Curious George
Veteran Member
You sure seem to have no problem making a conclusion of Elhaiks' work and that all the "unsourced Jewish blogs" must be written off just because...just because, without actually addressing them. I personally see it as ridiculous to not see the connection with Nubian slaves and pure revisionism, but hey, who needs reason with their "reasonable doubt"? Like I said, if everyone thought like you about the "Evidence", there'd be NO Criminal Justice, there'd be NO scientific theories. I'll admit there's a possibility, a slim slim tiny possibility, that the admixture with Nubians and other Blacks had nothing to do with reproduction with slaves, sure, but I won't admit that it's likely. Remotely. And I won't admit a serious doubt of the possibility that it was the descendents of slaves that would be remotely feasible either. If you're saying there's no real evidence, then you probably shouldn't go into archaeology, anthropology, or history.
Now do you accept the conclusion that the Lemba are the REAL Israelites and the 97% rest of the Jews who don't have this Subsaharan DNA are all "Fake Jews"? If not, then direct your attention to those on the other side who I'm arguing against, thanks.
Why on earth would sexual relations between slaves and slave owners have no bearing. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying that this is the sole reason for admixture is not an "obvious" conclusion. Such a conclusion assumes too much. And while it is possible, you have not clearly laid the ground work.
And, no I do not accept the suggestion that Jews who do not have sub-Saharan DNA are "fake Jews." I believe that one of their studies said that the European Jews did have sub-Saharan DNA. My point is that saying there could be NO "Black" Israelites or saying that ALL Israelites were "black" are extremes. The veracity of these extremes of course turns on one's definition of "black" which is why I asked in the first place about the definition of "black."