Talk:Demographics of Kenya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Hello, this discussion of different ethnic groups is totally inappropriate for a discussion of demographics of Kenya. In the CIA world factbook these other ethnic groups "cushites" "europeans" and "indians" make up less than 2% of the population. Furthermore, in kenya, there is no distinction between "bantu" and "nilo-saharan." This is a foreign import. The only ehtnic classifications are by specific tribe name, as I have indicated. There are some ideological issues by Midday express thay may be clear from his user profile, but let him continue with them in his discussions of other countries in Africa. Kenya should not be a battleground for these kinds of beliefs, and I don't understand why this poison is being inserted into my home country, where these classifications are entirely unfounded. If more discussion is needed, I would like to request a mediator for Midday express (and his supporters) and me. I feel very strongly about this as I am a citizen of Kenya and have realized since the election violence how problematic and dangerous this kind of unnecessary thinking is. Again, I am not condemning the classifications as such, but they are not appropriate for kenya considering its demographic makeup. And the reasoning for the classifications is not even referenced. I request a mediator if an edit war flares up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.74.249 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you have just indicated above that you "feel very strongly about this" issue and are a Kenyan citizen, that puts you in a conflict of interest with regard to being able to edit this article neutrally, as Wikipedia instructs (see WP:COI). For your information, the world factbook is not the only source that one may use on this article. The other sources that I have cited (including some Kenyan government sources [1]) specifically divide the country into broad ethno-linguistic groups, such as Bantus, Nilotes, Cushites, Arabs, Indians/Asians and Europeans. It makes no difference whether or not non-Bantus and Nilotes make up a small percentage of the nation's population; they're still a very important part of the country's founding and are citizens. That you should object to this standard classification of ethnicities suggests that either (a) you for some reason personally do not like the classification itself, (b) are very poorly read in African history, or (c) have some unhealthy ultra-nationalistic views that are inconsistent with Wikipedia's goals. Either way, neglecting to assume good faith, threatening "mediation" as an anonymous IP, and calling other users out as you have done above -- not to mention repeatedly getting reverted by different editors for removing reliable sources ([2], [3]) -- does not help your argument any. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the information about malnourishment come from? A reliable source I should be able to hope?

Percentage of tribes part in Kenya population is not the same in the main page and this page. And just copy of CIA World Factbook data is very bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.81.122 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorporate new census figures

We should incorporate the figures from census 2010 in Kenya. Ankitboy (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) From the Kenya national bureau of statistics: www.knbs.or.ke/Census%20Results/KNBS%20Brochure.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitboy (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

new census figures

Here is the information from the 2009 Kenyan census, if there is no objection I'd like to incorporate the following: and if anyone has time to put the rest of the info (number of people with mobile phones etc. please do) The population of Kenya is 38,610,097 (19,192,458 male, 19,417,639 female) pop by province: 3,138,369 Nairobi 4,383,793 central 3,325,307 coast 3,668,123 eastern 2,310,757 northeastern 5,442,711 nyanza 10,006,805 rift 4,334,282 western

by age" 16,571,000 0-14 years 20,685,000 15-64 1,332,000 over 65

3.45% with disabilities 3.6% of households with a computer

Ankitboy (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Cushites

I am deleting the phrase "Cushites are racially distinct from Bantus and Nilotes" referenced from page 41 of "Undercurrents of ethnic conflict in Kenya".

Page 41 of this book does not say that, in fact what it says is that "...the term "Hamites" does not stand the test of scientific classification of East African peoples by language groups. If the emphasis is placed on the lighter-skinned feature Hamites had better be referred to as caucasoid."

Of course, Hamites are not referred to as caucasoid, and light skin is not the prerequisite for being Caucasian. Besides being a flawed ideology to begin with, we would have to start including certain ethnicities from Nigeria, Congo, and other parts of Africa in the Caucasoid group. In addition, "Hamites" refers to people from Ethiopia to Rwanda and beyond, it is merely a term invented by colonizers to divide and conquer the African peoples they colonized.

In closing, page 41 does not state that they are a separate race, it merely brings up the subject as it pertains to the disproved "Hamitic Race Theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.136.201 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hamites are indeed traditionally referred to as Caucasoid (c.f. [4]). But that's irrelevant since that is not the terminology used in this article. What the article actually states is that "Cushites are racially distinct from Bantus and Nilotes", which is a reference to the book's differentiating the area's Cushites on the one hand, from its Nilotes/Bantus on the other [5]: "If the emphasis is placed on the lighter-skinned feature, then Hamites had better be referred to as "Caucasoid"... in the same manner the present-day Bantu and Nilotes are "Negroid" and the aboriginal inhabitants of East Africa are "Bushmanoid".". The book suggests that the term "Hamites" is inadequate for linguistic reasons, so it proposes instead to refer to the same peoples on an ethno-racial basis as "Caucasoid". Either way, it draws a biological distinction between Cushites & Bantus/Nilotes. It is also hardly the only reference indicating this (ex. [6], [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But the book does not say they are racially distinct. What I do not understand and maybe you can shed some light on this, is how the caucasian race can extend from England, all across eastern europe(many of whom look asian), all the way into Saudi Arabia(many of whom look black), through Iran, into Iraq, into India, and back west across North, East, and West Africa? How can the Caucasian race include soooo many people who look NOTHING alike? I dont know any Ethiopians that consider themselves Caucasians instead of Blacks. Nilotes and Cushites have more features in common than Nilote/Bantu, yet because Nilotes are generally much darker they are considered Negroid? Everyone in West Africa is not Central/South African Bantu, so why dont they have their own category too? Nilotes are taller than Cushites and Bantu, they are skinnier, darker, and their muscular profile is different. Yet they are Negros and Cushites are not. Its just civilization hijacking is all it is, and I will be back with books and sources to prove my points. When white people came to Great Zimbabwe they tried to claim it wasnt "Negros" who could have built it. When the British found the Kingdom of Benin in Southwest Nigeria, they destroyed it. When they first got to Ethiopia they called them Negros until the Italians LOST the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.136.201 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The book does indeed clearly differentiate the area's Cushites from its Nilotes/Bantus: "If the emphasis is placed on the lighter-skinned feature, then Hamites had better be referred to as "Caucasoid"... in the same manner the present-day Bantu and Nilotes are "Negroid" and the aboriginal inhabitants of East Africa are "Bushmanoid".". The "Hamites" it refers to in that passage are the Cushites, as it also explains [8]: "Hamites or what have become known as Cushites". Like I wrote, it's also hardly the only reference that does this (refer to the others above for starters). We're getting a bit off topic here but, to answer your question, one major reason why Northeast Africans share closer affinities with many non-African groups than with Bantus, Nilotes and other Sub-Saharan Africans is because a group of Northeast Africans emigrated outside of the African continent about 40-000-100,000 years ago and colonized the rest of the world. This is known as the "Out-of-Africa" migration. Add to that recent admixture from West Asia and North Africa brought about by trade and other contacts, and it's easy to see where the affinities come from. This is the conventional explanation as to why these groups are biologically distinct from but intermediate to Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians, with a strong resemblance to the latter: "east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians" [9]. Also, Nilotes have very few features in common with Cushites (c.f. [10], [11], [12]). This, in fact, is one major reason why early explorers that came across the two groups did not believe they could be related i.e. because they looked so different. Note that when I mention "Cushites", I am also not referring to the Iraqw, Burungue, etc. Those are recently mixed Cushitic-Bantu groups. I am referring to the northern Cushitic groups from the Horn of Africa that are comparatively unmixed. It's these groups that the Nilotes do not resemble. The only Nilotes that resemble Cushites to some degree are the Maasai, the Kalenjin and other so-called "Nilo-Hamites", not the comparatively unmixed Nilotes of Southern Sudan such as the Dinka and Nuer. And this is specifically because the Maasai, etc. absorbed Cushites (see [13]), much in the same way that African Americans are closer to white Americans than their West African relatives are to white Americans because African Americans mixed to a greater degree with whites. Anyway, it's a long, complicated topic, so I'll just leave you with these links for further reading: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so we now know that Google Books needs an update allowing you to select text. From what I have seen does not prove that Cushites are Caucasoid(other than the author's own assertions). All the research you have showed me seems to point to the amazing diversity that is present in Africa. In article [13] which i think is perhaps the most relevant, you can see the flawed methodology used by the scientists in determining their results.In particular, the article seems prejudiced, because it samples more "Caucasians" than it does Africans. How can anyone come to realistic conclusions when the sampled populations are as follows from west africa.

Ivory Coast(1), Guinea – Bissau (1), Senegal (1) and Cameroon (1)

Guinea Conakry (2) Liberia (2) Mali (38), Ghana (16), Mauritania (3)

Perhaps a reason they are not finding genetic affinity, is because they are not providing a proper sampling size? Knowing people from Guinea-Conakry personally, I can tell you that many of them are tall, light skinned, long haired, and with slimmer profiles. Features like this are common in parts of West Africa, way outside of Ethiopia/Somalia. The E3b1 gene itself mentioned in the article is found all throughout Africa.

This picture taken from a wikipedia article Y Hap EM-81

It shows distribution of the E3b1 gene and while for some reason they didnt include East Africa, you can see the gene is found throughout West Africa and Southern Europe, particularly Spain and Italy which were subject to conquest and rule by Africans at some point in their history.

This article here states that "the Khoisan, the Pygmies, and the northern Cameroonians are clearly distinct from a tight cluster formed by the Niger-Congo-speaking populations from western, central western, and southern Africa" and then furthermore "a large component of the present Khoisan gene pool is eastern African in origin ". So that to me means to things, based on the text you provided earlier, we must now conclude that Khoisan, Pygmies, and Northern Cameroonians are a race distinct from each other, and from other "Negroids".

In regards to Northern Cameroon, this article here states:

"Populations from northern Africa and northern Cameroon share a haplotype (i.e., 1C), which is not observed in other African populations but represents a major Eurasian cluster. Haplotypes 1C of northern Cameroon are clearly distinct from those of Europe, whereas haplotypes 1C of northern African are well intermingled with those of the other two groups."

So then now we are to consider Northern Cameroonians Caucasian, am I correct? Northern Cameroonians are a Bantu-speaking population. But yet they are Bantu-speaking peoples I will share you something, I know a girl from Cameroon and one from Liberia/Burkina Faso, they have a hook shaped nose just like you may see in some people from Horn Africa, Guinea Conakry, Senegal, or historically Jewish populations. From what I understand it is SAID to be a Semitic feature, but yet they are expressing it.

I think that I have included enough information even some anecdotal evidence to prove that the phrase "Cushites are racially distinct from Bantus and Nilotes", because if we say that, Cushites must be racially distinct from all Bantus, and they are not, as you have been shown.

In closing, I do not think the statement that they are "racially distinct" is even pertinent to an article on demographics. The phrase "racially distinct" only shows up when mentioning Cushites, not Arabs or any other group, if its a distinction you have to mention, is it worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.136.201 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not shown that Cushites are not racially/biologically distinct from Bantus/Nilotes, etc.. All you have done is post a map showing the distribution of E-M81, which is a particular sub-clade of the Y DNA haplogroup E1b1b (not a gene) that is especially common in Berbers. This has absolutely nothing to do with Cushites. On Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources only (not original research i.e. your arguments), and that is what I've linked you to above. You also don't appear to quite understand the difference between autosomal DNA and Y DNA, but that too is beside the point. I could likewise explain to you why certain individuals in certain ethnic groups in Northern Cameroon have Eurasian Y DNA markers, but I won't because that too is completely off-topic & irrelevant. The fact is, it is common knowledge that Northeast Africans are biologically distinct from other groups residing in the Sub-Saharan region, including all of the ones you've mentioned. Here's yet another study that states this outright: "The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations" [21]. And this unique biological position is, again, primarily due to the fact that Northeast Africans share more recent ancestry with West Eurasians than they do with other groups in the Sub-Saharan region (this is due to the so-called "Out-of-Africa" migration that originated in Northeast Africa, not other parts of the continent), in addition to experiencing recent gene flow from Western Eurasia through trade & other contacts. Refer to this map from a study published earlier this year; it graphically demonstrates this principle [22]. This is also the last post I'm going to add on this topic unless you can produce a reliable source that directly and explicitly indicates what it is you are claiming, as WP:VER stipulates. Otherwise, we are both wasting our time. Middayexpress (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Should the onus be on objectors to show that something written here "is not" that way, or should it in fact be on whoever makes a claim to provide evidence supporting the claim? In any event, I agree with the previous poster on at least one aspect - the mention of "racial distinctness" appears out of place considering that similar articles on Wikipedia (e.g. [23], [24], [25], etc) use the convention of just identifying the ethnic groups concerned and, of course, linking to the articles in question if any. Is there justification for the inclusion of this statement on this particular page? And, as pointed out by the same poster (and for consistency), if the article does not list, say, Arabs as being "racially distinct from Bantus and Nilotes", what is the reason behind doing so for Cushites? RantingMrP (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous IP above could be anyone, so his/her comments of course need to be taken in that light. That said, you admittedly raise a good point with regard to the other ethnic group articles. They don't appear to discuss race; so for the sake of consistency, I have removed the statement. Middayexpress (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is total biased against Kushite community.

bias Against the Kushite community of Kenya. Calling them foreigners and not indigenous (Somali people of Kenya ). while in fact they are absolute majority of northern region of Kenya. Territory that's almost half of the nation land mass. Abdikanic4 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)