Somali people who are they? [ORIGINAL FACTS FOR DUMMIES]

Do you understand now?

  • Yes, you're right! (Thank you for the truth)

    Votes: 11 73.3%
  • No, you're wrong! (I'm stupid Illiterate dumbass)

    Votes: 4 26.7%

  • Total voters
    15
Status
Not open for further replies.
Somalis are Muslim East Cushtic people/Horn Africans, according to DNA analysis from 'Hodgson et al.' Somalis in the North have only 3% West Asian and 97% Cushtic, but as for those in the South they're 100% Cushtic.

As for supposed Arab identity, majority of Arabs say that you're an Arab if you speak Arabic. But if you look at 80% of Somalis today they don't speak Arabic except for the Shiekhs, Imams, Qaris, etc. So if anyone here 'speaks' Arabic and wants to 'identify' as one, then you're an Arab according to 'Arabs'. Congrats BUT remember not all Somalis are like you!

For the Arab ancestry, it hasn't been solved yet because layers of Somali DNA hasn't been dug up properly except for the new types. To solve it they need to dig deep into Somali DNA OR give Darood/Jabarti and Isaaq a DNA test, then maybe the truth will be revealed once and for all!

The supposed Arab DNA may have existed over 10%, but it probaly got consumed by the Cushtic majority reducing it to a small percentage. We have to remember that the supposed Arab ancestors WERE individuals, and NOT small populations. If the Hui Chinese gained only 7%-15% West Asian DNA from over 1500 Arabs, then how the hell is Darood and Ishaaq AS Individuals supposed to make the West Asian DNA marker jump over like 20%? Remember peeps, no one needs to be judgemental!

However we are...
NOT
Ethnic Arabs
NOT Oromo/Afar-Arab Hybrids
NOT Arab-Bantu Hybrids
NOT Former Christian Abyssinians
NOT South Asians who Migrated to the Horn
NOT Muslim Masai
NOT Aliens from Mars

So in conclusion an 'Ethnic Somali' is a East Cushtic person who is descended from Samaale, and is part of the major clans which are Dir, Isaaq, Darood, Hawiye and Saab. So yeah, I've crushed some your stupid illusions and if you want to debate properly please use Scientific facts as bases instead of Middle Earth lore fiction from your head.
 
Last edited:
tumblr_inline_ntpxudJVnV1r7pdxc_500.gif
 

Rooble

Suldaanka Gobyare
VIP
Yes, you're right! (Thank you for the truth). Khattab keep up the good work!.

Second option had me weak
(I'm stupid Illiterate dumbass):deadmanny:
 
The Article and Journal states it varies individually between 10.4%, 15%, 40% and 50% so that means... yep you're partially correct!
@nambarA

Dont believe these eurocentric hags who wants to erase our God made phenotype by making us into ancient euroasian hybrids. Which is not true.

Read this journal http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/WAURRSZQOE.pdf

"Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world."

", the Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the Near East, because based on linguistic re- construction and the principles of "least moves" and "greatest diversity," it is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages, spoken primarily in Africa with one member in the Near East (Semitic) (Ehret 1984, 1995; Ruhlen 1987). Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by non-linguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995). In fact, there is evidence for movement out of Africa at the very time some claim in-migration (Bar-Josef 1987). By the time of the radiation of Afro-Asiatic speakers there was already genetic differentiation in Africa due to African biohistorical processes.

There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. Continental African variation may be interpreted largely without external mass invasions. The antiquity of modern humans in Africa means that there has been time to accumulate a large amount of random genetic variation (Cavalli-Sforza et. al. 1983), which has been shaped by great ecological diversity in the continent (Hiernaux 1975). Genetic drift woild also contribute to variability due to fluctuations in population size as founder effects and population expansion events occurred throughout the continent. Therefore it is far more accurate to speak of a range of biohistorical African variants than different races of Africans. Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."


(S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top