Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are We Arabs?  
User currently offlineCentre From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 490 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

If you are not of African ethnicity, then your ancestors have lived in Arabia and migrated from there to everywhere else.
Still the origin humanity is Africa.

Modern Humans Wandered Out of Africa via Arabia

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic....wandered-out-of-africa-via-arabia/




I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2156 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

We're all humans. If you want to use other classifications, then no we (other than arabs) are not arabs. No doubt our ancestors migrated through what is now arabia, but comparing the people then to the people now is meaningless. 50 000+ years have passed and at the time they were all black (probably). Arabs are the sand nomads that developed in arabia 3000+ years ago. "We" might as well be Indians, Cosacks or African. But that's neither here nor there.

asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

The map is in so far inaccurate that the origin of mankind lies in today´s southern Ethiopie, Kenya and Tanzania, e.g. East Africa. From the migration also spread westwards along the southern edge of the Shahara towards West Africa. Another Branch went southwards to form what was later known as the Koi San (aka Hottentots) and San (Bushmen) in South Africa and the Pygmies in Central Africa.
It also doesn´t take into account that there were major secondary and tertiary migrations. E.g. the first migration wave of Atis in the Philippines (genetically and linguistically related to the Melanesians, Papua New Guineans and Australian aborigines) were in turn pushed aside by the next wave of migration a few thousand years later, which came from China via Taiwan and Indochina and which formed today´s Bontoc, Ifugao and Igorot mountain tribes of Northern Luzon. These were another few thousand years pushed out from the lowlands by the next wave of migrants, also originally coming from China, but via Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, speaking Malay.
Similarly the Khoi San And San people were superseded in large parts of South Africa by the Bantu tribes, who originated in West Africa and pushed southwards. At a certain point the Bantu tribes coming from the North met the European colonialists coming from the South and the older peoples got crushed between them or forced to live in the desert.

One thing which is true is that the western cultural domination was based on the headstart by the early invention of agriculture in the socalled "fertile crescent" ranging from today´s eastern Turkey via parts of Syria and Iraq into Iran. The fertile crescent had the advantage over other zones of early agriculture that it had an abundance of potentially domnesticable plants and animals and that a climatic (Mediterranean climate with hot dry summers and rainy, but warm winters) zone was ranging both east all the way to the Afghan mountains) and westwards (both the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean), where the technology developed in the Fertile Crescent could be used as well.
The crop plants and domestic animals coming from the Fertile Crescent were so versatile, that they could adapt to the colder northern European climates as well.
Another center of early agricultural development was in China, from where the technologies spread into South East Asia, India and (later) Andinian South America, but there (except for China) the number of potentially useable plants and animals was restricted.

Jan


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

To quote the article, "Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa."

I've always been sceptical of such statements. In my view, human beings are a species like any other; and logic therefore suggests that they 'originated' everywhere. How else, given that there was no way of crossing oceans like the Atlantic and the Pacific, is there evidence that human beings were also present in places like America and Australia from the earliest times?

I suspect that the true 'explanation' is a lot simpler; that the peoples of certain regions - probably, as MD11Engineer implies, those who enjoyed the sort of climate and terrain that encouraged agriculture and also a certain amount of leisure - were the first to develop writing, and therefore begin to record history rather than simply being part of it.   But that, meanwhile, other human beings, though less 'advanced,' were already inhabiting virtually all parts of the globe.

Sure, later there was a lot of migration, exploration, and 'colonisation.' But, pretty well everywhere the more 'advanced' peoples went, they found other human beings who were there before them.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting Centre (Thread starter):
If you are not of African ethnicity, then your ancestors have lived in Arabia and migrated from there to everywhere else.

So is this why so many people look forward to Spring Break?   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3303 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1995 times:

If that's true, then let me be the first to say I reject Sharia Law.


"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1991 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 5):
If that's true, then let me be the first to say I reject Sharia Law.

Arab is a race, not a religion.
Not all Arabs are Muslims.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
To quote the article, "Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa."

I've always been sceptical of such statements. In my view, human beings are a species like any other; and logic therefore suggests that they 'originated' everywhere. How else, given that there was no way of crossing oceans like the Atlantic and the Pacific, is there evidence that human beings were also present in places like America and Australia from the earliest times?

I suspect that the true 'explanation' is a lot simpler; that the peoples of certain regions - probably, as MD11Engineer implies, those who enjoyed the sort of climate and terrain that encouraged agriculture and also a certain amount of leisure - were the first to develop writing, and therefore begin to record history rather than simply being part of it. But that, meanwhile, other human beings, though less 'advanced,' were already inhabiting virtually all parts of the globe.

Sure, later there was a lot of migration, exploration, and 'colonisation.' But, pretty well everywhere the more 'advanced' peoples went, they found other human beings who were there before them.

I'm no expert on the subject but, weren't the continents much closer to each other back then? Or am I thinking too far back


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1965 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
To quote the article, "Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa."

I've always been sceptical of such statements. In my view, human beings are a species like any other; and logic therefore suggests that they 'originated' everywhere. How else, given that there was no way of crossing oceans like the Atlantic and the Pacific, is there evidence that human beings were also present in places like America and Australia from the earliest times?

I suspect that the true 'explanation' is a lot simpler; that the peoples of certain regions - probably, as MD11Engineer implies, those who enjoyed the sort of climate and terrain that encouraged agriculture and also a certain amount of leisure - were the first to develop writing, and therefore begin to record history rather than simply being part of it. But that, meanwhile, other human beings, though less 'advanced,' were already inhabiting virtually all parts of the globe.

Sure, later there was a lot of migration, exploration, and 'colonisation.' But, pretty well everywhere the more 'advanced' peoples went, they found other human beings who were there before them.

I´d suggest you to read an interesting book:
"Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History Of Everyone" by Jared Diamond.
Jared Diamond is originally an evolutionary biologist, who has spend much of his life travelling around the globe for biological research, including places like New Guinea. He also has knowledge of linguistics and history and, having been served the question "Why did the Europeans and their descendands dominate the world?" by a New Guinean politician, he started to research the biological and geographical influences on the development of humans starting around 13000 years ago. With biological he doesn´t mean race, but the influences of the biological and geographical environment on the early humans.

One of his premisses is that nomadic hunting and scavenging can only support a very low population density. Agriculture allows for a surplus, but requires a settled population with at least basic property laws (either for the individual farmer or for a community to prevent somebody else from harvesting what the first ones have worked for).
The surplus allowed for non-agrarian specialists, like craftsmen to develop new technologies, but further enhancement of agriculture, e.g. through bigger irrigation projects, needed a more centralised control. There arts like writing come into play, at first as a simple means of tracking who has contributed what (this is the start of the bureaucracy).This can go two ways: to benefit the people or to start a kleptocracy, which takes control of the surplus (now tribute or taxes) and power for their own ends.

Jan


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1958 times:

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 7):
I'm no expert on the subject but, weren't the continents much closer to each other back then? Or am I thinking too far back

That would have been long before the humans. But there existed temporary landbridges during the ice ages due to much of the ocean water having been captured in the form of ice, e.g. between Britain and the European continent or between Siberia and Alaska, which enabled to movement of people to new places.

Jan


User currently onlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 7):
I'm no expert on the subject but, weren't the continents much closer to each other back then? Or am I thinking too far back

Why is it showing that I made that quote?
That's not my post.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
I've always been sceptical of such statements. In my view, human beings are a species like any other; and logic therefore suggests that they 'originated' everywhere. How else, given that there was no way of crossing oceans like the Atlantic and the Pacific, is there evidence that human beings were also present in places like America and Australia from the earliest times?

Fossil evidence shows that we originated from the Rift Valley region of Eastern Africa. The progress of humans through the world can be quite accurately charted via dating of fossil remains, genetics and linguistics.
One reason why the Americas were only settled quite late (several thousand years after Europe) was because humans first had to develop the means of surving in Siberian arctic climate before crossing the Bering Strait by possibly a landbridge, which existed during the glacial period.
Similarly Australia was settled quite late because the people had to develop the technology first to create seagoing canoes to cross the Torres Strait (most likely by slowly moving from one island to the next). It has also been shown that some groups of people have lost previously aquired technology due to constraints of the region they settled in (e.g. previously seagoing people, who moved into a desert lost the art of building boats). Some groups have even regressed back to hunting and gathering. An example shown by Mr. Diamond are the original inhabitants of the Chatham Islands east of New Zealand. While the population of Polynesian stock arrived there earlier possibly from New Zealand (where the people at this time knew agriculture and building of seagoing craft), due to the lack of resources (fertile soil, harsh climate) they regressed to hunting and gathering and lost their original skills. So, in the early 19th century they were overwhelmed when suddenly Maori warriors from New Zealand arrived, who took the Chatham Islanders and made them slaves.

Jan


User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
I've always been sceptical of such statements. In my view, human beings are a species like any other; and logic therefore suggests that they 'originated' everywhere. How else, given that there was no way of crossing oceans like the Atlantic and the Pacific, is there evidence that human beings were also present in places like America and Australia from the earliest times?

Oldest human bones in the Americas are less than 15000 years old, so until something older is dug up there's no evidence whatsoever that homo sapiens originated there. BTW. What species do you have in mind as having originated 'everywhere'?

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 7):
I'm no expert on the subject but, weren't the continents much closer to each other back then? Or am I thinking too far back

Yes. Homo sapiens is a 'new' species. Less than 1 million years old. Too little for continental drift to create new seas, oceans, continents...


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

And to throw a little curve ball, we may or may not have neanderthal DNA in us. I think I read somewhere that all humans except for ethnic Africans have some traces of neanderthal in them. But I'm no scientist so I could have been reading some BS. Still an interesting thought though!


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8299 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

I can see several issues of how we are all impacted. Obviously the migration over all those years had an impact. Then weather also impacts peoples over the thousands of years. The Aussie Aboriginal has adjusted over many thousands of years to survive better in the outback. At the other end of the weather scale are those who would have migrated too far north and had to live in caves - especially in the winters. Then of course there are the fighting farmers - invading armies who immediately planted their seeds.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
And to throw a little curve ball, we may or may not have neanderthal DNA in us. I think I read somewhere that all humans except for ethnic Africans have some traces of neanderthal in them. But I'm no scientist so I could have been reading some BS. Still an interesting thought though!

It is a fact that Europe was settled first by Neanderthal humans (a subspecies) for several thousand years, who were within a short period by Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
What is not known is in how far Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens Sapiens were able to produce offspring. In this case it would be possible that HN went up in common descendads of HN and HSS.
It has been shown that our ancestors were recombining back in Africa with the ancestors of today´s chimpanzees, even though the human ancestors and chimpanzees, both coming from a common ancestor, split several hundred thousand years before. So the genetics at this time could not have been too different, so that they were capable of producing living offspring.
BTW, the image of Neanderthal humans has changed quite a bit over the last ten years or so. You probably wouldn´t recognise a Neanderthal person today if he or she would get a modern hairstyle and would be put into modern clothes. The person would simply appear to be stocky, a bit on the muscular side and with a stouter bone structure. Else they would pretty normal and not stick out of the European population.

Jan


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4335 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
I´d suggest you to read an interesting book:
"Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History Of Everyone" by Jared Diamond.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
I´d suggest you to read an interesting book:
"Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History Of Everyone" by Jared Diamond.
Jared Diamond is originally an evolutionary biologist, who has spend much of his life travelling around the globe for biological research, including places like New Guinea. He also has knowledge of linguistics and history and, having been served the question "Why did the Europeans and their descendands dominate the world?" by a New Guinean politician, he started to research the biological and geographical influences on the development of humans starting around 13000 years ago. With biological he doesn´t mean race, but the influences of the biological and geographical environment on the early humans.

One of his premisses is that nomadic hunting and scavenging can only support a very low population density. Agriculture allows for a surplus, but requires a settled population with at least basic property laws (either for the individual farmer or for a community to prevent somebody else from harvesting what the first ones have worked for).
The surplus allowed for non-agrarian specialists, like craftsmen to develop new technologies, but further enhancement of agriculture, e.g. through bigger irrigation projects, needed a more centralised control. There arts like writing come into play, at first as a simple means of tracking who has contributed what (this is the start of the bureaucracy).This can go two ways: to benefit the people or to start a kleptocracy, which takes control of the surplus (now tribute or taxes) and power for their own ends.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is one of the best books I've ever read...so much so that I've read it twice. One of Mr. Diamond's key findings that you left out, however, was that the Middle East was the genesis of advanced human development because of its climate and other fortuitous circumstances. It resulted in the domestication of 19 out of 20 animals that were used for millenia for husbandry and the majority of grains that were cultivated and *stored* (meaning it allowed for a surplus to occur) were also found in the Middle East. And from the Middle East all knowledge and technology flowed West into the Nile River delta (which allowed for the rise of ancient Egypt) and into the European land mass.

So that begs the question: Are we all "Arabs"? My known ancestry is not, but to the original poster's question...

Quoting Centre (Thread starter):
If you are not of African ethnicity, then your ancestors have lived in Arabia and migrated from there to everywhere else.

  



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1379 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
map is in so far inaccurate

even the east to west "movement" in the Arab World is disputed. Studies by universities in Cairo, Tunis, Algeria and Morocco centred on genetics show that the movement in reality was from the Maghreb over to Egypt, which explains why so many Egyptians are rather Berber-Arab than Mashreeki-Arabs.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 1):
at the time they were all black (probably)

as you correctly say "probably" but far from certain. Sure, people who for hundreds or thousands of years lived in Africa did not have "Scandinavian looks". You might apply Darwin, and for example say that "slanted" eyes were a defence of generations of people in the East against that tricky sand of deserts like the Gobi. Similar with the relatively broad and more or less "curved" noses of Arabs (etc). Such a nose is a definite advantage in hot and sandy climates, but the same "product of nature" is absolute and complete shit if the climate is wet and cold

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Arab is a race, not a religion.
Not all Arabs are Muslims.

-
not even this really, but rather a culturally linked group/ethnicity of similar people. As Nasser said "if you feel to be Arab you are Arab if you feel not to be you are not" . The Pan-Arab nationalism in fact was started by French missionaries in Beirut who wanted to establish an argument against Turkish rule of the region. One of their most enthusiastic students was Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Socialist Party of the Arab Reawakening .


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13612 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Are We Arabs?

No, we're half Cylon  



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14030 posts, RR: 62
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 17):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
map is in so far inaccurate

even the east to west "movement" in the Arab World is disputed. Studies by universities in Cairo, Tunis, Algeria and Morocco centred on genetics show that the movement in reality was from the Maghreb over to Egypt, which explains why so many Egyptians are rather Berber-Arab than Mashreeki-Arabs.

This would make sense: Mankind developed first in the Rift Valley Region of East Africa, then spread westwards along the southern edge of the Sahara desert to West Africa, then up along the fertile coast region to what today is Morrocco and from there again eastwards to Egypt, following the narrow, fertile strip along the coast.
I understand (and have actually seen it while flying over the region) that there is a desert between the original human breeding grounds in Ethiopia / Kenya / Tansania and the fertile valley of the Nile which would have been almost impossible by early humans to cross and the Egyptian Red Sea coast is not exactly fertile either.

Jan


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are We « Civilized » People The True Barbarians.. posted Sat Feb 21 2009 05:19:20 by Beaucaire
The EU - Where Are We Going Now? posted Thu Jul 10 2008 15:57:49 by WunalaYann
Natalie Holloway Tragedy; Where Are We? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:21:46 by Zippyjet
Are We Heading For A Stock Market Crash? posted Fri Jul 7 2006 14:48:46 by Bmacleod
6 Years Later: Are We Better Off? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 00:08:45 by Bushpilot
Why Are We Letting Afghanistan Get Away With This? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 17:11:36 by Jaysit
Mass MAN Meet - Part Sex: Are We There Yet? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 10:52:52 by BCAL
Are We Done Being Danish Now? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 18:46:01 by AirTran737
Are We Still Considered African Americans? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 06:14:49 by Tsaord
Are We Heading For A Third World War? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 17:26:47 by Kay