Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on April 28, 2020, 05:30:51 PM
-
Kenyan version of Great Zimbabwe.
-
Kenyan version of Great Zimbabwe.
@ 1:16 Built by bantu 300 years before luos came
-
Kenyan version of Great Zimbabwe.
@ 1:16 Built by bantu 300 years before luos came
Yes. Interesting timeline. I had generally assumed the arrival of the Luo in Kenya preceded Bantu(well some of them - the Luhya groups definitely arrive after the Luo. But Gusii precede them). It looks like the structures were then maintained even after the original builders left.
-
So the Luo Nation stole our land...We should go and reclaiming it lol
-
So the Luo Nation stole our land...We should go and reclaiming it lol
I think very few Kenya tribes can claim aboroginal rights. Ogiek and maybe Maasai are some I can think of. The rest are recent immigrants.
-
So the Luo Nation stole our land...We should go and reclaiming it lol
Luos are Bantus for all intents now. They have very little Nilote DNA. Some Kikuyus have more Nilotic blood than modern Luos.
-
So the Luo Nation stole our land...We should go and reclaiming it lol
Luos are Bantus for all intents now. They have very little Nilote DNA. Some Kikuyus have more Nilotic blood than modern Luos.
The issue of "ethnic" DNA is an iffy thing. But yes, in general, the Kenyan Luo has a lot of Niger-Congo (as opposed to South-Sudanese) gene in him. James Orengo, to pick an example, would feel more at home in a room full of Shonas than Dinkas for sure.
-
The issue of "ethnic" DNA is an iffy thing. But yes, in general, the Kenyan Luo has a lot of Niger-Congo (as opposed to South-Sudanese) gene in him. James Orengo, to pick an example, would feel more at home in a room full of Shonas than Dinkas for sure.
Why is DNA iffy ?
Some Luo clans are just Bantus who have undergone language change.
-
The issue of "ethnic" DNA is an iffy thing. But yes, in general, the Kenyan Luo has a lot of Niger-Congo (as opposed to South-Sudanese) gene in him. James Orengo, to pick an example, would feel more at home in a room full of Shonas than Dinkas for sure.
Why is DNA iffy ?
Some Luo clans are just Bantus who have undergone language change.
The idea of "Bantu" DNA. I see Bantu more as a linguistic, and to some extent cultural grouping. Genetically, at least in Kenya's case, they are heterogeneous. That is why you can often easily tell Kambas/Kikuyus and Luhyas apart. In fact to many Africans from majorly Bantu African countries, most Kenyans just look like Kales/Maasais(whether Luo/Kikuyu/Maasai...).
Yes, I agree the Luo in Kenya exhibit physical traits that in some cases are absent or very unusual in their relatives in South Sudan and Northern Uganda.
-
The idea of "Bantu" DNA. I see Bantu more as a linguistic, and to some extent cultural grouping. Genetically, at least in Kenya's case, they are heterogeneous. That is why you can often easily tell Kambas/Kikuyus and Luhyas apart. In fact to many Africans from majorly Bantu African countries, most Kenyans just look like Kales/Maasais(whether Luo/Kikuyu/Maasai...).
Yes, I agree the Luo in Kenya exhibit physical traits that in some cases are absent or very unusual in their relatives in South Sudan and Northern Uganda.
That because Kambas, Maasais and Kikuyus have Bantu, Nilotic, Cushitic and San admixtures in roughly equal measure, hence why they have that distinctive look. Luhyas have none of the cushitic and San admixture, Luos and Luhyas are mostly Nilo Saharan and Niger Congo admixture. There is Bantu marker in the genomes of Bantu tribes, it is not just a linguistic grouping.
-
The idea of "Bantu" DNA. I see Bantu more as a linguistic, and to some extent cultural grouping. Genetically, at least in Kenya's case, they are heterogeneous. That is why you can often easily tell Kambas/Kikuyus and Luhyas apart. In fact to many Africans from majorly Bantu African countries, most Kenyans just look like Kales/Maasais(whether Luo/Kikuyu/Maasai...).
Yes, I agree the Luo in Kenya exhibit physical traits that in some cases are absent or very unusual in their relatives in South Sudan and Northern Uganda.
That because Kambas, Maasais and Kikuyus have Bantu, Nilotic, Cushitic and San admixtures in roughly equal measure, hence why they have that distinctive look. Luhyas have none of the cushitic and San admixture, Luos and Luhyas are mostly Nilo Saharan and Niger Congo admixture. There is Bantu marker in the genomes of Bantu tribes, it is not just a linguistic grouping.
I had no idea. I have mostly been interested in the anthropological side of things. I don't know much by way of what gene does what to folks. I am terrible with DNA and genetics, though I am open to learning. I have heard of high falutin stuff like admixture and imagine it can reveal how people moved around.
Linguistically, I think the original Bantu groups go South from their original homeland. They couldn't go West because it was already populated by groups that were equal or more powerful. South was basically wide open for the taking(if you ignore Khoisan for a second). To the East was the dense Congo Forest.
Current models suggest one group went right through the Congo Forest into East Africa. I think that's just not true. There was too much jungle. The groups in the Central African Republic, while also Niger-Congo, show no Bantu influence in general. It also makes no sense for them to pass through and not displace or Bantuize the Pygmies. In general, wherever Bantus have passed has become Bantu with the exception of this part of Africa. So I think they didn't go that route.
They all went South from Cameroon. One branch continues South into Angola and eventually Namibia. Another turns East just South of the forest towards Lake Tanganyika where they split again; one group goes into Zambia then all the way to SA, another into Tz and another into Ug. The Kenyan Bantus are from these last two groups.
In reality this was a slow gradual process, with back and forth movements, not a straightforward migration. But as general picture that's what happened. If you look at the languages in Zambia, Malawi, Zim, you find that they tend to have grammatical constructs that you can find in either group of Bantus in Kenya. You can find constructs that are familiar to Swahili but not to Banyankore and vice versa, in the same language, say Bemba. That can indicate where a major split happened.
Since as you observed, groups can just adapt and become something else, I have no doubt a lot of the Bantu movement was more just neighbors also becoming Bantu rather than new people taking over a location. In Kenya you can still see that process in the opposite direction among the Suba, who speak more Dholuo than Suba and Sabaots, who speak more Bukusu than Sabaot. The point is there are going to be Bantus who don't have that marker gene, right?
-
I had no idea. I have mostly been interested in the anthropological side of things. I don't know much by way of what gene does what to folks. I am terrible with DNA and genetics, though I am open to learning. I have heard of high falutin stuff like admixture and imagine it can reveal how people moved around.
Linguistically, I think the original Bantu groups go South from their original homeland. They couldn't go West because it was already populated by groups that were equal or more powerful. South was basically wide open for the taking(if you ignore Khoisan for a second). To the East was the dense Congo Forest.
Current models suggest one group went right through the Congo Forest into East Africa. I think that's just not true. There was too much jungle. The groups in the Central African Republic, while also Niger-Congo, show no Bantu influence in general. It also makes no sense for them to pass through and not displace or Bantuize the Pygmies. In general, wherever Bantus have passed has become Bantu with the exception of this part of Africa. So I think they didn't go that route.
They all went South from Cameroon. One branch continues South into Angola and eventually Namibia. Another turns East just South of the forest towards Lake Tanganyika where they split again; one group goes into Zambia then all the way to SA, another into Tz and another into Ug. The Kenyan Bantus are from these last two groups.
In reality this was a slow gradual process, with back and forth movements, not a straightforward migration. But as general picture that's what happened. If you look at the languages in Zambia, Malawi, Zim, you find that they tend to have grammatical constructs that you can find in either group of Bantus in Kenya. You can find constructs that are familiar to Swahili but not to Banyankore and vice versa, in the same language, say Bemba. That can indicate where a major split happened.
Since as you observed, groups can just adapt and become something else, I have no doubt a lot of the Bantu movement was more just neighbors also becoming Bantu rather than new people taking over a location. In Kenya you can still see that process in the opposite direction among the Suba, who speak more Dholuo than Suba and Sabaots, who speak more Bukusu than Sabaot. The point is there are going to be Bantus who don't have that marker gene, right?
Not quite, the Bantu migration was massive and led to complete population turnover, from Cameroon to Mozambique Bantus simply overwhelmed local populations. This is clearly attested in the genome. There could be some Nilotic tribes that have become Bantu, I can't speak for Sabaots or Suba but even they could be former Bantus who are just returning to their roots.
-
I had no idea. I have mostly been interested in the anthropological side of things. I don't know much by way of what gene does what to folks. I am terrible with DNA and genetics, though I am open to learning. I have heard of high falutin stuff like admixture and imagine it can reveal how people moved around.
Linguistically, I think the original Bantu groups go South from their original homeland. They couldn't go West because it was already populated by groups that were equal or more powerful. South was basically wide open for the taking(if you ignore Khoisan for a second). To the East was the dense Congo Forest.
Current models suggest one group went right through the Congo Forest into East Africa. I think that's just not true. There was too much jungle. The groups in the Central African Republic, while also Niger-Congo, show no Bantu influence in general. It also makes no sense for them to pass through and not displace or Bantuize the Pygmies. In general, wherever Bantus have passed has become Bantu with the exception of this part of Africa. So I think they didn't go that route.
They all went South from Cameroon. One branch continues South into Angola and eventually Namibia. Another turns East just South of the forest towards Lake Tanganyika where they split again; one group goes into Zambia then all the way to SA, another into Tz and another into Ug. The Kenyan Bantus are from these last two groups.
In reality this was a slow gradual process, with back and forth movements, not a straightforward migration. But as general picture that's what happened. If you look at the languages in Zambia, Malawi, Zim, you find that they tend to have grammatical constructs that you can find in either group of Bantus in Kenya. You can find constructs that are familiar to Swahili but not to Banyankore and vice versa, in the same language, say Bemba. That can indicate where a major split happened.
Since as you observed, groups can just adapt and become something else, I have no doubt a lot of the Bantu movement was more just neighbors also becoming Bantu rather than new people taking over a location. In Kenya you can still see that process in the opposite direction among the Suba, who speak more Dholuo than Suba and Sabaots, who speak more Bukusu than Sabaot. The point is there are going to be Bantus who don't have that marker gene, right?
Not quite, the Bantu migration was massive and led to complete population turnover, from Cameroon to Mozambique Bantus simply overwhelmed local populations. This is clearly attested in the genome. There could be some Nilotic tribes that have become Bantu, I can't speak for Sabaots or Suba but even they could be former Bantus who are just returning to their roots.
How does one know from the genome? I am not questioning, but rather just curious.
-
How does one know from the genome? I am not questioning, but rather just curious.
By looking at the PCA plots for genetic variation, there is no variation when you look at Bantu samples.
-
How does one know from the genome? I am not questioning, but rather just curious.
By looking at the PCA plots for genetic variation, there is no variation when you look at Bantu samples.
Can you share a link to the study?
-
Yes, I think one factor that Bitmask ignores or doesn't know, is the major role of discovery iron-making in Bantu epic expansion. Once Bantus discovered(copied from Nigeria-Cameroon-Chad communities) how to fashion basic agricultural implements - they were unstoppable - with machetes - they could hack through forests. Amongst Kalenjin and even Somalis - the iron-making was Bantu imports - the Bantu knew the iron technology - and nobody else knew. But the Bantus were not really interested in fashioning spears or weapons - but mostly agricultural tools - hoes, machetes and etc.
Bantus expanded very quickly - because they were not really fighting with anyone over pasture - they were reclaiming forest lands - and only got into small conflict with aboriginals who lived in the forests - whom they easily overpowered. The war-like pastoralist basically controlled the plains - for cows pasture- and couldn't pass the tse-tsefly belt- down to past sub-Sahara desert - except for a few who somehow dared - and got lucky. Those I suspect include the Tutsi and many all the way down to Hereros of Namibia. The couldn't care less if you came - and fought with forest dwellers - the aboriginals - and start your own settlement there. The pastoralist only cared when you started rearing cattle - otherwise most bantus lived peaceful growing crops and keeping chicken, goats and sheeps - amongst the hunters and gathers - hunting and beekeeping - and nomads/pastorals.
Before the arrival of Bantus in Kenya - Kenya was basically occupied by proto-Kalenjin and proto-eastern Cushitic and aboriginals. The main tools and weapons then were fashion from stones and sticks. Those tools changed with arrival of Bantu ironsmiths - and people started fashioning spears, arrows -etc.
Speaking of Kenya - Khoisan (includes pygmies, okieks) were the aboriginal people - these are hunter-gatherer people that were left over when the rest of humans advanced to agriculture and livestock keeping. Surprisingly the aboriginal of Africa - have the same genetic makeup with Asians and American aboriginal - indicate these remnants probably predate the world splitting into continents.
(http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/origin-of-bantu-language-map.gif)
Not quite, the Bantu migration was massive and led to complete population turnover, from Cameroon to Mozambique Bantus simply overwhelmed local populations. This is clearly attested in the genome. There could be some Nilotic tribes that have become Bantu, I can't speak for Sabaots or Suba but even they could be former Bantus who are just returning to their roots.
-
Yes, I think one factor that Bitmask ignores or doesn't know, is the major role of discovery iron-making in Bantu epic expansion. Once Bantus discovered(copied from Nigeria-Cameroon-Chad communities) how to fashion basic agricultural implements - they were unstoppable - with machetes - they could hack through forests. Amongst Kalenjin and even Somalis - the iron-making was Bantu imports - the Bantu knew the iron technology - and nobody else knew. But the Bantus were not really interested in fashioning spears or weapons - but mostly agricultural tools - hoes, machetes and etc.
I am aware of that.
Bantus expanded very quickly - because they were not really fighting with anyone over pasture - they were reclaiming forest lands - and only got into small conflict with aboriginals who lived in the forests - whom they easily overpowered. The war-like pastoralist basically controlled the plains - for cows pasture- and couldn't pass the tse-tsefly belt- down to past sub-Sahara desert - except for a few who somehow dared - and got lucky. Those I suspect include the Tutsi and many all the way down to Hereros of Namibia. The couldn't care less if you came - and fought with forest dwellers - the aboriginals - and start your own settlement there. The pastoralist only cared when you started rearing cattle - otherwise most bantus lived peaceful growing crops and keeping chicken, goats and sheeps - amongst the hunters and gathers - hunting and beekeeping - and nomads/pastorals.
In general true. Where they met established groups, the spread tended to be NOT displacement, but by soft power. "Migration" also happened by people adapting their culture and language. Which means the genome remained more or less the same. It is possible that these converted groups already shared this so called Bantu gene. I think many Bantu groups also kept cattle. In fact you could only marry among the Zulus if you had lobola which consists of cows.
In Kenya the Bantus obviously have something in them that Bantus in South Africa don't and vice versa. That is why a Kikuyu is more likely to resemble a Maasai or Ethiopian, a Luhya like Luo or Teso, Mogusii like a Kalenjin etc than a Zulu. Zulu, Sothos, Xhosa etc have substantial Khoisan input. They did not wipe them out, rather they(aboriginals) also became Bantu. I suspect Tutsi and their Banyamulenge analogues also "victims" of soft power.
Bantu violence is a relatively recent thing. Slave raids in the Congo. Mfecane in the South. Fleeing Ngoni displacing groups in Malawi and South Tanzania etc.
Before the arrival of Bantus in Kenya - Kenya was basically occupied by proto-Kalenjin and proto-eastern Cushitic and aboriginals. The main tools and weapons then were fashion from stones and sticks. Those tools changed with arrival of Bantu ironsmiths - and people started fashioning spears, arrows -etc.
Speaking of Kenya - Khoisan (includes pygmies, okieks) were the aboriginal people - these are hunter-gatherer people that were left over when the rest of humans advanced to agriculture and livestock keeping. Surprisingly the aboriginal of Africa - have the same genetic makeup with Asians and American aboriginal - indicate these remnants probably predate the world splitting into continents.
I agree generally. And I suspect the neighboring Bantu share these genes.
Why am I doubtful that Bantu went through Northern Congo forest into East Africa? The languages. I could be wrong, but scanning through grammar of the languages, those of Western DRC are more similar to those of Zambia, Uganda(western Kenya) than they are to those of Eastern DRC such as Kikongo. And in Central Africa and the neighboring area of DRC there are no Bantu. It suggests that at least one group went around the Congo Forest to get to the Kivus.
-
Yes Bantus kept few cows - that were small in stature - and could generally survive the tsetsefly.I saw those cows in most of Luhyaland.
As regard South Africa - the bantus first expanded - they tooks crops, fowls, few goats and sheeps. There was a 2nd wave that brought with them cattle...and those I think are linked proto-maasai/sudanse..pure nomadism/pastoralism was Sudanese invention.
After Bantus - in East Africa - the next wave of migration was proto-south-sudanase - who brought in pure pastoralism - with large herds of cattle.
This group include Luos (came last), maasai, turkanas and all those nilotes. Kalenjin came way earlier through Ethiopia - tagging along proto-southern Kushites.
While Bantus had brought iron tools - and found primitive aboriginal, agro-pastoral kalenjin and proto-cushites (somalis+ oromos and their remnants all the way down to Tanzania) - these new group came lots of cattle and fighting or violence not seen before.
They were dare-devils - led by Maasai - coming with Zebus - Asian cows that were large and hardy. Later Oromos from Ethiopia would bring in the Borana cows.
Down South - the Nguni (not to be confused with Zulu breakaway Ngoni) - a bantu group or maybe a breakaway like Tutsi took the cattle down southern African countries.
I think Tutsi, Iraqws - are probably eastern cushistic breakway - that were left - when main plank - retreated north to ethiopia and eastern towards somali at the arrival of Nilotes (san Kalenjin).
The most dramatic arrival was perhaps the maasai - but generally the sudanase including luos - were fine pedigree of humans (not very handsome but very huge & althetic) with unmatched fighting power - a new breed of a large herd of sturdy cattle - and quickly took territory. Maasai were a freek of nature althetic wise while the Luos were very huge...according to Kalenjin oral history..they were giants.
All this, of course, is linked to consuming animal protein after the discovery of pastoralism up north - consuming meat (animal proteins) will over time increase the height and size of humans - as compared to feeding on crops - which make you look like 5 feet weak asian or khoisan.
Yes, I think one factor that Bitmask ignores or doesn't know, is the major role of discovery iron-making in Bantu epic expansion. Once Bantus discovered(copied from Nigeria-Cameroon-Chad communities) how to fashion basic agricultural implements - they were unstoppable - with machetes - they could hack through forests. Amongst Kalenjin and even Somalis - the iron-making was Bantu imports - the Bantu knew the iron technology - and nobody else knew. But the Bantus were not really interested in fashioning spears or weapons - but mostly agricultural tools - hoes, machetes and etc.
I am aware of that.
Bantus expanded very quickly - because they were not really fighting with anyone over pasture - they were reclaiming forest lands - and only got into small conflict with aboriginals who lived in the forests - whom they easily overpowered. The war-like pastoralist basically controlled the plains - for cows pasture- and couldn't pass the tse-tsefly belt- down to past sub-Sahara desert - except for a few who somehow dared - and got lucky. Those I suspect include the Tutsi and many all the way down to Hereros of Namibia. The couldn't care less if you came - and fought with forest dwellers - the aboriginals - and start your own settlement there. The pastoralist only cared when you started rearing cattle - otherwise most bantus lived peaceful growing crops and keeping chicken, goats and sheeps - amongst the hunters and gathers - hunting and beekeeping - and nomads/pastorals.
In general true. Where they met established groups, the spread tended to be NOT displacement, but by soft power. "Migration" also happened by people adapting their culture and language. Which means the genome remained more or less the same. It is possible that these converted groups already shared this so called Bantu gene. I think many Bantu groups also kept cattle. In fact you could only marry among the Zulus if you had lobola which consists of cows.
In Kenya the Bantus obviously have something in them that Bantus in South Africa don't and vice versa. That is why a Kikuyu is more likely to resemble a Maasai or Ethiopian, a Luhya like Luo or Teso, Mogusii like a Kalenjin etc than a Zulu. Zulu, Sothos, Xhosa etc have substantial Khoisan input. They did not wipe them out, rather they(aboriginals) also became Bantu. I suspect Tutsi and their Banyamulenge analogues also "victims" of soft power.
Bantu violence is a relatively recent thing. Slave raids in the Congo. Mfecane in the South. Fleeing Ngoni displacing groups in Malawi and South Tanzania etc.
Before the arrival of Bantus in Kenya - Kenya was basically occupied by proto-Kalenjin and proto-eastern Cushitic and aboriginals. The main tools and weapons then were fashion from stones and sticks. Those tools changed with arrival of Bantu ironsmiths - and people started fashioning spears, arrows -etc.
Speaking of Kenya - Khoisan (includes pygmies, okieks) were the aboriginal people - these are hunter-gatherer people that were left over when the rest of humans advanced to agriculture and livestock keeping. Surprisingly the aboriginal of Africa - have the same genetic makeup with Asians and American aboriginal - indicate these remnants probably predate the world splitting into continents.
I agree generally. And I suspect the neighboring Bantu share these genes.
Why am I doubtful that Bantu went through Northern Congo forest into East Africa? The languages. I could be wrong, but scanning through grammar of the languages, those of Western DRC are more similar to those of Zambia, Uganda(western Kenya) than they are to those of Eastern DRC such as Kikongo. And in Central Africa and the neighboring area of DRC there are no Bantu. It suggests that at least one group went around the Congo Forest to get to the Kivus.
-
I wouldn't call maasai a freak of nature, that i would reserve for the luo. You see nilotes were generally taller and well built compared to the bantu, this can be traced to the amount of animal protein the consumed. Especially the Luo consumed fish which is very important for growth and height gain. I would say during those times, the nilotes were all above 6ft 3 inches,I wouldn't have wished to face a Luo in battle. Bantus on the contrary received most protein from plants, enough just for normal growth but not to produce freaks like the nilotes, look at the dinka and Nuers in South sudan.Nilotes were a pure breed and a sight to behold those days. In the bantu there are some exceptions if you look at luhyas there are also of good built i attribute this to taking poultry another animal protein and some genetics.
Well height and good built is not all about animal protein, genetics and environment also count. Just like people assume all somalis are tall which is true on average some somalis obviously lack good nutrition but here genetics make up and they grow tall.
Generally africans were taller 50years ago than the are now. This is because kids with stunted growth are now getting to adult hood due to advance in medicine and post natal care. Kitambo stunted growth kids would die living only strong kids that would grow to freaks. You can see for yourself if you go to high school some form one kids look like they belong to class 6 and so forth, its very disappointing africans are getting shorter, good medicine has helped but the proper nutrition for good growth as in animal protein meat, poultry and especially fish still lacks.
-
Yes, food alters genetics. Consuming milk - high in calcium - makes people taller and more athletic (stronger bones, teeth) - this is true for most milk consuming people. The Luos were also cultivating some crops (high carb) and eating fish - which made them tall and fat -huge. The Asian because of a near vegetarian diet are generally weak and short. The white people consume a lot cheese and meat - and are also tall. And the more animal proteins you eat - the taller you become. The more carb (starch) you eat the fatter you get.
I wouldn't call maasai a freak of nature, that i would reserve for the luo. You see nilotes were generally taller and well built compared to the bantu, this can be traced to the amount of animal protein the consumed. Especially the Luo consumed fish which is very important for growth and height gain. I would say during those times, the nilotes were all above 6ft 3 inches,I wouldn't have wished to face a Luo in battle. Bantus on the contrary received most protein from plants, enough just for normal growth but not to produce freaks like the nilotes, look at the dinka and Nuers in South sudan.Nilotes were a pure breed and a sight to behold those days. In the bantu there are some exceptions if you look at luhyas there are also of good built i attribute this to taking poultry another animal protein and some genetics.
Well height and good built is not all about animal protein, genetics and environment also count. Just like people assume all somalis are tall which is true on average some somalis obviously lack good nutrition but here genetics make up and they grow tall.
Generally africans were taller 50years ago than the are now. This is because kids with stunted growth are now getting to adult hood due to advance in medicine and post natal care. Kitambo stunted growth kids would die living only strong kids that would grow to freaks. You can see for yourself if you go to high school some form one kids look like they belong to class 6 and so forth, its very disappointing africans are getting shorter, good medicine has helped but the proper nutrition for good growth as in animal protein meat, poultry and especially fish still lacks.
-
Yes milk is actually very important and other daily products they directly correlate to height, during Mois era atleast it was provided for children and now you cant compare height during that time with now,what i see nowadays just short people especially in schools. What our government needs to know or are just ignoring is that animal protein =higher intelligence too, Luos and especially Uganda Nilotes were very bright chaps when colonialists arrived all academic and administrative positions were taken up by nilotes in kenya and uganda bantus were kinda timid but with time quickly caught up, was it not for Jaramogi miscalculation to let Kenyatta rule we would be under Luo readership, Somewhere along the line Nilotes just lost it just when it was very critical look at maasai too controlling east africa and just to lose it when it all mattered
-
Kenya kids are going through school at tender age - my small bros all finished school at 17yrs - one at 16yrs. Universities by 22. Nutrition is important...and as Kenya become richer...we will become taller and more intelligent...this where biology meets food.
Yes milk is actually very important and other daily products they directly correlate to height, during Mois era atleast it was provided for children and now you cant compare height during that time with now,what i see nowadays just short people especially in schools. What our government needs to know or are just ignoring is that animal protein =higher intelligence too, Luos and especially Uganda Nilotes were very bright chaps when colonialists arrived all academic and administrative positions were taken up by nilotes in kenya and uganda bantus were kinda timid but with time quickly caught up, was it not for Jaramogi miscalculation to let Kenyatta rule we would be under Luo readership, Somewhere along the. line Nilotes just lost it just when it was very critical look at maasai too controlling east africa and just to lose it when it all mattered
-
My brother son in form 2 is 15 years old and already approaching 6ft,my sisters kid at class 6 is youngest in class and towers easily all other class mates, i attribute this to a proper diet as babies growing up because their grandparents were not tall and parents slightly taller
-
Majority of former slaves are bantus from Congo, Angola and Mozambique - and they are huge. So Africans will become huge when nutrition improves. Asian unless they change diet will always remain weak and short.
-
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
-
Majority of former slaves are bantus from Congo, Angola and Mozambique - and they are huge. So Africans will become huge when nutrition improves. Asian unless they change diet will
always remain weak and short.
That simply because slave traders went for the most healthiest in any society, slaves fetched price according to age size and health. They did not have time for weaklings and thats why you find that black americans today are very tall and huge because they retain those genes.
-
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
Those countries are also diverse just like Kenya, there are different language group eg Fulani who are like masaai/somali in their culture and live hood, but apart from them other group consume mostly starchy food yam bananas cassavas making them very stocky but lacking the height of the fulani a cattle keeping people
-
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
Those countries are also diverse just like Kenya, there are different language group eg Fulani who are like masaai/somali in their culture and live hood, but apart from them other group consume mostly starchy food yam bananas cassavas making them very stocky but lacking the height of the fulani a cattle keeping people
I am talking about folks like the Wolof. Those people are big. In all dimensions. Their sport of choice is wrestling. Fulani/Maasai is the furthest thing that comes to mind when you see them. They are giants basically. There are no people like that in Kenya.
You just need to see the Senegal soccer team. They not only tower over other teams but are also physically imposing like how you would be around grade school children.
-
I think majority of slaves were bantus - yes there West Africans (volta-niger group) - but from Cameroon southward it's bantu - and in place like Brazil and most of carribean - most of the slaves - are not west africans - but central and southern africa - at least majority from Kongo - Angola- and Moazambique.
I think Njuri does has a point in that slaves were human mules - so the stronger - the better - so even in slave markets in africa- the buyers would be biased against the weak and - brilliant - and go for the muscle men - and women.
Fulanis - and Maasai - the pastoralist were never really taken as slaves. The Fulanis and Hausa were slave trades - but they would mostly captures others - bantus and niger-volta - and sell them to European slave traders - or the Arab slave traders. The arabs were busy in east coast - but little remain of those slaves - as majority were castrated on arrival in Arabia. Kenyan, ethiopia and eastern countries slaves would be part of those in Arabia - but a few survived beyond a generation - after being castrated.
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
-
I think sudanic - basically spread all the way to Senegal. Fulanis are niger-volta turned hausa. So Wolof for me would be close to Luo people of kenya.
I am talking about folks like the Wolof. Those people are big. In all dimensions. Their sport of choice is wrestling. Fulani/Maasai is the furthest thing that comes to mind when you see them. They are giants basically. There are no people like that in Kenya.
You just need to see the Senegal soccer team. They not only tower over other teams but are also physically imposing like how you would be around grade school children.
-
I think majority of slaves were bantus - yes there West Africans (volta-niger group) - but from Cameroon southward it's bantu - and in place like Brazil and most of carribean - most of the slaves - are not west africans - but central and southern africa - at least majority from Kongo - Angola- and Moazambique.
I think Njuri does has a point in that slaves were human mules - so the stronger - the better - so even in slave markets in africa- the buyers would be biased against the weak and - brilliant - and go for the muscle men - and women.
Fulanis - and Maasai - the pastoralist were never really taken as slaves. The Fulanis and Hausa were slave trades - but they would mostly captures others - bantus and niger-volta - and sell them to European slave traders - or the Arab slave traders. The arabs were busy in east coast - but little remain of those slaves - as majority were castrated on arrival in Arabia. Kenyan, ethiopia and eastern countries slaves would be part of those in Arabia - but a few survived beyond a generation - after being castrated.
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
There was a mix to be fair. But in North America and the Caribbean, it's unmistakably West African dominated - Ghana, Nigeria, Senegambia. In fact it is one of the things Kenyans and other Africans will often say derisively of West Africans; that they are just African Americans who were not caught. The one exception I have noticed is Haitians. They are look like Congolese straight up.
Brazilian blacks are a whole different breed and reflect their different origins around Angola, Congo and close by regions.
-
Wolof live along the coast of west africa and their staple food is fish, they eat fish for breakfast lunch and supper!!!! Then its accompanied by millet ugali or cassava, my friends those are luos of west Africa and very proud too, you cant actually differentiate a luo and wolof. So their height and size no doubt from staple animal protein mixed with some starch. Get my point this is what am talking about tell any community that has tall/huge people, you will NEVER miss animal protein as staple food
-
Wolof live along the coast of west africa and their staple food is fish, they eat fish for breakfast lunch and supper!!!! Then its accompanied by millet ugali or cassava, my friends those are luos of west Africa and very proud too, you cant actually differentiate a luo and wolof. So their height and size no doubt from staple animal protein mixed with some starch. Get my point this is what am talking about tell any community that has tall/huge people, you will NEVER miss animal protein as staple food
More like a Luo with the musculature of a Luhya farmhand. But bigger. In general, they would look out of place in Kenya. There is obviously a genetic thing going on. Without doubting the role of diet. Igbos also eat every protein that moves but they not like Wolofs.
-
If you have followed and read my post carefully you will note i said apart from an animal protein based diet, other factors for human size are genetics where i gave somalis as example and environment. So the factors are 3.But to answer your question on the wolof i need you atleast to do part assignment you know myself i majored in history so this stuff is easy for me...... I will give you a hint.... The wolof were one of the major slave trading communities in africa, it was their major source of income, they had even caste systems up to now, now go through my posts again and what i answered punda connect the dots and you will be fully satisfied all answers all in my posts....class dismissed!
-
True. Majority that went to America are west africa - Nigeria, Ghana all the way to Senegal. The Brazil and most of carribean are congolese/angola/and mozambique. All these depend on which European power had what say. Portuguese had established bases in Mozambiuqe, Angola and part of Congo. They shipped slaves to their land in Brazil. The British and French went to West Africa. This was like 15th century long before the partion....in Berlin...there were already well known basis. Portugues came to Mombasa but found the arabs to be too much and there wasn't much gold..they left for Mozambique.
I think majority of slaves were bantus - yes there West Africans (volta-niger group) - but from Cameroon southward it's bantu - and in place like Brazil and most of carribean - most of the slaves - are not west africans - but central and southern africa - at least majority from Kongo - Angola- and Moazambique.
I think Njuri does has a point in that slaves were human mules - so the stronger - the better - so even in slave markets in africa- the buyers would be biased against the weak and - brilliant - and go for the muscle men - and women.
Fulanis - and Maasai - the pastoralist were never really taken as slaves. The Fulanis and Hausa were slave trades - but they would mostly captures others - bantus and niger-volta - and sell them to European slave traders - or the Arab slave traders. The arabs were busy in east coast - but little remain of those slaves - as majority were castrated on arrival in Arabia. Kenyan, ethiopia and eastern countries slaves would be part of those in Arabia - but a few survived beyond a generation - after being castrated.
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
There was a mix to be fair. But in North America and the Caribbean, it's unmistakably West African dominated - Ghana, Nigeria, Senegambia. In fact it is one of the things Kenyans and other Africans will often say derisively of West Africans; that they are just African Americans who were not caught. The one exception I have noticed is Haitians. They are look like Congolese straight up.
Brazilian blacks are a whole different breed and reflect their different origins around Angola, Congo and close by regions.
-
True. Majority that went to America are west africa - Nigeria, Ghana all the way to Senegal. The Brazil and most of carribean are congolese/angola/and mozambique. All these depend on which European power had what say. Portuguese had established bases in Mozambiuqe, Angola and part of Congo. They shipped slaves to their land in Brazil. The British and French went to West Africa. This was like 15th century long before the partion....in Berlin...there were already well known basis. Portugues came to Mombasa but found the arabs to be too much and there wasn't much gold..they left for Mozambique.
I think majority of slaves were bantus - yes there West Africans (volta-niger group) - but from Cameroon southward it's bantu - and in place like Brazil and most of carribean - most of the slaves - are not west africans - but central and southern africa - at least majority from Kongo - Angola- and Moazambique.
I think Njuri does has a point in that slaves were human mules - so the stronger - the better - so even in slave markets in africa- the buyers would be biased against the weak and - brilliant - and go for the muscle men - and women.
Fulanis - and Maasai - the pastoralist were never really taken as slaves. The Fulanis and Hausa were slave trades - but they would mostly captures others - bantus and niger-volta - and sell them to European slave traders - or the Arab slave traders. The arabs were busy in east coast - but little remain of those slaves - as majority were castrated on arrival in Arabia. Kenyan, ethiopia and eastern countries slaves would be part of those in Arabia - but a few survived beyond a generation - after being castrated.
How about Senegalese and Cameroonians to some extent? They are like Africa's version of Polynesians.
There was a mix to be fair. But in North America and the Caribbean, it's unmistakably West African dominated - Ghana, Nigeria, Senegambia. In fact it is one of the things Kenyans and other Africans will often say derisively of West Africans; that they are just African Americans who were not caught. The one exception I have noticed is Haitians. They are look like Congolese straight up.
Brazilian blacks are a whole different breed and reflect their different origins around Angola, Congo and close by regions.
Yep. They tended to be matched with the colonies of respective controlling powers. There was also something like a human commodity-exchange market on several Caribbean islands where you could find yourself headed to a "wrong destination", i.e. one where your kinfolk are not going. Sometimes this was the actual intention. So a Mandinka could find himself in Jamaica, lumped together with Igbo, Yoruba, Ashanti etc - people they cannot relate to, and sold to another trader. A lot of African Americans can only trace their ancestry back to the Caribbean islands.
Haiti for some reason, didn't manage this very well and slaves revolted taking over the country and of course wiping out the slave owners.
-
Generally africans were taller 50years ago than the are now. This is because kids with stunted growth are now getting to adult hood due to advance in medicine and post natal care. Kitambo stunted growth kids would die living only strong kids that would grow to freaks. You can see for yourself if you go to high school some form one kids look like they belong to class 6 and so forth, its very disappointing africans are getting shorter, good medicine has helped but the proper nutrition for good growth as in animal protein meat, poultry and especially fish still lacks.
Very disappointing, poor nutrition negatively affects height, physical strength, IQ, facial beauty, and confidence.
-
How does one know from the genome? I am not questioning, but rather just curious.
By looking at the PCA plots for genetic variation, there is no variation when you look at Bantu samples.
Can you share a link to the study?
One study here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173682/
-
How does one know from the genome? I am not questioning, but rather just curious.
By looking at the PCA plots for genetic variation, there is no variation when you look at Bantu samples.
Can you share a link to the study?
One study here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173682/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173682/)
Ero kamano ahinya.
I see it's pretty detailed. And it supports the idea of displacement(and assimilation to a lesser extent). I was wrong about the nature of their movement, in general. Though I still think on the margins(Kenya is a marginal Bantu territory) there was more assimilation than displacement. Maybe Luhyas(who they used in their study) are an exception.
They say Bantus are basically a West African tribe that spread relatively rapidly. Their models seem to favor what I had suggested earlier - that the East African Bantu did not go directly East, through the Central African Republic, but went South and then veered East towards Lake Tanganyika. My belief was informed by linguistics and the current ethnic makeup of Central Africa, but it appears the genetic evidence also supports it.
In East Africa they used Luhya and Pare people. Does that seem representative of the Bantu people in East Africa? I really don't think so. A good East African Bantu sample should include Kikuyus, Sukuma in Tz, Hutus, Baganda(or Luhyas) I think. But it's a start.
-
Ero kamano ahinya.
I see it's pretty detailed. And it supports the idea of displacement(and assimilation to a lesser extent). I was wrong about the nature of their movement, in general. Though I still think on the margins(Kenya is a marginal Bantu territory) there was more assimilation than displacement. Maybe Luhyas(who they used in their study) are an exception.
They say Bantus are basically a West African tribe that spread relatively rapidly. Their models seem to favor what I had suggested earlier - that the East African Bantu did not go directly East, through the Central African Republic, but went South and then veered East towards Lake Tanganyika. My belief was informed by linguistics and the current ethnic makeup of Central Africa, but it appears the genetic evidence also supports it.
In East Africa they used Luhya and Pare people. Does that seem representative of the Bantu people in East Africa? I really don't think so. A good East African Bantu sample should include Kikuyus, Sukuma in Tz, Hutus, Baganda(or Luhyas) I think. But it's a start.
Ajolo in Ithi nade
They are better studies out there and they include all the tribes you mentioned, search David Reich' lab results.
How is Kenya a marginal Bantu country?
Yes, Bantus are a West African tribe.
-
Ero kamano ahinya.
I see it's pretty detailed. And it supports the idea of displacement(and assimilation to a lesser extent). I was wrong about the nature of their movement, in general. Though I still think on the margins(Kenya is a marginal Bantu territory) there was more assimilation than displacement. Maybe Luhyas(who they used in their study) are an exception.
They say Bantus are basically a West African tribe that spread relatively rapidly. Their models seem to favor what I had suggested earlier - that the East African Bantu did not go directly East, through the Central African Republic, but went South and then veered East towards Lake Tanganyika. My belief was informed by linguistics and the current ethnic makeup of Central Africa, but it appears the genetic evidence also supports it.
In East Africa they used Luhya and Pare people. Does that seem representative of the Bantu people in East Africa? I really don't think so. A good East African Bantu sample should include Kikuyus, Sukuma in Tz, Hutus, Baganda(or Luhyas) I think. But it's a start.
Ajolo in Ithi nade
They are better studies out there and they include all the tribes you mentioned, search David Reich' lab results.
How is Kenya a marginal Bantu country?
Yes, Bantus are a West African tribe.
Am good. The Bantu of Kenya are marginal because they are on the edges of the Bantu world compared to say Zambians or Zimbabweans etc. I think it was even more marginal in pre-colonial times when Maasai were relatively larger. It's Bantu majority, but you cannot miss the influence on the of the other groups, especially in Kenya. It's because Kenya happens to be a focal point where three major groups have established their presence(Nilotes, Cushites and Bantu).
-
Yes kenya bantus were cut off from rest and essentially ringfenced by nilotes and cushites.That why Kenya Bantu have nearly 1/3 of nilotic n cushitic blood.