2. Not all black peoples are the same. Khoisan differs to that of a Bantu and a Nilotic is different to a Madow from the Sahel. Their cultures, ethnicities and languages are completely different. Hence, why do Somalis act like it’s them vs the rest of Subsaharan Africans with regards to being ‘different’. It reeks of ignorance and self-centeredness.
No, the way a Bantu differs from a Nilote is not the same as how Somalis differ from either group.
Sub Saharan African ancestry, despite its diversity, can be grouped together to the exclusion of non-Sub Saharan African ancestry. This applies to other types of ancestry aswell. If you wanted to measure the amount of Sub Saharan African ancestry in Somalis, you could get away with using West Africans as a reference point, even though Somalis have little to no West African, same way if you wanted to gauge Eurasian ancestry in Somalis, if you used the French as a reference point it could also work, because these ancestries are distinct from one another and kinda monolithic when making points of comparison.
Lets say you created a software, which was designed to group which ever samples you input, into 2 distinct genetic groupings/cluster based on how similar the samples are to one another. Populations like Nigerians, South Africans, Kenyans, Congolese etc... will all go into 1 group with each other despite being genetically distinct from one another, same with Europeans and Asians who would ofc form the other group.
A group like Somalis who are 55% Sub Saharan African wouldn't fit well into either group due to having similar amounts of ancestry from both groups.
So yh, it kinda is Somali vs the rest of Sub Saharan Africa with regards to being ‘different’ and thats something thats backed by decades of genetics, and centuries of physical anthropology that consistently show Somalis non-Sub Saharan African heritage which has been estimated to be around 45%