between 0.17 and 0.27 for the men and 0.15-0.35 for the women. The Nubians of the dynastic age, except for those of the group C, are found precisely in these zones to which a common morphological type corresponds. Although related to the above Middle Egypt type, they differ from it by a narrow head, a lower face and a broader nose. During the dynastic era, this last variety covered a wide central zone of the Nile valley, stretching well beyond towards East Africa, as shown by the similarity which persists with the present-day Ethiopian populations (Tigre) or even Somali. By virtue both of its diffusion and its perenniality, they deserve to be assimilated to the basic population type of the Egypto-Nubian complex."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248477800961
"The affinities of the Galla and Somali to the A-group, C-group and Meroitic populations of Lower Nubia : these are very close, and they may suggest the extension of the Predynastic Upper Egyptian type over a very wide area in north-east Africa. It cannot be said with any certainty, however, whether the people of that type existed over all that area since Predynastic times, or whether they were pushed from their earliest known home in Egypt southwards under pressure from the north at various times."
books.google.com/books?id=n8LNAAAAMAAJ&q=%22these+are+very+close,+and+they+may+suggest+the+extension+of+the%22&dq=%22these+are+very+close,+and+they+may+suggest+the+extension+of+the%22&lr=&ei=U-i5SoCHJo7SMruM_MMP&client=firefox-a
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Nov 1, 2012 7:10:00 GMT -5
However, after the 1960s and 70s, Hamitic theory grew less popular (though it has never entirely disappeared, as shown further below). There are several reasons for this: - The first reason is because certain scholars went overboard and started ascribing to Hamitic influence every last rudimentarily developed culture in Africa (not just the major civilizations). They also began labeling essentially Negroid tribes with somewhat thinner facial features, like the Tutsi-Hima, as "Half-Hamites". In reality, only those tribes' aristocracies were of partial Hamitic origin, and in many cases documented as such too. So the term began to lose its value after a while through this consistent and widespread misapplication.
We're now left with a strange double standard, where a few Nilotic groups in the Great Lakes region, who have over the years absorbed some Hamitic/Cushitic peoples, are often referred to uncontroversially as Nilo-Hamitic. Yet, it's somehow "inappropriate" to continue to refer to the actual Hamites that these Nilotes assimilated by their own proper, traditional Hamitic name? It's also somewhat amusing because in every genome-wide test that these particular Cushitic-admixed Nilotes take, they are reported as having on average slightly more West Eurasian admixture than African Americans (who are, of course, themselves recently admixed with Europeans). Gee, I wonder why that is?
- The other principal reason why Hamitic theory is not as popular as it used to be is due to pervasive anti-Hamitic bias in academia.
Its because Hamites are connected to Caucasoids, and beyond the 1980's the belief in typological races mostly vanished for two reasons (a) political correctness/race denialism and (b) the rise of molecular anthropology. Do you know of any works on races, in the traditional sense, let alone Hamites, post-1980's? Very few works exist. This has really only now been confined to a branch of forensic anthropologists (George W. Gill, Stanley Rhine) yet who are now getting old. Its all very sad.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Nov 1, 2012 7:16:20 GMT -5
Btw, it was also no coincidence that Seligman's Races of Africa was reprinted up to 1979 and then stopped.
|
|
|
Post by forumer on Nov 1, 2012 14:40:53 GMT -5
Archaeology needs to be done in the Horn as soon as the situation becomes more stable and safe so we can find out more on the exact location of Punt. But what exactly has happened to the Puntites? and before the Puntites what civilizations existed in the horn? Thanks.
|
|