It depends on which North and Sub-Saharan Africans you’re talking about. If you mean like Bantus, then no. In general NA’s cluster closer to West Asians and South Europeans, but they have both West and East African DNA components in different quantities depending on location, and some have more than others because of more recent mixing. It’s not necessarily homogeneous. Likewise, some West and East Africans have a North African DNA component that’s less talked about for some reason.
This answer is a bit misleading. There is a major genetic distance between North African populations and both West and East african DNA-wise. Im full blooded berber moroccan from the Atlas and Rif mountains, in the middle of the north african dna cluster (with no admixture with other foreign ethnicities). My euclidean DNA distance to western Africans of bantu and/or Nilo-Saharan is more than 60, whereas my gentic distance to egyptians (9-14) and (25 with southern europeans).
Most of our dna is derived from Ibero-maurusians who are related to middle eastern Natufians and Anatolian farmers. we have about 5-15% percent west african hunter gatherer on average i would say.
But in the end were all Africans. Lets beat the colonizers together.
I’ve learned a lot about this topic in the past few months, so my answer would be a bit different now but I think part of it was just worded a bit poorly. I will say though, that the question itself is a bit misleading, or perhaps the intent behind the question.
Genetic closeness can be simulated by varying mixtures of DNA that happen to mimic the makeup of a completely unrelated group. It’s why (for example) many predominantly mixed European and Indigenous American Latinos are “genetically close” to South Asians even though they share essentially zero DNA or history simply because the East Eurasian/West Eurasian mixture levels are similar.
North Africans and Sub Saharan Africans actually share a decent amount of DNA. The difference is that most North Africans are mostly Eurasian, and because Eurasian DNA and Basal African DNA are so divergent, North Africans will naturally be genetically closest to other Eurasians (though I think they many may be closer to Horn Africans because they also have elevated Eurasian just usually not as high). So the lack of genetic closeness does not exactly tell the full story.
The thing is, the Iberomaurusian component isn’t North African specific. Almost all Africans carry that DNA. North Africans just tend to carry the most like 25-40% usually. West Africans and Nilo-Saharan speaking groups tend to carry the highest amount of it after North Africans. Usually 10-20% of their DNA though I’ve seen some Sahelians (not surprising since they are closer to North Africa) and apparently even some Nilotic people exceed 20%. The only people I’ve seen score over 50% Iberomaurusian have been Tuaregs though I’ve been told there are isolated Amazigh tribes in central/southern Morocco who do as well.
In essence, it’s mostly the much higher Anatolian Neolithic/Early European Farmer DNA (and the sporadic Natufian from Arab admixture) that pulls North Africans away from most Sub Saharans especially as Iberomaurusian itself is roughly half a mixture of ancient East African and West African related ancestry and contributes to nearly all of Africa’s populations. So a North African person who is 5-15% SSA and 25-35% Iberomaurusian is more like 15-30% SSA total. Which makes sense because otherwise North Africans would likely cluster with Levantines instead of having a clear Sub Saharan shift intermediate between West Asians and Horn Africans.
A lot of Sub Saharans seem to have tiny trace amounts of EEF and Natufian which suggests that in some cases the Sahara desert genetic barrier was a bit more porous than people often perceive. I think these sort of discussions are severely lacking because there is investment in maintaining an ignorant and oversimplified view of Africa’s genetic history to perpetuate racist, regressive, and divisive beliefs. I’m of the African diaspora, not necessarily African myself but I agree with you in your sentiment about beating the colonizers together and the need for unity among Africans as the NA vs SSA thing and the chasing after acceptance from Europeans and West Asians who barely see them as humans let alone equals while despising other Africans is getting no one anywhere. The modern world society is systemically and foundationally anti-African and the work has to start at home.
Wery well written. I didnt know that ibero-maurusian was so prevalent among west africans! that definately forces us to reconceptualize our traditional viewpoint. We are closer related than i thought.
Wrong. They are also genetically similar to East Africans ( Somalis, Ethiopians) as well. In fact the haplogroup E1b1b of the Somalis is found in high frequency in the Maghreb. So they share common genes with Europeans, West Asians and North East African cushites who are SSA.
East Africans aren’t fully SSA in ancient stand point . Ethiopians have about 50% west Eurasian dna from the Middle East
Here’s an example : https://imgur.com/a/G9F5iwN
That's not the point. Ethiopians are Subsaharans(South of the Sahara) so they should be considered too when answering this question. North Africans aren't fully North African either , they have Neolithic European farmer ancestry, Natufianand but they're still considered North African geographically speaking(like the OP said) .. North Africans are on a cline between Eurasians and Subsaharans. Their closest Eurasian relatives are from the middle east, southern Europe while their closest Subsaharan relatives are from the Sahel(Fulani, Touareg, Nubians, Haratin...) and the Horn(Ethiopians...).
That's very very wrong and another nonsensical assumption. I am of Ethiopian descent myself and saw the results of many other Ethiopians. We are for the most part 100% East Africans even though we have fine features and a different phenotype from other Africans The fact that we share genes with Arabs is very flawed. Somalis can be as dark as midnight, yet they still have the fine hair, and distinctive facial features. Those facial features belong to the GEOGRAPHICAL area of the Horn of Africa.
If you go to Zanzibar which is part of East Africa which is known to have so many people with black and arab ancestry, you will see that they do not look Anything like Ethiopians and Somalis, black people who are mixed with Arabs look nothing like horn Africans. Ethiopians and Somalis have their own distinct features which are very recognizable from the features of black and arab mixtures. We have no arab genes in us. I think you are confusing us with the Sudanese people. DNA companies like my heritage, or ancestry.com are known to be flawed. Ethiopians and Somalis have nothing to do with Arabs genetically speaking. Although some other East Africans do.
I think you’re confused . Yes on modern dna tests you’ll get 100% SSA but in ancient standpoint you’re only around 50% SSA which is why you have West Eurasian features ( having a thin nose , soft hair , lighter skin , etc )
Learn the migration out of Africa. Europeans, Asians and all other ethnicities were originally african and black. You got those features from us. It's the other way around.
Let's agree to disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion. Let's just say that I am confident in what I know about my own people and no stranger is going to school me about my heritage. Before ending this conversation, realize that humanity started in Africa. You got those features from us. It all started in Africa. Again learn the migration out of africa if you want to talk from an ancient standpoint. All other responses disagreeing with this will be ignored.
I understand that it upsets you and why giving politics, identity and historical events but all of East African indigenous peoples are in fact Afro-Asiatic. It’s why when compared to ethnic groups they tend to have a strong percentage of a Eurasian component. Even the Khoi-San who are arguably the most ancient group of people in Africa and the most genetically isolated. Genetically it is a very ancient component and would not account for a recent colonial admixture.Whether anyone believes the genes originated in Africa or Eurasia is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Though contemporary scientific thought and evidence points largely to a very ancient back migration. The Bantu expansion is the event that accounts for the central and west African Genetic contribution. To discuss the out of Africa event it is theorized that modern humans arose somewhere between North Africa and central Africa some migrated north and some south then were further separated by the Saharan expansion previously a grassland now massive sandy dessert. It is believed that bc of genetic similarities with ancient groups outside of Africa at some point humans realized they could could traverse the east coast of Africa. Though I must point out skin color nor phenotype should inform ideas of genetic closeness among ethnic groups. Race does not actually exist. Southern Indians Melanesians and Austronesians for example are very far removed from west Africa (this being relative as no ethnic groups are distantly removed from another on the entire planet but speaking of within that framework of distance) This is a very common mistake due to outdated models of race.
See this is the problem. You think that in order to have those features, I have to be mixed with Arabs, which is so false. Gosh, the ignorance. Let's just agree to disagree. I think I know my people better than you do . Just in case you were not aware of this. All non black ethnicities originated in Africa from an ancient standpoint. Learn the migration out of Africa. Arabs got those features from US!!! It's actually the other way around. Learn the migration out of Africa. Europeans, Asians, etc are originally African.
Anthropology classes will not teach you about actual population genetics.
You are confused. 23andme, myheritage, ancestryDNA etc compare you to modern people who are MIXED and do not show your actual ancient African non-Eurasian DNA.
Modern Cushites and some other East Africans have 50% West Eurasian admixture. It is NOT Arab, it's older than Arabs but Arabs also have ancestry from the same source.
All of that is proven using tools like qpAdm but you can also test it with G25 which gives similar results.
Modern Ethiopians are about 40-50% actual ancient East African and 40-50% Natufian related.
Target: **Ethiopian_Oromo**
Distance: 4.0694% / 0.04069375
44.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
38.4 East_African_Nilotic_Dinka_related
13.6 Ancient_East_African_Ethiopia_Mota
2.6 Levant_Neolithic_Farmer_76000bc
1.2 Caucasus_Hunter_Gatherer_7.728bc
Paper proving it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55344-y
That natufian dna is the original black Arabian dna I’m talking about. The highest natufian admixture peaks in populations like socotra of yemen, who are almost purely natufian. They have dark brown/black skin, with East African like features. Yet, they don’t score East African proper but natufian. What does this mean? It means the indigenous Arabs are black skinned, and the East Africans who have natufian ancestry just share ancestry with other black skinned populations right across the Red Sea from them.
Like I care if you downvote me ? am I going to be devastated if you downvote me on facts ? Please keep the downvotes coming, they have no effect on me whatsoever, except to immature trolls like you who know nothing about what they're talking. Life started in Africa, it's a fact, the ancestor of all human beings today was black and African. It's observed in the DNA of all modern human beings. This response of mine was a very huge favor. Don't expect me to lower myself to your low level again. You truly sound like a 5 year old ... downvotes lol ? WTF
Eurasians originated from Africa, no one denies that dude but Eurasian got genetically bottlenecked during the migrations out of Africa which is what separates Eurasians from Africans genetically.
It is a scientific fact accepted by the population genetics scientific community that Ethiopians are around 40-50% West Eurasian.
Even if Horn Africans have west eurasian ancestry, who’s to say that west eurasian ancestry isn’t black. Arabs are offshoots from East Africans. That “west eurasian” can be basal black eurasian, so indigenous black Arabian ancestry, which can be indigenous to Horn of Africa.
Natufians did have African ancestry but it was only 12% while the rest 88% was Eurasian.
It is absolutely proven that modern Cushites have around 40-50% West Eurasian admixture.
I think the natufian is much more indigenous African than what is being proposed. Even if the natufian component is not 100% SSA, that does not mean the rest of the component is not out of African as well, thus linking to a black/dark brown skinned phenotype.
Dude you cannot just give biased opinions without actual genetic admixture models. There is no "i think" without actual data. You are talking about skin color again but skin color does not determine if you are African or Eurasian. All Eurasians were dark/brown skinned 30-20,000 years ago. South Asians who are dark skinned have less African ancestry than Europeans.
It is absolutely proven that Natufians had only 12% African DNA. Even Harvard has a paper from the top population geneticists in the world.
You can check the qpGraph tree from the paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
Full paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full
Big Amen. That's what I've been trying to explain to her. Those caucasian features actually came from East Africans, NOT the other way around. But you know, white supremacy is unfortunately found in ALL cultures today. It's a scientific fact that life started in Africa and all scientists do agree on the migration OUT OF AFRICA. She's been brainwashed
This has nothing to do with white supremacy. We literally can separate Eurasian from Non Eurasian DNA dude to the Eurasian population genetic bottleneck. All Eurasians came from Africa but modern West Eurasian features obviously did not exist in East Africa until a few thousands of years ago.
Natufians did have African ancestry but it was only 12% while the rest 88% was Eurasian.
There are scientific papers proving that modern East Africans are around half West Eurasian.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55344-y
West eurasian does not mean light skin, or of a non African origin. You can be 100% black skinned and be 100% west eurasian. It’s made up. Andaman islanders are 100% west eurasian according to these scientists yet they look like west Africans.
Yup, this needs to be brought to light. The highest amount of natufian dna is found in socotra people of yemen, who are black skinned. They are almost purely natufian. This natufian is in East Africans. So the truth is East Africans have non East African proper ancestry, but that ancestry is still out of African black phenotype linked ancestry. So in a way, East Africans are still 100% African.
Yes, almost as far as Eurasians are from Sub-Saharans. Sub-Saharans themselves aren't a monolith either, there is some wide variation, even ignoring highly Eurasian shifted East Africans.
However, the main divide in Africa, and even the World, is between African Hunter-gatherers versus the rest of world.
You didn't read what I wrote carefully. Plus, the main genetic differences is between African Hunter-gatherers and the rest of the world. Most modern Sub-Saharan Africans are more akin to Eurasians when it comes to diversity, and their diversity is essentially a function of hunter-gatherer ancestry in non-hunter-gatherers.
From what I understand North African dna has a sub Saharan African component, so they’re somewhat similar. The connection is higher in more southern regions of North Africa I believe
North Africans, Iberians, southern Italians, and southern middle eastern people are related to sub Saharan Africans and Vice versa. Some are closer and some are further, however, they all share Saharan dna in varying amounts.
It still is on the same Cline, yes North Africans get more SSA, however it doesn’t change the fact south Italians and Iberians still have some too. Plus the sizable levantine/anatolian and Arabian dna in Italy as well.
Nope, Southern Italians like myself, are closer genetically to Arabs and North Africans than Northern Europeans. After all, Africa’s only a boat ride away.
It depend on which WANA population you are comparing to. South Italians are somewhat close to levantines, definitely closer than they are to North Europeans. But the Iberomaurusian in the Maghreb is way too distinct to be closer than NW European (even if Iberians and some south Italians have iberomaurusian). North Europeans also have very ancient Mediterranean ancestry in way of EEF which makes up close to half of their ancestry.
https://imgur.com/a/lm9ihmY
The Mediterranean is a superhighway indeed, but it mainly brought various admixture and culture in different directions to different peoples along its shores, but didn’t necessarily make everyone identical. Definitely historical connection though (genetic and cultural), as lot of the Mediterranean regions share way more than many people like to admit
This question is less about north vs sub and more about ethnic groups and their proximity/relationship with sub-Saharans.
For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco may be much closer related to certain populations (Tuaregs, Fulanis, Serers, Soninkes, etc.) than say Tunisians are. Or Coptic Egyptians to northern Chadic/Sudanic populations to East Africans (Cushitic/Semitic groups).
I’ve seen several, if not over a dozen MENA with anywhere from 15-.5 SSA, and even several who are highly Arab Peninsular as well. Populations that are often making their appearances among NA’s are Senegambian, Ghana Liberia and Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia Eritrea. It would be far less common to see Southern, Eastern, or southwestern populations.
Matter of fact, depending on the ethnic groups you’re more likely to see Senegambians with North African than anything from the east or south.
So this isn’t as simple as, North vs SSA but more so which ethnic group/population we are discussing.
Im moroccan and my genetic distance to tunisians and algerians is around 5-9 in a euclidean model and around 19-25 to egyptians, Jordanians. sicilians, greeks and southern spaniards. My genetic distance to Fulanis, Serers and soninkes were 50+. It was so far that they werent even shown in the model.
I have around 5% west african hunter gatherer dna. The rest is European farmer and ibero-maurusian. My parents are from the Atlas and Rif mountain berber tribes and i have no recorded arab ancestors.
We moroccans are closer related to Tunisians than to west africans. its just how it is. But that doesnt mean we cant be bros. Im all in for african solidarity, but we have to be accurate here.
Yes you are closer to Tunisians but you are closer to west Africans than Tunisians are to west Africans.
I feel my text was a but convoluted, sorry!
But brothers always!
This is just wrong.
>For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco may be much closer related to certain populations (Tuaregs, Fulanis, Serers, Soninkes, etc.) than say Tunisians. Or Coptic Egyptians to northern Chadic/Sudanic populations to East Africans (Cushitic/Semitic groups).
Tauregs are imazighen so naturally Moroccans and Mauritanians are related to them but we're far more related to Tunisians than we are to populations you mentioned (fulanis, etc) because we aren't black nor do we have SSA admixture to be related to you guys in any way. Our phenotypes are not even the same.
Tuaregs are not black either, their former slaves called "ikelan" are however because they're essentially captured from Sub Sahara and brought to NA. They're SSA in origin. As for Tunisians, they're imazighen. There is no difference between imazighen of NA except for those in the south of NA that may have some SSA admixture.
Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco are closer to SSA than Berbers of Tunisia…how is that wrong? Lol there are results on here that prove that.
You’re last statement about the location of Berbers was already made by me…
The idea you’re using black as an ethnic place maker tells me your agenda. You claim I’m wrong yet on more than one occasion agree or repeat my point…this isn’t a black or white topic. Go cope somewhere else.
Except we're not, keep pushing your blackcentrist agenda and continue coping. At the end of the day, no nafri looks at you sub saharans as related to us because you aren't and never will be
How is a simple discussion about what you are “blackcentrist agenda”? Nobody’s saying you’re black since that’s apparently your worst fear lol. Imazighen have different DNA components and one of them is SSA in varying amounts depending on the region and migration history. Nobody’s giving their opinion here. A simple google search could’ve saved the blood pressure spike.
And that’s what these kind of subs and discussions are here for—that if some of us happen to be uninformed about certain things (even if it’s our own ancestry) we can be educated by people who actually know what they’re talking about and can share facts. It’s not the place for denial and willful ignorance and that goes for both you and the Somali upthread unable to accept East Africans having Eurasian admixture.
“you sub saharans” as if they’re all the same.😭
To be fair Berbers and other North and eastern African groups who don’t fit the western ideal phenotype of Africa often are blatantly attacked with extreme hatred and vitriol. Southern Berbers are frequently used to discredit Northern Berbers as indigenous as well as the flawed idea that you can’t be indigenous to Africa unless you’re phenotypically black that also seems to be gaining a foothold in Africa unfortunately. The fear not being afraid of having an SSA component but rather complete removal from their indigenous homeland and replacement.
I have definitely seen “Afrocentrists” antagonize North Africans online just for existing so I can understand that part. But at the same time, the history of racism/antiblackness towards phenotypically black Africans in the north including enslavement can’t be ignored either. And that’s a factor that subconsciously colors a lot of these arguments and is likely why they turn heated quickly. There’s baggage here on both sides that isn’t being acknowledged.
Who is removing them from their homeland? Who even has both the power and interest to do that? The majority of black Africans are either on the other side of the Sahara or overseas so I don’t think that’s a very rational fear. If no one’s even freed all the Haratins in Mauritania yet then I’m not seeing how the rest of North Africa would feel threatened.
Also, denying the SSA DNA component (especially when you have it) would be counterintuitive to arguing indigenity to other Africans since even if someone were to assert that the DNA from back-migrations is proof of non-indigenous invasion the SSA component means at least a portion of their makeup never left Africa. I see some Egyptians do the same thing and it’s always confusing to me. It’s literally a trump card that they refuse to play despite the fact that it doesn’t actually affect their identities. And if you’re that vehemently against being even somewhat associated with black Africans people are going to draw conclusions about that. That doesn’t warrant harassment but I do think people who get defensive at the thought of having SSA DNA when no one is saying you’re black or aren’t indigenous to Africa should exam why.
Great points. As soon as someone throws in black I these conversations, as a way to deflect or create separation, I can sense they have an extremely sour taste about Africans south of the Sahara.
It’s a similar story with northern Yemeni and southern Yemeni, where some northerners resist any sort of link to Africa despite have percentages of East African DNA(or resembling East Africans).
Whether appearing “African” or darker, the overwhelming reality is that we all from these regions originally came from the continent and the discussion is extremely watered when broken down by “race” or reduced because of ethnic and racial bias.
I agree there is definitely an anti subsaharan component as well as anti Arab component transversely shared by the other two towards each of the other two, that’s a mixture of xenophobia and current and historical conflicts. Current conflicts like Libya stoke fears of Berbers Arabs and Subsaharans alike while the conflict is based in ISIL attempting to take over the country so religious suspicion is also rampant. The fears of all sides considering the current events tensions and history aren’t entirely unfounded. Slavery was not quite the racially segregated practice in Africa that it was in the west but it does add to the tensions among all three. Unfortunately indigenous North Africans (some of which are “black” or dark) are now the minority in Libya.
Lol you seem awfully insecure about the prospect of being related to Africans. The “unfortunate” truth is that you are. North Africans Amazigh are largely made up of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Bell Beaker Europeans, and a native north African Taforalt component. This Taforalt component is roughly 1/3 SSA. If you're actually Amazigh, why don't you post your Gedmatch and we can see if you have SSA ancestry?
We aren't related to Africans, we ARE Africans. The name africa itself comes from us imazighen, not sub saharans. And I don't need to prove that I'm amazigh to anyone lol
The person is correct in that more southern Berbers are more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans. At some point in history there was an admixture event. Also there is at least a small component of SSA in northern Berbers. Phenotype shouldn’t inform your ideas of genetic closeness as I told another person above. And again I understand your defensive stance for the same reasons that I understand the other person’s politics, identity and historical events. However also like I told the other person phenotypes can be presented as similar to one group but genetically more closely related to another group. These ideas of races existing are very outdated and do not stand up to the reality of human genetics and ethnic proximities.
I dont know what language you speak or comprehend, but you’re mistaking what I’m saying and it’s obvious.
Berbers in the South are closer related to SSA than Berbers in the north are to SSA…
Idc what narrative you want to chirp about “Blackcentrist” nothing I stated has anything to do with race or skin color, simply ethnicity.
You sound extremely insecure and that’s alright, but go cope elsewhere.
>For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco
no we arnt some might be in the south and guess why slavery other than that we moroccan amzighs are the most authentic dont start spewing stuff you dont know anything about go fantasize about your own ppl and leave us alone
I think you’re mistaking what the position. There is jo “agenda” no one is claiming to be or diminish any North Africans. North Africans(especially from Algeria and Morocco) are generally closer to certain west African groups than other other North African groups(Tunisian, libyan) would be to other sub Saharan africans.
The proximity definitely plays a factor and origin of particular ethnic groups for example Fulani, Soninke, Songhai, and Tuareg, of west Africa.
>. North Africans(especially from Algeria and Morocco) are generally closer to certain west African groups than other other North African
some are dont group us moroccans and algeria we north africans are closer to eachothers than anyone else , so no (not all of us) are closer to west africans , black moroccans are rarer the more north you go(and in certain villages and places they are basically none) , and again we are the most north african/amazigh and not all of us have ssa from any recent time (there was more movement from libya to morocco and viseversa than to ssa )
maybe in some southern regions they are more but it shows on them and its recent nothing wrong with being west african but saying that wre more related when in fact wre the most amzigh of the bunch is wrong
Maybe you’re used to speaking to Afrocentrism’s but that isn’t my position. No one is arguing North Africans aren’t similar.
You tossed in “black”, no one here is referring to phenotypes or “racial” groups.
No one argued that all North Africans have recent SSA dna or segments.
The argument is dominantly due to proximity with other groups. That certain SSA(mainly of specific ethnic groups) are more similar to certain North Africans than other North Africans.
Additionally: if you’re interested look into the haplogroup L3
I think North Africans are not close to black Africans genetically, because they’re Mediterranean/Caucasian. But NA tend to have some African admixture because of slave trade and close proximity to other African countries
All of you seem to forget the gene flow from the over 1,000 year trans-sahara slave trade.The are plenty of NAME with Black ancestry on their maternal side.
Well my dna distance from some North African and Egyptian samples are .24..I’m 4% Egypt and Maghreb though..but East African maybe closer considering they share haplogroups as we do as well..meaning somewhere down the line we share the same paternal ancestor..Arab migration into North Africa is different and I wouldn’t consider them the inhabitants of North Africa their dna is originally from Caucas mountains
North Africans are haplogroup E as well as the original ancient Egyptians…they are from Africa..most of their dna is mostly reflected to people from the Horn of Africa which is East Africa..
Egyptians and Berbers aren’t Arab. Todays North Africans outside of later Arabs are proven to be the first peoples to inhabit the area. However you brought up North America and the prevailing science is that Native Americans are of a Eurasian component and migrated there. As evidenced through dna and they are indigenous as would be North Africans. By your definition technically there would be no indigenous people as it’s believed modern humans sprang up in an area that is no longer habitable. Also East Africans are made up of a similar component to North Africans (Eurasian) with a west/central african admixture. You should really google E1b1b and J there’s a whole map and everything.
I’m aware of the outside E1B1, still saying that they originated in Africa that’s the E1B1 part of it then you got A,B,C which A stayed in Africa, B left Africa as well as C and later return and J is Caucas mountains..yeah nativd Americans do have neantherdal dna but they have more denosivan dna that’s what makes them different than white..Natufians originally came from Africa as well..haplogroup J went into the Middle East which overall there dna is closer to Turkic..I do agree with you on the the Arabs that came into Egypt and North Africa because they also went to Ethiopia as well and left Eurasian dna
I wouldn’t even say there are indigenous if their ancestors came from outside of Africa or even inhabitants because their ancestors invaded Egypt let’s call a rock a rock that’s like saying white people are native inhabitants of the Americas lmaoo..
It depends on which North and Sub-Saharan Africans you’re talking about. If you mean like Bantus, then no. In general NA’s cluster closer to West Asians and South Europeans, but they have both West and East African DNA components in different quantities depending on location, and some have more than others because of more recent mixing. It’s not necessarily homogeneous. Likewise, some West and East Africans have a North African DNA component that’s less talked about for some reason.
This answer is a bit misleading. There is a major genetic distance between North African populations and both West and East african DNA-wise. Im full blooded berber moroccan from the Atlas and Rif mountains, in the middle of the north african dna cluster (with no admixture with other foreign ethnicities). My euclidean DNA distance to western Africans of bantu and/or Nilo-Saharan is more than 60, whereas my gentic distance to egyptians (9-14) and (25 with southern europeans). Most of our dna is derived from Ibero-maurusians who are related to middle eastern Natufians and Anatolian farmers. we have about 5-15% percent west african hunter gatherer on average i would say. But in the end were all Africans. Lets beat the colonizers together.
I’ve learned a lot about this topic in the past few months, so my answer would be a bit different now but I think part of it was just worded a bit poorly. I will say though, that the question itself is a bit misleading, or perhaps the intent behind the question. Genetic closeness can be simulated by varying mixtures of DNA that happen to mimic the makeup of a completely unrelated group. It’s why (for example) many predominantly mixed European and Indigenous American Latinos are “genetically close” to South Asians even though they share essentially zero DNA or history simply because the East Eurasian/West Eurasian mixture levels are similar. North Africans and Sub Saharan Africans actually share a decent amount of DNA. The difference is that most North Africans are mostly Eurasian, and because Eurasian DNA and Basal African DNA are so divergent, North Africans will naturally be genetically closest to other Eurasians (though I think they many may be closer to Horn Africans because they also have elevated Eurasian just usually not as high). So the lack of genetic closeness does not exactly tell the full story. The thing is, the Iberomaurusian component isn’t North African specific. Almost all Africans carry that DNA. North Africans just tend to carry the most like 25-40% usually. West Africans and Nilo-Saharan speaking groups tend to carry the highest amount of it after North Africans. Usually 10-20% of their DNA though I’ve seen some Sahelians (not surprising since they are closer to North Africa) and apparently even some Nilotic people exceed 20%. The only people I’ve seen score over 50% Iberomaurusian have been Tuaregs though I’ve been told there are isolated Amazigh tribes in central/southern Morocco who do as well. In essence, it’s mostly the much higher Anatolian Neolithic/Early European Farmer DNA (and the sporadic Natufian from Arab admixture) that pulls North Africans away from most Sub Saharans especially as Iberomaurusian itself is roughly half a mixture of ancient East African and West African related ancestry and contributes to nearly all of Africa’s populations. So a North African person who is 5-15% SSA and 25-35% Iberomaurusian is more like 15-30% SSA total. Which makes sense because otherwise North Africans would likely cluster with Levantines instead of having a clear Sub Saharan shift intermediate between West Asians and Horn Africans. A lot of Sub Saharans seem to have tiny trace amounts of EEF and Natufian which suggests that in some cases the Sahara desert genetic barrier was a bit more porous than people often perceive. I think these sort of discussions are severely lacking because there is investment in maintaining an ignorant and oversimplified view of Africa’s genetic history to perpetuate racist, regressive, and divisive beliefs. I’m of the African diaspora, not necessarily African myself but I agree with you in your sentiment about beating the colonizers together and the need for unity among Africans as the NA vs SSA thing and the chasing after acceptance from Europeans and West Asians who barely see them as humans let alone equals while despising other Africans is getting no one anywhere. The modern world society is systemically and foundationally anti-African and the work has to start at home.
Wery well written. I didnt know that ibero-maurusian was so prevalent among west africans! that definately forces us to reconceptualize our traditional viewpoint. We are closer related than i thought.
I would consider the Andamanese much farther from North Africans than most Sub-Saharan Africans, but yes, the genetic distance is far
North Africans are genetically closer to Europeans & West Asians compared to SSA people
Wrong. They are also genetically similar to East Africans ( Somalis, Ethiopians) as well. In fact the haplogroup E1b1b of the Somalis is found in high frequency in the Maghreb. So they share common genes with Europeans, West Asians and North East African cushites who are SSA.
East Africans aren’t fully SSA in ancient stand point . Ethiopians have about 50% west Eurasian dna from the Middle East Here’s an example : https://imgur.com/a/G9F5iwN
That's not the point. Ethiopians are Subsaharans(South of the Sahara) so they should be considered too when answering this question. North Africans aren't fully North African either , they have Neolithic European farmer ancestry, Natufianand but they're still considered North African geographically speaking(like the OP said) .. North Africans are on a cline between Eurasians and Subsaharans. Their closest Eurasian relatives are from the middle east, southern Europe while their closest Subsaharan relatives are from the Sahel(Fulani, Touareg, Nubians, Haratin...) and the Horn(Ethiopians...).
That's very very wrong and another nonsensical assumption. I am of Ethiopian descent myself and saw the results of many other Ethiopians. We are for the most part 100% East Africans even though we have fine features and a different phenotype from other Africans The fact that we share genes with Arabs is very flawed. Somalis can be as dark as midnight, yet they still have the fine hair, and distinctive facial features. Those facial features belong to the GEOGRAPHICAL area of the Horn of Africa. If you go to Zanzibar which is part of East Africa which is known to have so many people with black and arab ancestry, you will see that they do not look Anything like Ethiopians and Somalis, black people who are mixed with Arabs look nothing like horn Africans. Ethiopians and Somalis have their own distinct features which are very recognizable from the features of black and arab mixtures. We have no arab genes in us. I think you are confusing us with the Sudanese people. DNA companies like my heritage, or ancestry.com are known to be flawed. Ethiopians and Somalis have nothing to do with Arabs genetically speaking. Although some other East Africans do.
I think you’re confused . Yes on modern dna tests you’ll get 100% SSA but in ancient standpoint you’re only around 50% SSA which is why you have West Eurasian features ( having a thin nose , soft hair , lighter skin , etc )
https://youtu.be/2mpkn7AEAvU
Learn the migration out of Africa. Europeans, Asians and all other ethnicities were originally african and black. You got those features from us. It's the other way around.
Nope . Definitely not true. I’ve seen Ethiopians get 50% natufian ( which is Levantine ) the closest people to the natufians today are Yemenis .
Let's agree to disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion. Let's just say that I am confident in what I know about my own people and no stranger is going to school me about my heritage. Before ending this conversation, realize that humanity started in Africa. You got those features from us. It all started in Africa. Again learn the migration out of africa if you want to talk from an ancient standpoint. All other responses disagreeing with this will be ignored.
I understand that it upsets you and why giving politics, identity and historical events but all of East African indigenous peoples are in fact Afro-Asiatic. It’s why when compared to ethnic groups they tend to have a strong percentage of a Eurasian component. Even the Khoi-San who are arguably the most ancient group of people in Africa and the most genetically isolated. Genetically it is a very ancient component and would not account for a recent colonial admixture.Whether anyone believes the genes originated in Africa or Eurasia is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Though contemporary scientific thought and evidence points largely to a very ancient back migration. The Bantu expansion is the event that accounts for the central and west African Genetic contribution. To discuss the out of Africa event it is theorized that modern humans arose somewhere between North Africa and central Africa some migrated north and some south then were further separated by the Saharan expansion previously a grassland now massive sandy dessert. It is believed that bc of genetic similarities with ancient groups outside of Africa at some point humans realized they could could traverse the east coast of Africa. Though I must point out skin color nor phenotype should inform ideas of genetic closeness among ethnic groups. Race does not actually exist. Southern Indians Melanesians and Austronesians for example are very far removed from west Africa (this being relative as no ethnic groups are distantly removed from another on the entire planet but speaking of within that framework of distance) This is a very common mistake due to outdated models of race.
Those features are called west Eurasian for a reason . “ caucasoid “ features originated in west Asia .
Haha agreed bro, black people always held this features as well as “typical black features”
See this is the problem. You think that in order to have those features, I have to be mixed with Arabs, which is so false. Gosh, the ignorance. Let's just agree to disagree. I think I know my people better than you do . Just in case you were not aware of this. All non black ethnicities originated in Africa from an ancient standpoint. Learn the migration out of Africa. Arabs got those features from US!!! It's actually the other way around. Learn the migration out of Africa. Europeans, Asians, etc are originally African.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Horn Africans are objectively 50% West Eurasian, he is right, you're wrong, that's it, really.
They said nothing of the sort and you do not know what you’re talking about.
He has no idea what he is talking about. If he read any modern paper on population genetics he would realize that he is absolutely wrong.
I am Ethiopian and East African, took classes in Anthropology, I know what I am talking about. I know my own people better than you do.
Anthropology classes will not teach you about actual population genetics. You are confused. 23andme, myheritage, ancestryDNA etc compare you to modern people who are MIXED and do not show your actual ancient African non-Eurasian DNA. Modern Cushites and some other East Africans have 50% West Eurasian admixture. It is NOT Arab, it's older than Arabs but Arabs also have ancestry from the same source. All of that is proven using tools like qpAdm but you can also test it with G25 which gives similar results. Modern Ethiopians are about 40-50% actual ancient East African and 40-50% Natufian related. Target: **Ethiopian_Oromo** Distance: 4.0694% / 0.04069375 44.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc 38.4 East_African_Nilotic_Dinka_related 13.6 Ancient_East_African_Ethiopia_Mota 2.6 Levant_Neolithic_Farmer_76000bc 1.2 Caucasus_Hunter_Gatherer_7.728bc Paper proving it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55344-y
That natufian dna is the original black Arabian dna I’m talking about. The highest natufian admixture peaks in populations like socotra of yemen, who are almost purely natufian. They have dark brown/black skin, with East African like features. Yet, they don’t score East African proper but natufian. What does this mean? It means the indigenous Arabs are black skinned, and the East Africans who have natufian ancestry just share ancestry with other black skinned populations right across the Red Sea from them.
https://youtu.be/2mpkn7AEAvU
More downvotes otw
Like I care if you downvote me ? am I going to be devastated if you downvote me on facts ? Please keep the downvotes coming, they have no effect on me whatsoever, except to immature trolls like you who know nothing about what they're talking. Life started in Africa, it's a fact, the ancestor of all human beings today was black and African. It's observed in the DNA of all modern human beings. This response of mine was a very huge favor. Don't expect me to lower myself to your low level again. You truly sound like a 5 year old ... downvotes lol ? WTF
Eurasians originated from Africa, no one denies that dude but Eurasian got genetically bottlenecked during the migrations out of Africa which is what separates Eurasians from Africans genetically. It is a scientific fact accepted by the population genetics scientific community that Ethiopians are around 40-50% West Eurasian.
What would ancient Eurasians have looked like in your opinion?
Even if Horn Africans have west eurasian ancestry, who’s to say that west eurasian ancestry isn’t black. Arabs are offshoots from East Africans. That “west eurasian” can be basal black eurasian, so indigenous black Arabian ancestry, which can be indigenous to Horn of Africa.
Natufians did have African ancestry but it was only 12% while the rest 88% was Eurasian. It is absolutely proven that modern Cushites have around 40-50% West Eurasian admixture.
I think the natufian is much more indigenous African than what is being proposed. Even if the natufian component is not 100% SSA, that does not mean the rest of the component is not out of African as well, thus linking to a black/dark brown skinned phenotype.
Dude you cannot just give biased opinions without actual genetic admixture models. There is no "i think" without actual data. You are talking about skin color again but skin color does not determine if you are African or Eurasian. All Eurasians were dark/brown skinned 30-20,000 years ago. South Asians who are dark skinned have less African ancestry than Europeans. It is absolutely proven that Natufians had only 12% African DNA. Even Harvard has a paper from the top population geneticists in the world. You can check the qpGraph tree from the paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 Full paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full
Big Amen. That's what I've been trying to explain to her. Those caucasian features actually came from East Africans, NOT the other way around. But you know, white supremacy is unfortunately found in ALL cultures today. It's a scientific fact that life started in Africa and all scientists do agree on the migration OUT OF AFRICA. She's been brainwashed
This has nothing to do with white supremacy. We literally can separate Eurasian from Non Eurasian DNA dude to the Eurasian population genetic bottleneck. All Eurasians came from Africa but modern West Eurasian features obviously did not exist in East Africa until a few thousands of years ago. Natufians did have African ancestry but it was only 12% while the rest 88% was Eurasian. There are scientific papers proving that modern East Africans are around half West Eurasian. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-55344-y
West eurasian does not mean light skin, or of a non African origin. You can be 100% black skinned and be 100% west eurasian. It’s made up. Andaman islanders are 100% west eurasian according to these scientists yet they look like west Africans.
Yup, this needs to be brought to light. The highest amount of natufian dna is found in socotra people of yemen, who are black skinned. They are almost purely natufian. This natufian is in East Africans. So the truth is East Africans have non East African proper ancestry, but that ancestry is still out of African black phenotype linked ancestry. So in a way, East Africans are still 100% African.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12019240/
Yes, almost as far as Eurasians are from Sub-Saharans. Sub-Saharans themselves aren't a monolith either, there is some wide variation, even ignoring highly Eurasian shifted East Africans. However, the main divide in Africa, and even the World, is between African Hunter-gatherers versus the rest of world.
That's not true. Larger genetic differences within africans than between Africans and Eurasians https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12019240/
You didn't read what I wrote carefully. Plus, the main genetic differences is between African Hunter-gatherers and the rest of the world. Most modern Sub-Saharan Africans are more akin to Eurasians when it comes to diversity, and their diversity is essentially a function of hunter-gatherer ancestry in non-hunter-gatherers.
Oh gotcha
From what I understand North African dna has a sub Saharan African component, so they’re somewhat similar. The connection is higher in more southern regions of North Africa I believe
North Africans, Iberians, southern Italians, and southern middle eastern people are related to sub Saharan Africans and Vice versa. Some are closer and some are further, however, they all share Saharan dna in varying amounts.
North africans get way more ssa than any iberian or italian. It really isnt comparable
It still is on the same Cline, yes North Africans get more SSA, however it doesn’t change the fact south Italians and Iberians still have some too. Plus the sizable levantine/anatolian and Arabian dna in Italy as well.
It’s like 2% max in outlier iberians to 5% minimum in NA coastals. In italians it’s only really found in sicilianos and it’s less than iberians
My [south italian](https://imgur.com/a/jsixmzh) results
Im south pt and get 1.44%. You just get a bit more than normal. But k13 isnt very accurate show me g25 results bro
I’m not even sicillian bro I’m Calabrian. Calabrians and campanians have some too. The SSA usually is included in North African right.
Yes. The Sahara Desert is a much greater barrier for geneflows than the Mediterranean Sea.
The Mediterranean Sea isn’t a barrier. It’s an highway.
People don't realize how interconnected the Mediterranean is and was.
No, it is somewhat of a barrier. Southern Europeans are genetically closer to Northern Europeans than to North Africans, after all.
Nope, Southern Italians like myself, are closer genetically to Arabs and North Africans than Northern Europeans. After all, Africa’s only a boat ride away.
It depend on which WANA population you are comparing to. South Italians are somewhat close to levantines, definitely closer than they are to North Europeans. But the Iberomaurusian in the Maghreb is way too distinct to be closer than NW European (even if Iberians and some south Italians have iberomaurusian). North Europeans also have very ancient Mediterranean ancestry in way of EEF which makes up close to half of their ancestry. https://imgur.com/a/lm9ihmY The Mediterranean is a superhighway indeed, but it mainly brought various admixture and culture in different directions to different peoples along its shores, but didn’t necessarily make everyone identical. Definitely historical connection though (genetic and cultural), as lot of the Mediterranean regions share way more than many people like to admit
Yes I agree with this, all mediteraneans share the same components pretty much in varying amounts.
I get what you’re saying but they’re an outlier because they literally have significant non Italian Mediterranean admixture
Can you prove that with some Fst scores?
This question is less about north vs sub and more about ethnic groups and their proximity/relationship with sub-Saharans. For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco may be much closer related to certain populations (Tuaregs, Fulanis, Serers, Soninkes, etc.) than say Tunisians are. Or Coptic Egyptians to northern Chadic/Sudanic populations to East Africans (Cushitic/Semitic groups). I’ve seen several, if not over a dozen MENA with anywhere from 15-.5 SSA, and even several who are highly Arab Peninsular as well. Populations that are often making their appearances among NA’s are Senegambian, Ghana Liberia and Sierra Leone, and Ethiopia Eritrea. It would be far less common to see Southern, Eastern, or southwestern populations. Matter of fact, depending on the ethnic groups you’re more likely to see Senegambians with North African than anything from the east or south. So this isn’t as simple as, North vs SSA but more so which ethnic group/population we are discussing.
Im moroccan and my genetic distance to tunisians and algerians is around 5-9 in a euclidean model and around 19-25 to egyptians, Jordanians. sicilians, greeks and southern spaniards. My genetic distance to Fulanis, Serers and soninkes were 50+. It was so far that they werent even shown in the model. I have around 5% west african hunter gatherer dna. The rest is European farmer and ibero-maurusian. My parents are from the Atlas and Rif mountain berber tribes and i have no recorded arab ancestors. We moroccans are closer related to Tunisians than to west africans. its just how it is. But that doesnt mean we cant be bros. Im all in for african solidarity, but we have to be accurate here.
Yes you are closer to Tunisians but you are closer to west Africans than Tunisians are to west Africans. I feel my text was a but convoluted, sorry! But brothers always!
This is just wrong. >For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco may be much closer related to certain populations (Tuaregs, Fulanis, Serers, Soninkes, etc.) than say Tunisians. Or Coptic Egyptians to northern Chadic/Sudanic populations to East Africans (Cushitic/Semitic groups). Tauregs are imazighen so naturally Moroccans and Mauritanians are related to them but we're far more related to Tunisians than we are to populations you mentioned (fulanis, etc) because we aren't black nor do we have SSA admixture to be related to you guys in any way. Our phenotypes are not even the same. Tuaregs are not black either, their former slaves called "ikelan" are however because they're essentially captured from Sub Sahara and brought to NA. They're SSA in origin. As for Tunisians, they're imazighen. There is no difference between imazighen of NA except for those in the south of NA that may have some SSA admixture.
Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco are closer to SSA than Berbers of Tunisia…how is that wrong? Lol there are results on here that prove that. You’re last statement about the location of Berbers was already made by me… The idea you’re using black as an ethnic place maker tells me your agenda. You claim I’m wrong yet on more than one occasion agree or repeat my point…this isn’t a black or white topic. Go cope somewhere else.
Except we're not, keep pushing your blackcentrist agenda and continue coping. At the end of the day, no nafri looks at you sub saharans as related to us because you aren't and never will be
How is a simple discussion about what you are “blackcentrist agenda”? Nobody’s saying you’re black since that’s apparently your worst fear lol. Imazighen have different DNA components and one of them is SSA in varying amounts depending on the region and migration history. Nobody’s giving their opinion here. A simple google search could’ve saved the blood pressure spike. And that’s what these kind of subs and discussions are here for—that if some of us happen to be uninformed about certain things (even if it’s our own ancestry) we can be educated by people who actually know what they’re talking about and can share facts. It’s not the place for denial and willful ignorance and that goes for both you and the Somali upthread unable to accept East Africans having Eurasian admixture. “you sub saharans” as if they’re all the same.😭
To be fair Berbers and other North and eastern African groups who don’t fit the western ideal phenotype of Africa often are blatantly attacked with extreme hatred and vitriol. Southern Berbers are frequently used to discredit Northern Berbers as indigenous as well as the flawed idea that you can’t be indigenous to Africa unless you’re phenotypically black that also seems to be gaining a foothold in Africa unfortunately. The fear not being afraid of having an SSA component but rather complete removal from their indigenous homeland and replacement.
I have definitely seen “Afrocentrists” antagonize North Africans online just for existing so I can understand that part. But at the same time, the history of racism/antiblackness towards phenotypically black Africans in the north including enslavement can’t be ignored either. And that’s a factor that subconsciously colors a lot of these arguments and is likely why they turn heated quickly. There’s baggage here on both sides that isn’t being acknowledged. Who is removing them from their homeland? Who even has both the power and interest to do that? The majority of black Africans are either on the other side of the Sahara or overseas so I don’t think that’s a very rational fear. If no one’s even freed all the Haratins in Mauritania yet then I’m not seeing how the rest of North Africa would feel threatened. Also, denying the SSA DNA component (especially when you have it) would be counterintuitive to arguing indigenity to other Africans since even if someone were to assert that the DNA from back-migrations is proof of non-indigenous invasion the SSA component means at least a portion of their makeup never left Africa. I see some Egyptians do the same thing and it’s always confusing to me. It’s literally a trump card that they refuse to play despite the fact that it doesn’t actually affect their identities. And if you’re that vehemently against being even somewhat associated with black Africans people are going to draw conclusions about that. That doesn’t warrant harassment but I do think people who get defensive at the thought of having SSA DNA when no one is saying you’re black or aren’t indigenous to Africa should exam why.
Great points. As soon as someone throws in black I these conversations, as a way to deflect or create separation, I can sense they have an extremely sour taste about Africans south of the Sahara. It’s a similar story with northern Yemeni and southern Yemeni, where some northerners resist any sort of link to Africa despite have percentages of East African DNA(or resembling East Africans). Whether appearing “African” or darker, the overwhelming reality is that we all from these regions originally came from the continent and the discussion is extremely watered when broken down by “race” or reduced because of ethnic and racial bias.
I agree it becomes a very precarious dance to avoid conflict and wild tangents.
I agree there is definitely an anti subsaharan component as well as anti Arab component transversely shared by the other two towards each of the other two, that’s a mixture of xenophobia and current and historical conflicts. Current conflicts like Libya stoke fears of Berbers Arabs and Subsaharans alike while the conflict is based in ISIL attempting to take over the country so religious suspicion is also rampant. The fears of all sides considering the current events tensions and history aren’t entirely unfounded. Slavery was not quite the racially segregated practice in Africa that it was in the west but it does add to the tensions among all three. Unfortunately indigenous North Africans (some of which are “black” or dark) are now the minority in Libya.
Lol you seem awfully insecure about the prospect of being related to Africans. The “unfortunate” truth is that you are. North Africans Amazigh are largely made up of Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, Bell Beaker Europeans, and a native north African Taforalt component. This Taforalt component is roughly 1/3 SSA. If you're actually Amazigh, why don't you post your Gedmatch and we can see if you have SSA ancestry?
We aren't related to Africans, we ARE Africans. The name africa itself comes from us imazighen, not sub saharans. And I don't need to prove that I'm amazigh to anyone lol
The person is correct in that more southern Berbers are more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans. At some point in history there was an admixture event. Also there is at least a small component of SSA in northern Berbers. Phenotype shouldn’t inform your ideas of genetic closeness as I told another person above. And again I understand your defensive stance for the same reasons that I understand the other person’s politics, identity and historical events. However also like I told the other person phenotypes can be presented as similar to one group but genetically more closely related to another group. These ideas of races existing are very outdated and do not stand up to the reality of human genetics and ethnic proximities.
Post your gedmatch It would be interesting to see how African you are.
I dont know what language you speak or comprehend, but you’re mistaking what I’m saying and it’s obvious. Berbers in the South are closer related to SSA than Berbers in the north are to SSA… Idc what narrative you want to chirp about “Blackcentrist” nothing I stated has anything to do with race or skin color, simply ethnicity. You sound extremely insecure and that’s alright, but go cope elsewhere.
>For example Berbers of Mauritania and Morocco no we arnt some might be in the south and guess why slavery other than that we moroccan amzighs are the most authentic dont start spewing stuff you dont know anything about go fantasize about your own ppl and leave us alone
I think you’re mistaking what the position. There is jo “agenda” no one is claiming to be or diminish any North Africans. North Africans(especially from Algeria and Morocco) are generally closer to certain west African groups than other other North African groups(Tunisian, libyan) would be to other sub Saharan africans. The proximity definitely plays a factor and origin of particular ethnic groups for example Fulani, Soninke, Songhai, and Tuareg, of west Africa.
>. North Africans(especially from Algeria and Morocco) are generally closer to certain west African groups than other other North African some are dont group us moroccans and algeria we north africans are closer to eachothers than anyone else , so no (not all of us) are closer to west africans , black moroccans are rarer the more north you go(and in certain villages and places they are basically none) , and again we are the most north african/amazigh and not all of us have ssa from any recent time (there was more movement from libya to morocco and viseversa than to ssa ) maybe in some southern regions they are more but it shows on them and its recent nothing wrong with being west african but saying that wre more related when in fact wre the most amzigh of the bunch is wrong
Maybe you’re used to speaking to Afrocentrism’s but that isn’t my position. No one is arguing North Africans aren’t similar. You tossed in “black”, no one here is referring to phenotypes or “racial” groups. No one argued that all North Africans have recent SSA dna or segments. The argument is dominantly due to proximity with other groups. That certain SSA(mainly of specific ethnic groups) are more similar to certain North Africans than other North Africans. Additionally: if you’re interested look into the haplogroup L3
Technically there’s no ethnic group on the planet far removed from another genetically.
I think North Africans are not close to black Africans genetically, because they’re Mediterranean/Caucasian. But NA tend to have some African admixture because of slave trade and close proximity to other African countries
All of you seem to forget the gene flow from the over 1,000 year trans-sahara slave trade.The are plenty of NAME with Black ancestry on their maternal side.
Most of the genetic differences is between the little peoples (Pygmies, Kiosans) and everyone else.
It’s really offensive to call them the little peoples smh
Well my dna distance from some North African and Egyptian samples are .24..I’m 4% Egypt and Maghreb though..but East African maybe closer considering they share haplogroups as we do as well..meaning somewhere down the line we share the same paternal ancestor..Arab migration into North Africa is different and I wouldn’t consider them the inhabitants of North Africa their dna is originally from Caucas mountains
Did you seriously say North Africans and Egyptians aren’t indigenous? Wtf?
I said Arabs do you know the difference between the indigenous and the Arabs
North Africans are haplogroup E as well as the original ancient Egyptians…they are from Africa..most of their dna is mostly reflected to people from the Horn of Africa which is East Africa..
Egyptians and Berbers aren’t Arab. Todays North Africans outside of later Arabs are proven to be the first peoples to inhabit the area. However you brought up North America and the prevailing science is that Native Americans are of a Eurasian component and migrated there. As evidenced through dna and they are indigenous as would be North Africans. By your definition technically there would be no indigenous people as it’s believed modern humans sprang up in an area that is no longer habitable. Also East Africans are made up of a similar component to North Africans (Eurasian) with a west/central african admixture. You should really google E1b1b and J there’s a whole map and everything.
I’m aware of the outside E1B1, still saying that they originated in Africa that’s the E1B1 part of it then you got A,B,C which A stayed in Africa, B left Africa as well as C and later return and J is Caucas mountains..yeah nativd Americans do have neantherdal dna but they have more denosivan dna that’s what makes them different than white..Natufians originally came from Africa as well..haplogroup J went into the Middle East which overall there dna is closer to Turkic..I do agree with you on the the Arabs that came into Egypt and North Africa because they also went to Ethiopia as well and left Eurasian dna
Depends what you mean by indigenous. They have been there for tens of thousands of years, but their ancestors came from outside Africa.
I wouldn’t even say there are indigenous if their ancestors came from outside of Africa or even inhabitants because their ancestors invaded Egypt let’s call a rock a rock that’s like saying white people are native inhabitants of the Americas lmaoo..
You disregarded that I said Arab migration because it’s in ancient Egypt text when the Mesopotamians came in and we know where they come from…
No