Essential The Root Random Thoughts
- Thread starter Blackout
- Start date
God damn! Nilo-Saharan people have got to be the most battle hardened people in Africa.
Afro-Asiatics are overrated when it comes to that.
Its true.
Lately I been very interested in the African Islamic influence on early AA culture and their role in AA history. Hell, I been interested in the Muslim AA community in general from recent talks with Muslim family members. And I been meaning in making a thread on that. However, any discussion about Blacks and Islam usually incites emotional kneejerk reactions "like why you worshiping the non-black religion!"
really? i've never heard that IRL.
i've never heard "like why you worshiping the non-black religion!" IRL
Red Shield
Global Domination
Kenya declared Kenyans of Indian descent as the 44th tribe 
yeah really gotta hope Tanzania pull it off...
yeah really gotta hope Tanzania pull it off...
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Red Shield
Global Domination
Disgustingdude is just doing that to try to lock down votes
Dudes don't be thinking long term at all. Those idiots don't see the long term problems that shyt is gonna cause.
ONE of the reasons why I study black history in such depth is that if you do not know your history then any racist cac can say ANYTHING. And I seen it happen many times they get especially surprised when I fact check them. But for others they aren't so lucky. Sure you'll know what they are saying is nonsense but you wouldn't have the tools to debunk them.
Also not trying to tell Africans what to do but I would prefer some of them to stop calling themselves "tribe." There was nothing "tribal" about Ile Ifa, Ashanti Kingdom, Mali, Swahili Coast, Kano, Abyssinia, etc,etc.
Also not trying to tell Africans what to do but I would prefer some of them to stop calling themselves "tribe." There was nothing "tribal" about Ile Ifa, Ashanti Kingdom, Mali, Swahili Coast, Kano, Abyssinia, etc,etc.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Some Africans had tribes, some had nations, some had kingdoms, others had empires
But at the root of everything is the tribal roots
Posting this because although this information is focused on Native American languages, this also applies to the Greenberg Language Phylums of African languages by consequence since the same methods were used.
"Whereas Greenberg’s classification has been widely and uncritically used by human geneticists, it has been rejected by virtually all historical linguists who study Native American languages. There are many errors in the data on which his classification is based (Goddard 1987; Adelaar 1989; Berman 1992; Kimball 1992; Poser 1992), and Greenberg’s criteria for determining linguistic relationships are widely regarded as invalid. His method of multilateral comparison assembled only superficial similarities between languages, and Greenberg did not distinguish similarities due to common ancestry (i.e., homology) from those due to other factors (which other linguists do). Linguistic similarities can also be due to factors such as chance, borrowing from neighboring languages, and onomatopoeia, so proposals of remote linguistic relationships are only plausible when these other possible explanations have been eliminated (Matisoff 1990; Mithun 1990; Goddard and Campbell 1994; Campbell 1997; Ringe 2000). Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate such explanations, and the putative long-range similarities he amassed appear to be mostly chance resemblances and the result of misanalysis—he compared many languages simultaneously (which increases the probability of finding chance resemblances), examined arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (e.g., excrement, night, and grass), failed to analyze the structure of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences between languages, and misinterpreted well-established findings (Chafe 1987; Bright 1988; Campbell 1988, 1997; Golla 1988; Goddard 1990; Rankin 1992; McMahon and McMahon 1995; Nichols and Peterson 1996).
Consequently, empirical studies have shown that “the method of multilateral comparison fails every test; its results are utterly unreliable. Multilateral comparison is worse than useless: it is positively misleading, since the patterns of ‘evidence’ that it adduces in support of proposed linguistic relationships are in many cases mathematically indistinguishable from random patterns of chance resemblances” (Ringe 1994, p. 28; cf. Ringe 2002). Because of these problems, Greenberg’s methodology has proven incapable of distinguishing plausible proposals of linguistic relationships from implausible ones, such as Finnish-Amerind (Campbell 1988). Thus, specialists in Native American linguistics insist that Greenberg’s methodology was so flawed that it completely invalidates his conclusions about the unity of Amerind, and Greenberg himself estimated that 80%–90% of linguists agreed with this assessment (Lewin 1988).
Given this, the use of Greenberg’s (1987) classification can confound attempts to understand the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Many studies of Native American genetic variation continue to use this classification (e.g., Bortolini et al. 2002, 2003; Fernandez-Cobo et al. 2002; Lell et al. 2002; Gomez-Casado et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). However, Hunley and Long (2004) recently showed that there is a poor fit between Greenberg’s classification and the patterns of Native American mtDNA variation. On the basis of their findings, we believe that Greenberg’s groupings should no longer be used in analyses of mtDNA variation."
"Whereas Greenberg’s classification has been widely and uncritically used by human geneticists, it has been rejected by virtually all historical linguists who study Native American languages. There are many errors in the data on which his classification is based (Goddard 1987; Adelaar 1989; Berman 1992; Kimball 1992; Poser 1992), and Greenberg’s criteria for determining linguistic relationships are widely regarded as invalid. His method of multilateral comparison assembled only superficial similarities between languages, and Greenberg did not distinguish similarities due to common ancestry (i.e., homology) from those due to other factors (which other linguists do). Linguistic similarities can also be due to factors such as chance, borrowing from neighboring languages, and onomatopoeia, so proposals of remote linguistic relationships are only plausible when these other possible explanations have been eliminated (Matisoff 1990; Mithun 1990; Goddard and Campbell 1994; Campbell 1997; Ringe 2000). Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate such explanations, and the putative long-range similarities he amassed appear to be mostly chance resemblances and the result of misanalysis—he compared many languages simultaneously (which increases the probability of finding chance resemblances), examined arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (e.g., excrement, night, and grass), failed to analyze the structure of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences between languages, and misinterpreted well-established findings (Chafe 1987; Bright 1988; Campbell 1988, 1997; Golla 1988; Goddard 1990; Rankin 1992; McMahon and McMahon 1995; Nichols and Peterson 1996).
Consequently, empirical studies have shown that “the method of multilateral comparison fails every test; its results are utterly unreliable. Multilateral comparison is worse than useless: it is positively misleading, since the patterns of ‘evidence’ that it adduces in support of proposed linguistic relationships are in many cases mathematically indistinguishable from random patterns of chance resemblances” (Ringe 1994, p. 28; cf. Ringe 2002). Because of these problems, Greenberg’s methodology has proven incapable of distinguishing plausible proposals of linguistic relationships from implausible ones, such as Finnish-Amerind (Campbell 1988). Thus, specialists in Native American linguistics insist that Greenberg’s methodology was so flawed that it completely invalidates his conclusions about the unity of Amerind, and Greenberg himself estimated that 80%–90% of linguists agreed with this assessment (Lewin 1988).
Given this, the use of Greenberg’s (1987) classification can confound attempts to understand the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Many studies of Native American genetic variation continue to use this classification (e.g., Bortolini et al. 2002, 2003; Fernandez-Cobo et al. 2002; Lell et al. 2002; Gomez-Casado et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). However, Hunley and Long (2004) recently showed that there is a poor fit between Greenberg’s classification and the patterns of Native American mtDNA variation. On the basis of their findings, we believe that Greenberg’s groupings should no longer be used in analyses of mtDNA variation."